Field Packing Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11471.,11471. |
| Citation | 197 F.2d 329 |
| Parties | FIELD PACKING CO., Inc. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Thomas E. Sandidge, Owensboro, Ky., for appellant.
David C. Walls, Charles F. Wood, Louisville, Ky., Neil Brooks, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
It appearing from the record in this cause that the findings of fact of the District Court, upon which it based its judgment, are not clearly erroneous; and that, therefore, its conclusion of law that the appellant company wilfully violated the provisions of War Food Order No. 15, in that it failed to set aside or to sell to approved buyers required quantities of cheese, is correctly drawn; And it appearing further that the contention of the appellant that the action brought by the United States against it was barred by Act of Congress of June 29, 1948, 15 U.S.C.A. § 714 et seq., is not well grounded, for the reason that the statute was intended to operate prospectively and not retroactively, it being established that no statute of limitation shall be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication, see Fullerton Krueger Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 266 U.S. 435, 437, 45 S.Ct. 143, 69 L.Ed. 367; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596, 84 U.S. 596, 21 L.Ed. 737; Cf. Shwab v. Doyle, 258 U.S. 529, 534, 42 S.Ct. 391, 66 L.Ed. 747; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U.S. 306, 314, 28 S.Ct. 537, 52 L.Ed. 804; Claridge Apartments Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 323 U.S. 141, 164, 65 S.Ct. 172, 89 L.Ed. 139; United States v. St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co., 270 U.S. 1, 3-4, 46 S.Ct. 182, 70 L.Ed. 435.
The judgment of the District Court, awarding recovery from appellant of $8,984.49, with interest, is affirmed; and it is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lindsay
...a Government claim arising prior to the 1948 Act 'accrued' not when the suit arose but when the Act became effective. Field Packing Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 329. This conflict among the circuits as to the statutory meaning of 'accrued' led us to grant certiorari. 346 U.S. 810, 74 S.Ct......
-
United States v. Lindsay
...from the foregoing discussion that we do not find the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Field Packing Co. v. United States, 1952, 197 F.2d 329 Other arguments of counsel for the United States resting on other provisions of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act ......
- United States v. Krause, 13407.
-
United States v. Paramount Distillers, Civ. No. 29652.
...to such suits. The statutory period of limitations should be construed to operate prospectively and not retroactively. Field Packing Co. v. U. S., 6 Cir., 197 F.2d 329; U. S. v. Bowden, D.C.N.D.Ga., 105 F.Supp. 264, cf. U. S. v. Lindsay, D.C.Mass., 105 F.Supp 467. To hold otherwise, the cou......