BOWLES, ADM’R. v. MITTLEMAN, 183 Or. 143 (1948)

191 P.2d 379

BOWLES, Administrator, O.P.A., v. MITTLEMAN ET AL. and FLEMING, Administrator

Oregon Supreme Court.Argued February 17, 1948
Affirmed March 23, 1948

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Multnomah County, CHARLES W. REDDING, Judge.

Roy C. Fox, Litigation Unit Attorney, Office of Rent Control, of Seattle, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were N. Ray Alber, Area Rent Attorney, of Portland, John E. Hedrick, Chief, Rent Enforcement Division, of Seattle, and E.D. Dupree, Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Rent Control, Hugo V. Prucha, Director, Rent Enforcement, Irving M. Gruber, Chief, Litigation Branch, and Jacob W. Rosenthal, Special Appellate Attorney, Office of Rent Control, all of Washington, D.C.

James C. Dezendorf, of Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Koerner, Young, Swett
McColloch, of Portland.

Before ROSSMAN, Chief Justice, KELLY, BAILEY, BRAND and HAY, Justices.

AFFIRMED.

BAILEY, J.

This action was commenced on the 19th day of February, 1946, by Chester Bowles, Administrator of the office of Price Administration, pursuant to § 205 (e) of the Emergency Price Control Act (56 Stat. 23) as amended (58 Stat. 632, 50 U.S.C. App. Supp. V, 901, et seq.), against Harry Mittleman and Helen Rena Mittleman, doing business as Sovereign Hotel Apartments, to recover statutory damages

Page 144

for overceiling rents allegedly collected by defendants in violation of the applicable rent regulations.

The facts, so far as material on this appeal, and the legal questions are the same as those set forth in the other Mittleman case this day decided, wherein our views on the numerous matters therein and here involved are set forth at length, with the exception that the application for the substitution of Philip B. Fleming, Administrator of the Office of Temporary Controls, as party plaintiff, in the place and stead of Chester Bowles, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, was made and filed one day later. The decision in that case is controlling in this one. Therefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Page 145