Case Name: BOWLES, Price Administrator, v. PATRICK LUMBER CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1945-10-05
Citations: 151 F.2d 444
Docket Number: No. 11023
Parties: BOWLES, Price Administrator, v. PATRICK LUMBER CO.
Judges: Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and BONE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 151
Pages: 444–444

Head Matter:
BOWLES, Price Administrator, v. PATRICK LUMBER CO.
No. 11023.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 5, 1945.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1945.
George Moncharsh, Deputy Adm’r for Enforcement, Fleming James, Jr., Direct- or, Litigation Division, and David London, Chief, Appellate Branch, OPA, all of Washington, D. C., and Herbert H. Bent, Regional Litigation Atty., and Jerome S. Bischoff, Chief, Lumber Enforcement Unit, OPA, both of San Francisco, Cal. (Samuel Mermin, Sp. Appellate Atty., OPA, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
William C. McCulloch and Teal, Win-free, McCulloch, Shuler & Kelley, all of Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and BONE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Price Administrator appeals from an adverse judgment in a suit for damages for sales of Douglas fir dimension lumber at prices allegedly in excess of the maximum contemplated by RMPR No. 26.
The question on the appeal concerns the interpretation of the regulation. The trial court found that the prices charged were not in excess of the maximum prescribed in Table 2, § 23, of the regulation, which table appellee had thought applicable to the transaction. The Administrator claims that this table fixed no price for the dimensions sold and that accordingly § 12 of the regulation came into play. This section provides that "if a seller wishes to sell a grade which is not specifically priced in the price tables, or wishes to make an addition for special workings, specifications, services, or other extras for which additions are not specifically permitted," he must apply for a maximum price.
We are not disposed to disturb the determination below that Table 2 was applicable to the peculiar facts of the case. As the court observed, the question involved is a technical one in the industry. There was substantial evidence to support the finding made.
Affirmed.