Taylor v. Superior Motor Co.

Devin, J. According to tbe regulations duly promulgated under authority of tbe Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, fixing maximum prices for used passenger automobiles, tbe seller was *367 allowed to include in the maximum price an additional amount when the used car was warranted, but tbis permission was conditioned on the used car being in good operating condition as therein defined. 10 Fed. Register 11558, Part 1360, Art. II, sec. 5(b)(3), sec. 7 (b), (M. P. R. No. 540). Plaintiff’s action is bottomed upon the allegation, and the evidence offered in support, that the automobile purchased by him from the defendant was warranted and a specific amount paid therefor, and that the failure of the automobile to be in good operating condition as warranted breached the warranty and constituted the charge therefor an amount in excess of the maximum allowed under the regulations issued by authority of the Price Control Act, and that in consequence he was entitled to recover three times the amount of the overcharge. 50 USCA, sec. 901; Maximum Price Regulations, 540; Emergency Price Control Act, sec. 205(e). The controversy as to the material facts upon which plaintiff’s asserted cause of action was made to depend was resolved below in favor of the plaintiff by the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court thereon. From this conclusion the defendant has appealed, assigning errors in several particulars. In the first place defendant questions the jurisdiction of the court, and also demurs ore ienus to the complaint as insufficient to state a cause of action. However, it is well settled that an Act of the Congress in exercise of the powers conferred by the Federal Constitution is supreme. Art. VI, sec. 2. And proper regulations authorized under the Act have the binding effect of law. These are the tools used to effectuate the policy and purposes of the Act. Emergency Price Control Act, sec. 2a; Standard Comp. Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U. S., 571. Concurrent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the civil remedies under the Emergency Price Control Act is expressly conferred upon state courts, and state courts may not refuse to enforce a claim growing out of a valid Federal law. Testa v. Katt, 91 Law. Ed. Adv. Op., 776; Mondou v. R. R., 223 U. S., 1; McGuinn v. McLain, 225 N. C., 750, 36 S. E. (2d), 377; Swink v. Horn, 226 N. C., 713, 40 S. E. (2d), 353. Notwithstanding the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, ceased 30 June, 1946, to be effective as fixing maximum prices for the sale of used automobiles, yet by force of the statute as enacted its authority was continued in force as to rights or liabilities incurred prior to its termination, for the purpose of sustaining any proper suit or action with respect to any such right or liability. 50 USCA, sec. 901(b), 150 E. 47th St. Corp. v. Porter, 156 F. (2d), 541. We think the court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the cause of action, and that the complaint is sufficient to withstand a demurrer. Defendant noted exception to certain instructions of the trial judge to the jury, hut an examination of the entire charge, in the light of the *368 criticisms noted, leads us to the conclusion that the court’s instructions to the jury were free from error. The form of the issues was agreed to, and thereunder all the controverted questions of fact were fairly submitted to the jury, with correct interpretation of the statutes and effective regulations. Admission in evidence of'the regulations set out in Federal Register was permitted by statute. 44 USCA, sec. 307. The allowance of reasonable attorney’s fees, authorized by the Federal statute, must be upheld. As was said by Justice Denny in Hilgreen v. Cleaners & Tailors, Inc., 225 N. C., 656, 36 S. E. (2d), 252, “The statute authorizes the court to award reasonable attorney’s fees, and the Superior Court, being a court of general jurisdiction, has the power to award such fees.” See also Hopkins v. Barnhardt, 223 N. C., 617, 27 S. E. (2d), 644. In the trial we find No error.