Legal Opinion
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Foust Distilling Co.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 14, 1949No. 3008PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MURPHY, District Judge.
The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (herein RFC), an agency of the United States,1 as transferee of the Defense Supplies Corporation2 (herein DSC), seeks to recover from defendant distiller, a Penn*634sylvania corporation. Plaintiffs claim for damages is based in the First Count upon the alleged violation by defendant of the provisions of a contract and amended contract between DSC and defendant. In the Second Count plaintiff seeks treble damages, relying upon § 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 925(e).
The controversy…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Porter v. Warner Holding Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. JG Menihan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Woods v. StoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. United Distillers Products Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1952
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Foust Distilling Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1952
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Foust Distilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953