Farmers Feed and Supply Co. v. United States
Decision Date | 02 May 1967 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 65-C-3009-W. |
Citation | 267 F. Supp. 72 |
Parties | FARMERS FEED AND SUPPLY CO., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
W. J. Giles, III, Sioux City, Iowa, Nelson, Harding, Acklie, Leonard & Tate, Lincoln, Neb., for plaintiff.
John H. D. Wigger, Department of Justice, Nahum Litt, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge, and McMANUS and HANSON, District Judges.
This is a ruling on a complaint brought to review certain Orders entered by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
This case was heard by a three judge court upon the record as developed in the Interstate Commerce Commission proceedings.
By Orders entered February 4, 1963 and June 4, 1963, the Commission instituted an investigation into the operations of the respondents with a view to determining whether they had been or were engaging in the transportation of property in interstate commerce as common or contract carriers by motor vehicle in violation of Title 49, Sections 303(c), 306(a) and 309(a) of U.S.C.A.
The hearing examiner concluded that the trucking operations were not conducted as an incident to the primary business of dealing in grain, feed, feed ingredients, and mixing of feed ingredients but rather constituted for hire carriage. The Commission adopted the hearing examiner's statement of facts which said in part that:
The Commission also abstracted in some detail the evidence concerning the transactions between the respondents and their customers. Typical of some of the transactions prior to 1962 was the way in which Farmers' Cooperative of Cherokee, Iowa, purchased salt. A salesman of the Morton Salt Co. would solicit the business. Indications as to the need of salt would be given without any advice as to who should deliver it. The salt would be delivered by Farmers Feed and Supply Co. generally within one week. The invoice was rendered by Farmers' driver and the salt paid for at time of delivery. The Commission admitted that the transactions changed after 1963 and the nature of the transactions will be discussed more in relation to the allegation that the evidence was insufficient as to Farmers Feed and Supply Co., a corporation.
The Commission ordered:
The present action to review the Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission was instituted by Farmers Feed and Supply Co., Inc. alone. H. G. Heusinkveld, individually, is not a party to this action and as to him the Order of the Commission is final.
The complaint in this case alleges in substance as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lakota Girl Scout Council, Inc. v. Havey Fund-Raising Management, Inc.
...it is used as a subterfuge to defeat public convenience, justify wrong or perpetrate a fraud"); Farmers Feed and Supply Co. v. United States, 267 F.Supp. 72, 76 (N.D.Iowa 1967) (Hanson, J.) (3-judge court) ("There is no evidence in this case which would justify piercing the corporate veil. ......
-
Brown v. Margrande Compania Naviera
...one individual of all of the stock does not make that individual the corporation. Terry v. Yancey, supra; Farmers Feed & Supply Co. v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 72 (D.C.Iowa 1967). There must be something more than identity of officers and stock ownership in corporate set-ups in order to ......
-
Village Press, Inc. v. Stephen Edward Co., Inc., 79-261
...piercing the corporate veil is not permitted solely because a corporation is a one-man operation. Farmers Feed & Supply Co. v. United States, 267 F.Supp. 72, 78 (N.D.Iowa 1967); IZE Nantan Bagowa, Ltd. v. Scalia, 118 Ariz. 439, 577 P.2d 725 (Ct.App.1978). Similarly, the fact that one person......
-
In re Cycle-Rama, Inc.
...piercing the corporate veil is not permitted solely because a corporation is a one-man operation. Farmers Feed & Supply Co. v. United States, 267 F.Supp. 72, 78 (N.D. Iowa 1967); IZE Nantan Bagowa, Ltd. v. Scalia, 118 Ariz. 439, 577 P.2d 725 (Ct.App.1978). Similarly, the fact that one perso......