TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

C. A. Weed & Co. v. Lockwood

C. A. Weed & Company v. Lockwood, as United States Attorney for the Western District of New York

C. A. Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, 255 U.S. 104 (1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 28, 1921
Docket
No. 407
Judges
White, Pitney, Brandéis, Day
Citations
255 U.S. 10441 S. Ct. 30565 L. Ed. 5321921 U.S. LEXIS 1799
Syllabus
Decided upon the authority of United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., ante, 81.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. . This was a suit by a dealer in wearing apparel to enjoin further prosecution under an indictment based on the fourth section of the Pood Control Act. The plaintiff appealed directly from a decree dismissing the bill.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — White

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.

An indictment having been returned against the appellant in the court below for violating the fourth section of the Lever Act by selling wearing apparel at an unjust or unreasonable rate or charge, it filed its bill in that court praying that the United States Attorney be enjoined from proceeding with the prosecution, assigning, as grounds for the injunction, that the section was void because a regulation of prices of wearing apparel was beyond the power of Congress in the existing state of peace, and because the statute was too vague and deficient in standard to justify a criminal prosecution under it.

The court, on demurrer, held- that a status of war-existed and that, although there were some authorities to the contrary, that condition, in its opinion, conferred upon Congress the authority to fix the price at which wearing apparel might be sold, as the business of selling such merchandise was a business in which the public had. an interest and which, therefore, the Government could regulate. Pointing out, however, that the question as to the vagueness of the statute was more serious, the court nevertheless declared that it was of opinion that Congress had authority to provide against an unjust or unreasonable price, without fixing such price, by leaving it to be *106 adjusted by courts and juries, depending upon the general economic situation at the time an alleged violation of the prohibition came before them for consideration. The bill was accordingly dismissed, and the case is here on' direct appeal. .

It is evident, from the decision in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, this day announced, ante, 81, that the decree below was wrong, and, for the reasons stated in the opinion in that Case, it must be and is reversed..

Decree reversed.

Mr. Justice. Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandéis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 21929: 11930: 11933: 11984: 11985: 119252026peak 1925 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Spiegel v. Ford5 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1933)
  2. Kincaid v. United States35 F.2d 235 (W.D. La. 1929)
  3. Franchise Motor Freight Assn. v. Seavey235 P. 1000 (Cal. 1925)
  4. Morrison v. Work266 U.S. 481 (1925)
  5. Avagliano v. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc.614 F. Supp. 1397 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)
  6. State v. Bevins230 N.W. 865 (Iowa 1930)

Most recent

  1. Avagliano v. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc.614 F. Supp. 1397 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)
  2. Smith v. Heckler595 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. Cal. 1984)
  3. Spiegel v. Ford5 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1933)
  4. State v. Bevins230 N.W. 865 (Iowa 1930)
  5. Kincaid v. United States35 F.2d 235 (W.D. La. 1929)
  6. Franchise Motor Freight Assn. v. Seavey235 P. 1000 (Cal. 1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list