Case Name: CUDAHY BROS. CO. v. BOWLES, Price Administrator
Court: United States Emergency Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1945-03-29
Citations: 148 F.2d 553
Docket Number: No. 135
Parties: CUDAHY BROS. CO. v. BOWLES, Price Administrator.
Judges: Before MARIS, Chief Judge, and MAGRUDER and LAWS, Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 148
Pages: 553–553

Head Matter:
CUDAHY BROS. CO. v. BOWLES, Price Administrator.
No. 135.
United States Emergency Court of Appeals.
Heard at Chicago Oct. 25, 1944.
Decided March 29, 1945.
Van B. Wake, of Milwaukee, Wis. (J. D. Shaw, of Milwaukee, Wis., on the brief), for complainant.
Jacob D. Hyman, Chief, Court Review Price Branch, of Washington, D. C. (Richard H. Field, Gen. Counsel, Nathaniel Li Nathauson, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Carl H. Fulda, Atty., all of the Office of Price Administration, all of Washington, D. C, on the brief), for respondent.
Before MARIS, Chief Judge, and MAGRUDER and LAWS, Judges.

Opinion:
MAGRUDER, Judge.
Complainant, Cudahy Brothers Co., on various dates between December 9, 1942 and May 15, 1943 filed with the Price Administrator twenty applications for adjustment of maximum prices of carcass beef and frozen boneless beef sold to the armed forces under Government contracts. The applications were made pursuant to the Administrator's Supplementary Order No. 9 (7 F.R. 5444) and to Procedural Regulation No. 6 (7 F.R. 5087, 5664). Orders denying the applications were duly protested by complainant. These protests were denied by the Administrator in an order issued March 6, 1944, after which the present complaint was filed.
The issues presented are similar to those in Armour & Co. v. Bowles, No. 96, Em.App., 148 F.2d 546. Extended discussion of the case is unnecessary. Complainant should be given an opportunity to introduce evidence in support of its claims for adjustment along the line indicated in our opinion in No. 96.
A judgment will be entered setting aside the order of March 6, 1944 denying the protest and the case is remanded to the Administrator for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion in Armour & Co. v. Bowles, No. 96.