Illinois Packing Co. v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 15 August 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 223.,223. |
| Citation | 156 F.2d 1000 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS PACKING CO. v. HENDERSON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Peter B. Atwood, of Chicago, Ill. (Irwin N. Walker and Walker & Atwood, all of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for complainant.
Stephen R. Chummers, of Chicago, Ill. (John D. Goodloe, James L. Dougherty, and John C. Erickson, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondents.
Before MARIS, Chief Judge and MAGRUDER and McALLISTER, Judges.
Heard at Chicago May 28, 1946.
Illinois Packing Company, the complainant here, is engaged in the slaughter of cattle and other livestock. During the period from November 1, 1943 to May 29, 1944 it sold 98% or more of the total dressed carcass weight of the cattle it slaughtered in the form of carcasses, whole sale cuts, frozen boneless beef (Army specification) (carcass equivalent) or ground beef. It claimed and was paid for the period from November 1, 1943 to April 30, 1944 the special subsidy of 80 cents per cwt. allowed to non-processing slaughterers by Amendment No. 21 to Regulation No. 32 issued by Defense Supplies Corporation, a wholly owned and since dissolved subsidiary of Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The amount of special subsidy thus received by the complainant was $308,520.08. During the period mentioned and prior thereto 48% of the common stock of the complainant was owned directly or indirectly by Pfaelzer Brothers who were processors or purveyors of meat. The remainder of the common stock was distributed among 31 other holders.
On May 20, 1944 Defense Supplies Corporation notified the complainant that it considered that the complainant was not entitled to the special subsidy allowed to non-processing slaughterers since over 10% of its stock was owned by a processor or purveyor of meat; Pfaelzer Brothers.3 Defense Supplies Corporation thereupon recouped from the complainant the sum of $308,520.08 which it had received as special subsidy for the prior period and denied its claim for $48,086.95 as special subsidy for the period from May 1, 1944 to May 29, 1944. On May 29, 1944 Pfaelzer Brothers disposed of their stock in the complainant and thereafter Defense Supplies Corporation resumed payment to the latter of the special subsidy.
The complainant thereafter filed a protest against the regulation, as amended, with Defense Supplies Corporation which the latter denied. The present complaint was then filed. A motion to dismiss the complaint as beyond the jurisdiction of this court was denied. Illinois Packing Co. v. Snyder, Em.App. 1945, 151 F.2d 337. After the passage of the Act of June 23, 19454 the complainant filed a claim for relief under that act and succeeded in securing the repayment to it of the sum of $308,520.08 which Defense Supplies Corporation had required it to refund. It still claims, however, to be entitled to $48,068.95 special subsidy for the first 29 days of May, 1944, which it never received or refunded, and therefore continues to press this suit by which it seeks to have set aside so much of the definitions contained in Section 14 of Regulation No. 3 of Defense Supplies Corporation, as added by Amendment No. 2, as deny to it the classification of "unaffiliated slaughterer" and thereby deny it the right to receive the special subsidy provided for by the section.
The complainant contends that the definitions in question are unlawful in that they narrow the class of nonprocessing slaughterers entitled to receive the special subsidy to an extent not authorized by the Directive of the Economic Stabilization Director5 pursuant to which Amendment No. 2 to Regulation No. 3 was issued. It further contends that the definitions are arbitrary and capricious in setting up a conclusive presumption of fact that a nonprocessing slaughterer is owned or controlled by a processor or purveyor of meat and is therefore not entitled to the special subsidy if more than 10% of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evergreen Meat Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
...Supplies Corp., Em.App., 1946, 155 F.2d 525, certiorari denied 1946, 329 U.S. 737, 67 S.Ct. 51, 91 L.Ed. 637, Illinois Packing Co. v. Henderson, Em.App., 1946, 156 F.2d 1000, and Flour Mills of America, Inc., v. R. F. C., Em.App., 1950, 179 F.2d 965, this court considered and determined upo......
-
Borelli v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
...v. Defense Supplies Corp., Em.App.1946, 155 F.2d 525, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 737, 67 S.Ct. 51, 91 L.Ed. 637; Illinois Packing Co. v. Henderson, Em.App.1946, 156 F.2d 1000, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 783, 67 S.Ct. 202, 91 L. Ed. 671. In other words, complainant submits that his "affiliat......
-
Belle City Packing Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
...Co., Inc. v. RFC, Em.App.1946, 155 F.2d 533, certiorari denied 1946, 329 U.S. 737, 67 S.Ct. 52, 91 L.Ed. 637; Illinois Packing Co. v. Henderson, Em.App. 1946, 156 F.2d 1000, certiorari denied 1946, 329 U.S. 783, 67 S.Ct. 202, 91 L.Ed. 671. We refer to our opinions in those cases for discuss......
-
Maloney Packing Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
...Meat Co., Inc., v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., Em.App. 1946, 155 F.2d 533 certiorari denied 67 S.Ct. 52; Illinois Packing Co. v. Henderson, Em.App. 1946, 156 F.2d 1000, certiorari denied 67 S.Ct. 202. To the same effect, see Somerville Dressed Meat Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., Em.......