144 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 1944), 5240, Dize v. Maddrix
|Citation:||144 F.2d 584|
|Party Name:||DIZE v. MADDRIX.|
|Case Date:||August 01, 1944|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Certiorari Granted Nov. 13, 1944. See 65 S.Ct. 135.
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.
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 Sec. 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...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP