Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

Midland Affiliated business Sales and Services, Inc.

Volume 56 · 56 F.T.C. 1069

Citation
56 F.T.C. 1069
Docket
7548
Complaint
1959-07-15
Decision
1960-03-19
Document type
dismissal
Case type
consumer protection
Statutes
FTC Act (section 5)
Industry
real estate advertising
Outcome
dismissed
Respondent counsel
Sidney 2 Karasik of Chicago, Ill
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

deceptive advertising

Cite this decision

Midland Affiliated business Sales and Services, Inc., 56 F.T.C. 1069 (1960). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v056-0229

Report an error in this record (decision id v056-0229)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In rye Marrer or MIDLAND AFFILIATED BUSINESS SALES AND SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

ORDER, EYC., UN REGARD TO This ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 7548. Complaint, July 15, 1959—Order, Mar. 19, 1960 Order dismissing—for the reason that respondent sold his interest in the company before issuance of the complaint—charges that a former official of corporate respondent used deception to obtain advance fees for advertising real estate.

The matter was disposed of as to all other respondents by a consent order dated Jan. 6, 1960, p. TUS herein.

Ur. John W. Brookfield, Jr.. and Mr. John J. Mathias supporting the complaint.

Mr. Sidney 2 Karasik of Chicago, Ill., for respondent. IxzvriaL Decision and Orpvrer Dismissing Complaint AS TO ResponpeNT BerNnarD Hewitt The Commission on January 6, 1960 adopted the Initial Decision theretofore entered in this matter which disposed of this proceeding as to all respondents except respondent Bernard Hewitt. Counsel supporting the complaint has now moved that the complaint be dismissed as to this remaining respondent on the ground that this respondent sold his interest in the corporate respondent Decision 56 F.T.C.

prior to the issuance of the complaint and has not thereafter engaged in a similar business. These facts are supported by an affidavit of this respondent attached to the motion. The motion is granted and it is ordered, That the complaint herein against respondent Bernard Hewitt, an individual, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the Commission to take such action in the future as the facts may warrant.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner as to respondent Bernard Hewitt shall, on the 19th day of March 1960, become the decision of the Commission.

← 56 F.T.C. 1066 · 56 F.T.C. 1070 →