Case Name: AYULO v. MULLEN, THOMPSON & JAMES CO
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-04-04
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 69
Docket Number: No. 10749
Parties: AYULO v. MULLEN, THOMPSON & JAMES CO
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 69–69

Head Matter:
No. 70
AYULO v. MULLEN, THOMPSON & JAMES CO
No. 10749
U. S. District Court, N. D. Ohio E. D.
April 4, 1922
For Full Opinion see 283 Fed. 863
CONTRACTS — War time restrictions — Unlicensed dealer contracts with — War not terminated until so proclaimed.
Attorneys — Garfield, McGregor & Baldwin, for plaintiff; Weed, Rothenberg, McMorris & Smith, for defendant.

Opinion:
WESTENHAVER, J.:
Epitomized Opinion
Action at law to recover on contract. Heard on demurrer to second defense of amended answer. Overruled.
Under the President's proclamations of Sept. 7, 1917, and Oct. 8, 1917, all persons or firms engaged in importing or distributing sugar were required to obtain a license. The plaintiff, not having obtained such a license, sued defendant on a contract to deliver sugar. The second defense set up the section of the war act, providing that its provisions ceased to be in effect when the state of war was terminated. It was held:
1. That the plaintiff, being an unlicensed dealer, could not maintain the action, and
2. That the armistice did not of itself terminate the war, but the war time legislation continued in force until the proclamation declaring it terminated.