Case ID: or_183/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAILEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued February 17;
    affirmed March 23, 1948
    BOWLES, Administrator, O. P. A., v. MITTLEMAN et al. and FLEMING, Administrator
    191 P. (2d) 379
    
      Boy C. Fox, Litigation Unit Attorney, Office of Bent Control, of Seattle, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were N. Bay Alber, Area Bent Attorney, of Portland, John E. Hedrick, Chief, Bent Enforcement Division, of Seattle, and E. D. Dupree, Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Bent Control, Hugo V. Prucha, Director, Bent Enforcement, Irving M. Gruber, Chief, Litigation Branch, and Jacob W. Bosenthal, Special Appellate Attorney, Office of Bent Control, all of Washington, D. C.
    
      James G. Dezendorf, of Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Koerner, Young, Swett & MeColloch, of Portland.
    Before Bossman, Chief Justice, Kelly, Bailey, Brand and Hay, Justices.
   BAILEY, J.

This action was commenced on the 19th day of February, 1946, by Chester Bowles, Administrator of the office of Price Administration, pursuant to $ 205 (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act (56 Stat. 23) as amended (58 Stat. 632, 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. V, 901, et seq.), against Harry Mittleman and Helen Bena Mittleman, doing business as Sovereign Hotel Apartments, to recover statutory damages for overceiling rents allegedly collected by defendants in violation of the applicable rent regulations.

The facts, so far as material on this appeal, and the legal questions are the same as those set forth in the other Mittleman ease this day decided, wherein our views on the numerous matters therein and here involved are set forth at length, with the exception that the application for the substitution of Philip B. Fleming, Administrator of the Office of Temporary Controls, as party plaintiff, in the place and stead of Chester Bowles, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, was made and filed one day later. The decision in that case is controlling in this one. Therefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed.