Higgins v. Carr Bros Co
| Decision Date | 18 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 97,97 |
| Parties | HIGGINS v. CARR BROS. CO |
| Court | U.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.
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: (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
-
Leod v. Threlkeld
...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
...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
...(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.