HP Hood & Sons v. United States, 3325-3331.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 3325-3331.,3325-3331. |
| Citation | 97 F.2d 677 |
| Parties | H. P. HOOD & SONS, Inc., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., and six other cases. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Charles B. Rugg, of Boston, Mass. (Warren F. Farr, Edward B. Hanify, and Ropes, Gray, Boyden & Perkins, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., and Noble's Milk Co.
Edward F. Merrill, of Skowhegan, Me., for E. Frank Branon, intervener.
John M. Raymond, of Boston, Mass. (Lawrence Foster, Theodore Chase, and Palmer, Dodge, Barstow, Wilkins & Davis, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for Whiting Milk Co.
Charles S. Walkup, Jr., of Boston, Mass., for W. P. Elliott Co.
David Greer, of Boston, Mass., for Green Valley Creamery, Inc., Seven Oaks Dairy Co., and A. J. Robinson.
Francis J. Kelley, of Boston, Mass., for Martines and others.
Wendell Berge and Hugh B. Cox, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (Thurman Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis J. W. Ford, U. S. Atty., and John A. Canavan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., James C. Wilson and Joseph G. Blandi, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., and H. Douglas Weaver, Sp. Atty., and Samuel Herman, Atty., Department of Agriculture, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WILSON and MORTON, Circuit Judges, and MAHONEY, District Judge.
These cases on appeal to this court involve the validity of a temporary mandatory injunction issued by the District Court ordering the several defendants to comply with Order No. 4 issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Marketing Agreement Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq., and requiring each of them to pay to the Market Administrator under the Act all amounts now due and owing, and hereafter to become due and owing under said Order No. 4.
We think the temporary mandatory injunction should continue in force until the final determination of the cases on their merits, but inasmuch as the several defendants before this court have raised objections to the validity of Order No. 4, and to the authority of the Secretary to issue such an order under the Act, and the several objections do not appear to this court to be frivolous and without merit; and whereas the payments to the Market Administrator by the several defendants of the sums computed to be due under said Order No. 4, if said Order should be found to be invalid on appeal, would work irreparable hardship to each of the defendants, since if once distributed in accordance with Order No. 4 by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rock Royal Co-op.
...Appeals reversed and sent the case back for trial. The case related to the statute before its amendment in 1937. In Hood & Sons et al. v. United States, 1 Cir., 97 F.2d 677, the District Court granted a temporary mandatory injunction of the same kind sought here. On Appeal the Circuit Court......
-
Parker v. United States
...final determination on appeal of the case on its merits, be paid into the registry of the district court. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., et al., v. United States, 1 Cir., 1938, 97 F.2d 677. The moneys were not so paid into the registry, the condition was unfulfilled, and as a result the interlocu......
-
United States v. Adler's Creamery
...marketing control made effective by the order or cause any irreparable injury. This case differs from H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., et al. v. United States et al., 1 Cir., 97 F.2d 677 which dealt largely with future payments, though some past due payments seem to have been involved also, in that......
-
Fraser v. United States
...Here it was alleged that Fraser was insolvent, and he admitted inability to pay the full amount of the penalty. In H. P. Hood & Sons v. United States, 1 Cir., 97 F.2d 677, the defendant who was contesting the validity of the Marketing Agreement Act, was required to pay the sums alleged to b......