Brown v. Parker
Decision Date | 09 July 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 78.,78. |
Citation | 39 F. Supp. 895 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | BROWN v. PARKER, Director of Agriculture et al. |
Irvine P. Aten, Richard V. Aten, and G. L. Aynesworth, all of Fresno, Cal., for plaintiff.
Strother P. Walton, of Fresno, Cal., for the Zone.
W. L. Bowers, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State of California.
Before STEPHENS, Circuit Judge, YANKWICH and BEAUMONT, District Judges.
The plaintiff, who is a packer of raisins in the State of California, instituted this action to restrain the enforcement of a prorate program for raisins prescribed under the authority of the California Agricultural Prorate Act, Chap. 754, p. 1969, Cal.Stats.1933 as amended, hereinafter called the Act. He has alleged and we hold that he has proved that the issues involve a sum in excess of $3,000, in that the State of California is attempting to enforce the provisions of the Act and is claiming penalties in the amount of $13,000 against the plaintiff.
It is plaintiff's position that the program formulated under the Act is unconstitutional in that it prevents his purchase in open market for shipment in interstate commerce and that it constitutes a direct interference with interstate commerce in contravention of the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
The defendant Proration Zone No. 1 filed a cross complaint praying that the Act and program thereunder be declared a valid exercise of the police power of the State of California, that the plaintiff be enjoined from refusing to comply therewith, and for an accounting and damages for his failure to comply in the past.
The case was tried before United States Circuit Judge ALBERT LEE STEPHENS and United States District Judges LEON R. YANKWICH and CAMPBELL E. BEAUMONT, sitting as a "three judge court" under the authority of 28 U.S.C.A. § 380, and was submitted upon the question of the constitutionality of the program set up under the Act.1
The raisin industry is an important one in California. It is uncontroverted that 95% of the naturally dried raisins consumed in the United States are produced in said Zone No. 1,2 and 95% of such raisins produced in said zone are consumed outside the State of California. The stipulation of facts filed by the parties shows the following with reference to the customary manner in which the producers of raisin grapes in California, including Zone No. 1, operate:
It will thus be seen that without any prorate provisions in the law, the plaintiff as a packer-dealer would be free to buy and would ordinarily buy the raisins which he boxes and sells in interstate commerce direct from the producer thereof and in amounts limited only by his desire or ability.
Under the Act after a prorate program has been formulated and approved by the commission,3 the agent appointed to administer the program shall issue to the producers certificates as provided in the Act. These certificates are divided into primary and secondary certificates. Each producer shall be entitled to one primary certificate which identifies him as a "producer" under the terms of the Act. The Act, § 20, St.1939, p. 1948, provides that 4 and it shall be unlawful for any prorated commodity to be delivered into a primary trade channel without the necessary secondary certificate therefor. It is also unlawful for any handler to receive or have in his possession without proper authority any such commodity. The Act contains a further provision that "in the case of commodities which are normally concentrated for preparation for market, the program committee may authorize harvesting of the entire crop for the purpose of delivery to a concentration point and subsequent marketing control."
The program formulated under the Act provides that 20% of all "standard"5 raisins shall be delivered into a surplus pool,6 the producers to be given an advance of $27.50 per ton for Muscat and Thompson Seedless raisins, and $25 per ton for Sultanas, the advance to be obtained from the proceeds of a nonrecourse loan from the Commodity Credit Corporation, a federal agency.
Fifty percent of all standard raisins are to be delivered into a stabilization pool, the producers to receive an advance from the Commodity Credit Corporation funds of $55 per ton for Muscat and Thompson Seedless raisins, and $50 per ton for Sultanas.
The balance of 30% of standard raisins may be disposed of by the producer without restriction as "free tonnage" provided he has obtained a secondary certificate, which certificate is issued to him when he has satisfied the pool requirements and upon payment of a certificate fee of $2.50 per ton of such free tonnage.
It is provided that no substandard or inferior7 grade of raisins may be offered as free tonnage or delivered into surplus or stabilization pools, but such raisins are delivered into separate pools for disposal by the program committee at the best prices obtainable and under the fairest conditions obtainable for by-product purposes. The net proceeds are distributed ratably to the producers contributing to such pools.
Raisins in the surplus pool may be sold by the committee "as soon as practicable after delivery of the same to the committee * * * provided, however, that none of the standard raisins in such pool shall be sold or otherwise disposed of prior to January I of the marketing season in which such pool is established". The Committee determines the prices at which the raisins shall be sold, but it is provided in the program that sales of surplus pool raisins shall be only for assured by-product and other diversion purposes, and that they shall not be sold into normal marketing channels.8 There is a provision for transfer of raisins from the surplus pool into the stabilization pool in the event the original estimates were not in accord with later found facts and it later appears that an excessive quantity of raisins has been placed in the surplus pool.
As to the raisins in the stabilization pool, the program provides that they shall be sold by the committee "as soon as practicable after delivery of same to the committee, * * * in such manner as to maintain stability in the markets and to dispose of such raisins". No sales of raisins from the stabilization pool shall be made at less than the prevailing market price for raisins of the same variety and grade on the date of sale. Stabilization pool raisins shall be sold only into normal marketing channels. There is a provision for transfer of raisins from the stabilization pool into the surplus...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Parker v. Brown
-
Devine v. Joshua Hendy Corporation
...S.Ct. 930, 85 L.Ed. 1219; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 1943, 317 U.S. 564, 569, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460. 11 Brown v. Park, 1941, D.C.Cal., 39 F. Supp. 895, 902. 12 Parker v. Brown, 1943, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315. 13 Paul Gray, Inc. v. Ingels, 1938, D.C. Cal., 23 F.S......
-
Gray v. Commodity Credit Corporation
...writer on the validity of this method of state control were sustained by the Supreme Court. See dissenting opinion in Brown v. Parker, D.C.Cal., 1941, 39 F.Supp. 895. The Prorate Act itself was held constitutional in Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Superior Court, 1936, 5 Cal.2d 550, 55 ......
-
United States v. San Francisco Electrical Cont. Ass'n
...constitute the binding tie which makes all parties to one agreement. 3 I treated this subject fully in my dissent in Brown v. Parker, D.C.1941, 39 F.Supp. 895, 903. The Supreme Court upheld these views in Parker v. Brown, supra. By "processing" I really mean "construction." In the strictly ......
-
Chapter VIII. Discovery and Expert Testimony
...Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), aff’g 355 F. Supp. 491, 495, 498, 500 (E.D. Va. 1973); Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 344, 352 (1943), aff’g 39 F. Supp. 895, 896 (S.D. Cal. 1941). 18. See 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987), rev’g J.A.J. Liquor Store v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 479 N.E......
-
Table of Cases
...Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 442 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2006), rev’d on other grounds , 551 U.S. 291 (2007), 53, 66 Brown v. Parker, 39 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. Cal. 1941), 6 Buckley Constr., Inc. v. Shawnee Civic & Cultural Dev. Auth., 933 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1991), 75 Burke v. Ford, 389 U.S......
-
Table of Cases
...Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 442 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2006), rev’d on other grounds , 551 U.S. 291 (2007), 60, 78 Brown v. Parker, 39 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. Cal. 1941), 8 Buckley Constr., Inc. v. Shawnee Civic & Cultural Dev. Auth., 933 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1991), 88, 189 C California v. A......
-
THE STRANGE CAREER OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT: FEDERALISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS, 1954-1976.
...Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915), aff'g 219 F. 273 (D. Ariz. 1915) (three-judge court); Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), rev'd 39 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. Cal. 1941) (three-judge court); Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), rev'd 297 F. 307 (N.D. Ohio 1924) (three-jud......