Summary
The United States sued a former landlord for rent overcharges under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, seeking an injunction, restitution, and treble damages. The court held that releases obtained from tenants did not bar the government's action because they lacked adequate consideration and were devices to circumvent the law. Judgment was entered for restitution, damages, an injunction, and costs.
Holdings
- Releases obtained from tenants did not absolve the landlord from liability to the United States for rent overcharges.
- The purported releases were ineffective because they were not supported by consideration.
Questions Presented
- Whether releases obtained from tenants who paid rent overcharges barred the United States from pursuing an action for restitution, damages, and injunctive relief under section 205 of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947.
- Whether partial or complete refunds or purported settlements of rent overcharges constitute a defense to an enforcement action brought by the United States.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- United States v. Grubl, 186 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1950)(followed)
- Butler v. Krizan, 88 F. Supp. 692, 696 (D.C. 1949)(distinguished)
- Gilbert v. Thierry, 58 F. Supp. 235 (D. Mass. 1945), aff'd, 147 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1945)(followed)
- East v. Bowles, 158 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1946)(followed)
- Bowles v. Leventhal, 61 F. Supp. 144 (D.C. 1945)(followed)
- Trachtman v. Samit, 62 F. Supp. 176 (D.C. 1945)(followed)
- Bowles v. Ammon, 61 F. Supp. 106 (D.C. 1945)(followed)
- B. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S. Ct. 925, 90 L. Ed. 1114 (1946)(followed by analogy)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…