Bowles

To the complaint for treble damages filed by plaintiff, pursuant to § 205(e) *495 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, Pub.Law 421, 77th Congress, 2nd Sess., 56 Stat. 23 , 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925(e), defendant, by its answer, pleaded nine separate special defenses. Plaintiff moves to dismiss and strike the second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth special defenses. The fifth and sixth defenses question the validity of the regulations and price schedules issued by the plaintiff. Under § 204(d) of the Act, this Court lacks jurisdiction of this issue. The seventh special defense is in the nature of a general demurrer. The eighth, ninth and tenth defenses urge the unconstitutionality of the Emergency Price Control Act. The Supreme Court has decided adversely to defendant’s contention. Yakus v. United States (Rottenberg v. United States), 64 S.Ct. 660 ; Bowles v. Willingham, 64 S.Ct. 641 .

The motion to dismiss and strike the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth defenses is granted.

The second special defense pleads estoppel on the part of plaintiff to maintain this action. The Court is of the opinion that the second special defense is not so rigid…