Case Name: Paul A. PORTER, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, Appellant, v. LORCH MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee; Chester BOWLES, Administrator, Office of Price Administration (Paul A. Porter, Substituted in Place and Stead of Chester Bowles, Administrator, Office of Price Administration), Appellant, v. SAME
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1946-11-15
Citations: 157 F.2d 768
Docket Number: Nos. 11749, 11552
Parties: Paul A. PORTER, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, Appellant, v. LORCH MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. Chester BOWLES, Administrator, Office of Price Administration (Paul A. Porter, Substituted in Place and Stead of Chester Bowles, Administrator, Office of Price Administration), Appellant, v. SAME.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 157
Pages: 768–768

Head Matter:
Paul A. PORTER, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, Appellant, v. LORCH MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. Chester BOWLES, Administrator, Office of Price Administration (Paul A. Porter, Substituted in Place and Stead of Chester Bowles, Administrator, Office of Price Administration), Appellant, v. SAME.
Nos. 11749, 11552.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1946.
No. 11552:
David London, Dr., Litigation Div., O.P.A., and Irving M. Gruber, Chief, Sp. Litigation Branch, both of Washington, D. C.,' and Robert F. Proctor, of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Emil Corenbleth and Geo. S. Wright, both of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
No. 11749:
David London, Dr., Litigation Div., O.P. A., Albert M. Dreyer, Chief, Appellate Branch, O.P.A., and Irving M. Gruber, Chief, Sp. Litigation Branch, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant. •
George S. Wright and Emil Corenbleth, both of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These appeals involving the same matters bring up questions of fact for review. The district judge having decided these questions adversely to appellants on evidence sustaining his findings, 62 F.Supp. 337, the judgments are affirmed.