Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co

Decision Date18 January 1943
Docket NumberNo. 336,336
Citation87 L.Ed. 460,63 S.Ct. 332,317 U.S. 564
PartiesWALLING, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, v. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Louis Kurz, of Jacksonville, Fla., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit brought by the Administrator to enjoin respondent from violating provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. Respondent is engaged in the wholesale business, distributing paper products and related articles. Its business covers a large area embraced within a number of states in the southeastern part of the country. The major portion of the products which it distributes comes from a large number of manufacturers and other suppliers located in other states and in foreign countries. Five of respondent's twelve branch houses deliver goods to customers in other states and it is not contended that the Act does not apply to delivery employees at those establishments. The sole issue here is whether the Act applies to employees at the seven other branch houses which, though constantly receiving merchandise on interstate shipments and dis- tributing it to their customers, do not ship or deliver any of it across state lines.

Some of this merchandise is shipped direct from the mills to respondent's customers. Some of it is purchased on special orders from customers, consigned to the branches, taken from the steamship or railroad terminal to the branches for checking, and then taken to the customer's place of business. The bulk of the merchandise, however, passes through the branch warehouses before delivery to customers. There is evidence that the customers constitute a fairly stable group and that their orders are recurrent as to the kind and amount of merchandise. Some of the items carried in stock are ordered only in anticipation of the needs of a particular customer as determined by a contract or understanding with respondent. Frequently orders for stock items whose supply is exhausted are received. Respondent orders the merchandise and delivers it to the customer as soon as possible. Apparently many of these orders are treated as deliveries from stock in trade. Not all items listed in respondent's catalogue are carried in stock but are stocked at the mill. Orders for these are filled by respondent from the manufacturer or supplier. There is also some evidence to the general effect that the branch manager before placing his orders for stock items has a fair idea when and to whom the merchandise will be sold and is able to estimate with considerable precision the immediate needs of his customers even where they do not have contracts calling for future deliveries.

The District Court held that none of respondent's employees in the seven branch houses in question were subject to the Act. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Jacksonville Paper Co. v. Fleming, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 395, 397. (1) It held that employees who are engaged in the procurement or receipt of goods from other states are 'engaged in commerce' within the meaning of § 6(a) and § 7(a) of the Act. (2) It also held that where respondent 'takes an order' from a customer and fills it outside the state and the goods are shipped interstate 'with the definite intention that those goods be carried at once to that customer, and they are so carried, the whole movement is interstate' and the entire work of delivery to their final destination is an employment 'in commerce'. Those were the only types of transactions which the court held to be covered by the Act.

The Administrator contends in the first place that under the decision below any pause at the warehouse is sufficient to deprive the remainder of the journey of its interstate status. In that connection it is pointed out that prior to this litigation respondent's trucks would pick up at the terminals of the interstate carriers goods destined to specific customers, return to the warehouse for checking and proceed immediately to the customer's place of business without unloading. That practice was changed. The goods were unloaded from the trucks, brought into the warehouse, checked, reloaded, and sent on to the customer during the same day or as early as convenient. The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals is susceptible of the interpretation that such a pause at the warehouses is sufficient to make the Act inapplicable to the subsequent movement of the goods to their intended destination. We believe, however, that the adoption of that view would result in too narrow a construction of the Act. It is clear that the purpose of the Act was to extend federal control in this field throughout the farthest reaches of the channels of interstate commerce.1 There is no indication (apart from the exemptions contained in § 13) that, once the goods entered the channels of interstate commerce, Congress stopped short of control over the entire movement of them until their interstate journey was ended. No ritual of placing goods in a warehouse can be allowed to defeat that purpose. The entry of the goods into the warehouse interrupts but does not necessarily terminate their interstate journey. A temporary pause in their transit does not mean that they are no longer 'in commerce' within the meaning of the Act. As in the case of an agency (cf. De Loach v. Crowley's Inc., 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 378) if the halt in the movement of the goods is a convenient intermediate step in the process of getting them to their final destinations, they remain 'in commerce' until they reach those points. Then there is a practical continuity of movement of the goods until they reach the customers for whom they are intended. That is sufficient. Any other test would allow formalities to conceal the continuous nature of the interstate transit which constitutes commerce.

Secondly, the Administrator contends that the decision below excludes from the category of goods 'in commerce' certain types of transactions which are substantially of the same character as the prior orders which were included. Thus it is shown that there is a variety of items printed at the mill with the name of the customer. It is also established that there are deliveries of certain goods which are obtained from the manufacturer or supplier to meet the needs of specified customers. Among the latter are certain types of newsprint, paper, ice cream cups, and cottage cheese containers. The record reveals, however, that the goods in both of these two categories are ordered pursuant to a pre-existing contract or understanding with the customer. It is not clear whether the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals includes these two types of transactions in the group of prior orders which it held were covered by the Act. We think they must be included. Certainly they cannot be distinguished from the special orders which respondent receives from its customers. Here also, a break in their physical continuity of transit is not controlling. If there is a practical continuity of movement from the manufacturers or suppliers without the state, through respondent's warehouse and on to customers whose prior orders or contracts are being filled, the interstate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
584 cases
  • Evans v. SS Kresge Company, Civ. A. No. 71-85.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 13, 1975
    ...of specified customers. See Walker Oil Co. v. Hudson Oil Co. of Missouri, 414 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1969); Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460 (1945). See also Country Maid v. Haseotes, 324 F.Supp. 875 19 In support of its argument that Hempfield's share......
  • Cannon v. Miller
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1945
    ...or transportation of goods for such commerce, the employee is covered by the act. A. B. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, supra; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., supra; Collins v. Kidd Dairy & Ice Co., 5 Cir., 132 79; Walling v. Peoples Packing Co., 10 Cir., 132 F.2d 236; Walling v. Silver Bros.......
  • United States v. Standard Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 28, 1948
    ...974; United States v. San Francisco Electrical Contractors Ass'n, 1944, D.C. Calif., 57 F.Supp. 57. 4 Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 1943, 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L. Ed. 460; United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 1944, 322 U.S. 533, 546-553, 64 S.Ct. 1162, 88 L.Ed. 1......
  • United States v. López-Martínez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • September 21, 2020
    ...scope); Navarro v. Broney Automotive Repairs, Inc., 533 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1226 (S.D.Fla. 2008)(same)(citing Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 579-571 (1943)("Congress did not exercise in this Act the full scope of the commerce power"). In contrast, the scope of the Hobbs Act ex......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Massachusetts High Court Decides Intrastate Delivery Drivers Unable to Ditch Their Arbitration Agreements
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • August 10, 2022
    ...involved in transporting said goods to Amazon customers are exempt from the FAA. Id. at 341 (citing Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 568 (1943)). Now let’s imagine two other situations, this time involving Drivers 3 and 4: Driver 3 works for a national soda company and Drive......
  • Massachusetts Food Delivery Drivers Not Exempt From Arbitration
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 16, 2022
    ...drivers are different than last-mile delivery drivers, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (1943). Specifically, while last-mile delivery drivers may be exempt from the FAA, "because they are part of a single, continuous and carefull......
6 books & journal articles
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part III. Employee compensation, safety and benefits
    • August 9, 2017
    ...FLSA extends federal control “throughout the farthest reaches of the channels of interstate commerce.” Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co ., 317 U.S. 564, 567 (1943). The Fifth Circuit has also made clear that no de minimis requirement applies to the FLSA, but that any regular contact with co......
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2016 Part III. Employee Compensation, Safety and Benefits
    • July 27, 2016
    ...through [the carrier’s] warehouse and onto customers whose prior orders or contracts are being filled.” Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 569 (1943) (quoted in Billings, 413 F. 2d at 820). The Court of Appeals has put it this way: The characterization of transportation betwee......
  • Wages, hours, and overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part III. Employee compensation, safety and benefits
    • May 5, 2018
    ...FLSA extends federal control “throughout the farthest reaches of the channels of interstate commerce.” Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co ., 317 U.S. 564, 567 (1943). The Fifth Circuit has also made clear that no de minimis requirement applies to the FLSA, but that any regular contact with co......
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part III. Employee compensation, safety and benefits
    • August 16, 2014
    ...FLSA extends federal control “throughout the farthest reaches of the channels of interstate commerce.” Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co ., 317 U.S. 564, 567 (1943). The Fifth Circuit has also emphasized that no de minimis rule applies to the FLSA; rather, any regular contact with commerce, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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