Legal Opinion

Bowles v. Henry Lustig & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 1, 1946No. 248Published

1Per curiam

The defendant is a wholesale dealer in fresh fruits and vegetables in New York City. It satisfies the requirements of the definition of a “purveyor” as that term is defined in M.P.R. 426 and section 3 of Revised Order G-l. Section 5(b) of this Order provides that “any person who meets the requirement of section 3 hereof may apply in writing to the Office of Price Administration” in New York *237City “for recognition as a [purveyor’ and permission to take the markups established herein.” Without having formally applied for such recognition and permission the defendant made sales to institutional…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Bowles v. SacherCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API