Higgins v. Carr Bros Co

Decision Date18 January 1943
Docket NumberNo. 97,97
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Edward B. Perry, of Portland, Maine, for petitioner.

Messrs. Clement F. Robinson and Francis W. Sullivan, both of Portland, Maine, for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. —-, decided today, and is here on certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Higgins claims minimum wages and overtime compensation alleged to be due him under §§ 6(a) and 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206(a), 207(a), between January 1939 and July 1940. Prior to that time respondent, which conducts a wholesale fruit, grocery and produce business in Portland, Maine, had been selling and delivering its merchandise not only to the local trade in Maine but also to retailers in New Hampshire. For the period here in question the New Hampshire trade had been discontinued and all sales and deliveries were solely to retailers in Maine. The only additional facts which we know about respondent's course of business are accurately summarized in the following excerpt from the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court: 'It buys its merchandise from local producers and from dealers in other states, has it delivered by truck and rail, unloaded into its store and warehouse and from there sells and distributes it to the retail trade. While some of the produce and fruit is processed, much of it is sold in the condition in which it is received. The corporation owns all of its merchandise and makes its own deliveries. It makes no sales on commission nor on order with shipments direct from the dealer or producer to the retail purchaser.' (25 A.2d 214, 215.) Higgins' employment involved work as night shipper putting up orders and loading trucks for delivery to retail dealers in Maine or driving a truck distributing merchandise to the local trade.

Petitioner in his brief describes the business in somewhat greater detail and seeks to show an actual or practical continuity of movement of merchandise from without the state to respondent's regular customers within the state. But here, unlike Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., there is nothing in the record before us to support those statements nor to impeach the accuracy of the conclusion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine that when the merchandise coming from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
95 cases
  • Leod v. Threlkeld
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1943
    ...F.2d 120; Consolidated Timber Co. v. Womack, 9 Cir., 132 F.2d 101. 5 Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., supra; Higgins v. Carr Bros. Co., 317 U.S. 572, 63 S.Ct. 337, 87 L.Ed. —-. 6 The contention that the work of the employee is covered by the exemption of Sec. 13(a)(2)—'any employee engage......
  • Frankfort Distilleries v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 13, 1944
    ...Ass'n v. United States, supra; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460; Higgins v. Carr Bros. Co., 317 U.S. 572, 63 S.Ct. 337, 87 L.Ed. 468; Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 202; Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 172; Walling v. Goldbl......
  • State of Maryland v. Wirtz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 13, 1967
    ...(1942). See also, Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125, 128, 63 S.Ct. 494, 87 L.Ed. 656 (1943); Higgins v. Carr Bros. Co., 317 U.S. 572, 574, 63 S.Ct. 337, 87 L.Ed. 468 (1943); Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co., 362 U.S. 310, 313, 80 S.Ct. 739, 4 L.Ed.2d 753 3 The principal amendatory e......
  • Brennan v. Wilson Building, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 22, 1973
  • 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