From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Porter v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jan 8, 1947
69 F. Supp. 446 (D. Or. 1947)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3246.

January 8, 1947.

Sylvanus Smith, of Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

Ray B. Compton and Spencer W. Yates, both of Roseburg, Or., for defendants.


Action by Paul A. Porter, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, against Paul K. Ryan and others, to recover alleged overcharges of rent. On motion to substitute Philip B. Fleming, Administrator of the Office of Temporary Controls, as plaintiff.

Motion for substitution denied.


It appears certain now that President Truman does not deem it necessary that the Senate shall confirm the appointment of General Fleming as successor to the functions of the Office of Price Administration.

I do not agree with this view. This is a rent case and I am unable to understand how the President can by-pass the Senate under a clause of the Price Control Act which reads:

"* * * The President is authorized to transfer any of the powers and functions conferred by this Act upon the Office of Price Administration with respect to a particular commodity or commodities to any other department or agency of the Government having other functions relating to such commodity or commodities, * * *." Section 201(b), 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 921(b).

Until further advised I must decline to accept General Fleming in substitution as plaintiff for Paul A. Porter, Price Administrator herein.


Summaries of

Porter v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jan 8, 1947
69 F. Supp. 446 (D. Or. 1947)
Case details for

Porter v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:PORTER, Price Administrator, v. RYAN et al

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jan 8, 1947

Citations

69 F. Supp. 446 (D. Or. 1947)

Citing Cases

Porter v. Hirahara

In my opinion this specific limitation in the Emergency Price Control Act destroys what otherwise would be an…

Porter v. American Distilling Co.

Judge Caffey, of this court, in an opinion in Bowles v. EllCarr Co., Inc., D.C., 71 F. Supp. 482, has…