Court Opinion

ID: 9845770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:28:02.024132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:21.412655
License: Public Domain

Sutton, C. J.
The petition seeks recovery of money paid to or deposited with the defendants, which the defendants agreed to use to buy bulk whisky to be bottled and made available for sale to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid only the maximum price allowed for the bottled whisky by the Office of Price Administration when some of the whisky was delivered to him; but it is contended that the money paid for the purchase of the bulk whisky amounted to an overcharge of $4 or $5 per case, since *242these payments, although made during the period between June 30, 1946, and July 25, 1946, when the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, was not in effect, were a part of the same transaction as the subsequent purchase at ceiling prices of the bottled and cased whisky, deliveries of which were made after the enactment of the Price Control Extension Act of 1946.
The statute under which recovery is sought is § 205 (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, then 50 U. S. C. A., Appendix, § 925 (e), 58 Stat. 640, which provides in part: “If any person selling a commodity violates a regulation, order, or price schedule prescribing a maximum price or maximum prices, the person who buys such commodity for use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business may, within a year from the date of the occurrence of the violation, except as hereinafter provided, bring an action against the seller on account of the overcharge. . .. If any person selling a commodity violates a regulation, order, or price schedule prescribing a maximum price or maximum prices, and the buyer éither fails to institute an action under this subsection within thirty days from the date of the occurrence of the violation or is not entitled for any reason to bring the action, the Administrator may institute such action on behalf ,of the United States within such one year period.” (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff did not allege that he purchased the whisky for use or consumption-other than in the course of his trade or business, and therefore failed to state a cause of action under the terms of the statute.
Under the above-quoted provision of the statute, the plaintiff must allege and prove that he purchased the commodity “for use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business.” The statute contained an exception as the basis of a cause of action; and as the plaintiff failed to negative such exception, he did not state a cause of action under the statute. Crowley v. Hughes, 74 Ga. App. 531 (40 S. E. 2d, 570); Moody v. Foster, 74 Ga. App. 829 (2c) (41 S. E. 2d, 560). See also Lightbody v. Russell, 293 N. Y. 492 (58 N. E. 2d, 508); Armour & Co. v. Blindman, 73 Fed. Sup. 609; Robinson v. White System Inc., 70 Fed. Sup. 147; Allen v. Walton, 163 Kan. 642 (185 Pac. 2d, 154); Foley v. Day Bros. Inc., 320 Mass. 344 (69 N. E. 2d, 451); *243Bayne v. Kingery, 30 Wash. 2d, 922 (195 Pac. 2d, 98); Bowles v. Rogers, 149 Fed. 2d, 1010; Speten v. Bowles, 146 Fed. 2d, 602; Bowles v. Seminole Rock &c. Co., 145 Fed. 2d, 482.
It is contended that the petition sets out a cause of action for the recovery of money paid on an illegal contract without fraud, where the contract has not been fully executed; and it is alleged that the contract, to sell whisky for a consideration exceeding the O. P. A. ceiling price, also contravened the “State Revenue Law,” as promulgated by authority of section 8 (h) of the Revenue Tax Act of 1938 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1937-38, p. 108; Code, Ann. Supp., § 58-1022). The act of 1938 provides that the State Revenue Commissioner shall have the power to promulgate such rules and regulations as he- may deem necessary to control the sale, etc., of distilled spirits and alcohol in accordance with the provisions of that act; and it appears that what is alleged to be the “State Revenue Law” is a regulation promulgated by the Revenue Commissioner. The violation of such an administrative rule of the Revenue Commissioner may result in suspension or cancellation of the license of the offending party or parties, but such rules do not make illegal an act or contract not also prohibited by statute. Glustrom v. State, 206 Ga. 734 (58 S. E. 2d, 534); Columbus Wine Co. v. Sheffield, 83 Ga. App. 593 (64 S. E. 2d, 356); State of Ga. v. Schafer, 82 Ga. App. 753 (62 S. E. 2d, 446). It is not shown that the transactions in question were made illegal by any law of this State.
The character of the alleged $4000 deposit as a loan under the first agreement of the parties was changed by the subsequent agreement, under which the defendants were given the right to use the money to purchase bulk whisky, and in return the plaintiff was given the right to buy an increased amount of whisky which the defendants were to make available for delivery to the plaintiff over an eighteen-month period. It does not appear that the plaintiff was bound to buy the whisky to be made available to him by the defendants, nor is it alleged that, under the agreements of July, 1946, the defendants were bound to refund any part of the amounts paid or deposited which might not have been used in the contemplated purchase of bulk whisky. Conceding, for the sake of the argument, that the alleged transaction between the parties was a valid one, the plaintiff obtained *244no more than what amounted to an option to purchase 2600 cases of whisky over an eighteen-month period, and the price paid for such an option cannot be recovered so long as the defendants are not in default in making the sales and deliveries as called for by such an option contract.
The petition does not show that the right to recover amounts paid in excess of the maximum prices of whisky, as fixed by the Office of Price Administration, is in the plaintiff, according to the Federal statytes which make such excess payments unlawful; and as the alleged contract was not in contravention of any law of this State and, by its terms, did not bind the defendants to return the money deposited with them to buy bulk whisky, the petition failed to set out a cause of action. The court erred m ovérruling the defendants’ exception of law to the auditor’s overruling of the general demurrers to the petition. The further proceedings in the case were nugatory, and therefore ho ruling need be made as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s exceptions to the auditor’s report, as complained of in the main bill of exceptions.

Judgment reversed on the cross-bill of exceptions (number 33958); and the main bill (number 3391)7) is dismissed.

Felton and Worrill, JJ., concur.