Dize v. Maddrix, 5240.

Decision Date13 November 1944
Docket NumberNo. 5240.,5240.
PartiesDIZE v. MADDRIX.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Harry Leeward Katz and Hyman Ginsberg, both of Baltimore, Md. (Ginsberg & Ginsberg, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.

Eugene A. Alexander, III, of Baltimore, Md. (Paul Berman, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, DOBIE, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Granted November 13, 1944. See 65 S.Ct. 135.

DOBIE, Circuit Judge.

Lake Maddrix (hereinafter called Maddrix) brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against L. Elwood Dize, trading as Dize Box Company, (hereinafter called Dize) to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and a reasonable attorney's fee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter called the Act), 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The District Court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment in favor of Maddrix and against Dize for the sum of $1,052.10, plus an attorney's fee of $75. Dize has duly appealed to us.

Dize contends that he was not engaged in the production of goods for shipment in interstate commerce so as to bring him within the purview of the Act. True it is that the boxes and barrels made by Dize were sold locally to packers and shippers of crabmeat and oysters. But, as Dize well knew, a great majority of the boxes and barrels made and sold by him were used by these packers and shippers for shipments in interstate commerce. This case is practically on all fours with Enterprise Box Co. v. Fleming, 5 Cir., 125 F.2d 897, certiorari denied Enterprise Box Co. v. Holland, 316 U.S. 704, 62 S.Ct. 1312, 86 L.Ed. 1772. There, too, the boxes were made and sold locally to manufacturers of cigars in Florida, but, again, the vast majority of boxes, to the knowledge of the boxmaker, were used for the shipment of cigars in interstate commerce. We think it is unnecessary to add to the able opinion of Circuit Judge Holmes in that case, holding that the maker of the cigar boxes was subject to the Act.

Nor are we impressed by the contention of Dize that he falls within the exemption set out in § 213(a) (5) of the Act. This section excludes those engaged in catching, taking, harvesting, etc., of fish, sponges or other forms of animal and vegetable life, including the loading or packing of these products for shipment. Clearly Dize was engaged in no such endeavors. As well might we exempt a manufacturer of rubber boots shipped in interstate commerce to fishermen.

Dize tendered to Maddrix the sum of $500, which Maddrix accepted and Maddrix signed a comprehensive release, covering all of his claims...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Brooklyn Sav Bank v. Neil Dize v. Maddrix Arsenal Bldg Corporation v. Greenberg 8212 1945
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1945
    ...N.E.2d 259. 7 323 U.S. 698, 65 S.Ct. 117. 8 Maddrix v. Dize, 7 Wage Hour Rep. 313 (Jan. 31, 1944, not officially reported). 9 Dize v. Maddrix, 4 Cir. 144 F.2d 584. 10 323 U.S. 702, 65 S.Ct. 11 See note 1 supra. 12 The respondent, employee, was informed by a third person some two years after......
  • Schulte v. Gangi
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1946
    ...shipped in interstate commerce.' 18 Compare McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 63 S.Ct. 1248, 87 L.Ed. 1538. 19 Compare Dize v. Maddrix, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 584; Culver v. Bell & Loffland, 9 Cir., 146 F.2d 29; St. John V. Brown, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 385, 388; Fleming v. Enterprise Box Co., D.C., 3......
  • Chastang v. Flynn and Emrich Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • October 26, 1973
    ...statutory policy. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 704, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1945), aff'g sub nom., Dize v. Maddrix, 144 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 1944). Virtually the same argument that F&E is making was made and rejected in Rosen where the defendant employer contended that ......
  • Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Co v. Comb Comb v. Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1949
    ...was itself exempt. In only one case brought to our attention was a contention presented similar to that made here. In Dize v. Maddrix, 4 Cir., 1944, 144 F.2d 584, affirmed, 1945, 324 U.S. 697, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296; the local manufacture of boxes was held to be within the Act because ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • 29 C.F.R. § 784.123 Operations Performed On Fishing Equipment
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter V. Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor Subchapter B. Statements of General Policy Or Interpretation Not Directly Related to Regulations Part 784. Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act Applicable to Fishing and Operations On Aquatic Products Subpart B. Exemptions Provisions Relating to Fishing and Aquatic Products General Character and Scope of the Section 13(a)(5) Exemption
    • January 1, 2023
    ...apply to employees of a manufacturer of supplies or to employees of independent shops which repair boats and equipment. ( Dize v. Maddix, 144 F. 2d 584, affirmed 324 U.S. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT