In re Swanton Market Area
| Decision Date | 06 January 1942 |
| Citation | 23 A.2d 536,112 Vt. 285 |
| Parties | IN RE SWANTON MARKET AREA |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
November Term, 1941.
Milk Control Board.---1. Policy of No. 99 of Acts of 1937.---2. Local Findings Conform with Policy of No. 99 of Acts of 1937.---3. Absurd Statutory Construction Avoided.---4. No. 99 of Acts of 1937 Supplemental to Existing Laws.---5. P. L 7731--7737, Inclusive, Repealed by No. 209 of Acts of 1939 as Amended by No. 176 of Acts of 1941.---6. Legislature Charged with Knowledge of Prior Legislation.---7. No. 99 of Acts of 1937 and No. 209 of Acts of 1939 Deal with Same Subject Matter.---8. Jurisdictional Requisite of No. 99 of Acts of 1937.---9. Continuing Jurisdiction of Milk Board under Section 5 of No. 99 of Acts of 1937.---10. Consideration of Evidence Supporting Administrative Findings.---11. Evidence of Lessened Availability Contrary to Intent of Milk Control Board.---12. Milk Board Order Without Jurisdiction Void.
1. In Section 1 of No. 99 of the Acts of 1937 the Legislature first declared that the production and distribution of milk is a matter of paramount public interest because public health requires an abundant supply of pure milk and then declares that those engaged in the milk business are carrying on improper trade practices "which are likely to result in an undermining of health regulations and standards" which is in effect a declaration that the improper trade practices are likely to result in a loss or substantial lessening of the supply of milk of proper quality so that public health is thereby likely to be impaired or deteriorated.
2. A finding by the milk control board merely that a loss or substantial lessening of a supply of milk of proper quality in a specified area is likely to occur and that thereby the public health is likely to be impaired or deteriorated is but a mere recital that there is present in such area a condition which the Legislature has already found to exist not only there but also in all other parts of the state in Section 1 of No. 99 of the Acts of 1937.
3. Construction of a statute which leads to absurd consequences must always be avoided if possible.
4. Section 1 of No. 99 of the Acts of 1937, stating the general purpose of the act to be to control in general all milk sold to the inhabitants of the state, must be considered in connection with the last sentence of section 4 of the Act stating that its authority is supplemental and in addition to but not in lieu of existing laws.
5. Sections 7731 to 7737, inclusive, of the Public Laws which were in force at the time No. 99 of the Acts of 1937 was enacted were repealed by No. 209 of the Acts of 1939 as amended by No. 176 of the Acts of 1941 which now stands in lieu of such sections.
6. It is to be presumed that the Legislature in enacting a statute acted with full knowledge of prior legislation on the same subject.
7. Both No. 99 of the Acts of 1937 and No. 209 of the Acts of 1939 deal with the matter of the sale of milk to the inhabitants of this state and being in pari materia they are to be construed together as parts of one system.
8. Before the milk control board can under No. 99 of the Acts of 1937 lawfully establish prices to be paid for milk or cream in any specified market area, it must first find from competent and proper evidence that there has occurred in such area a loss or substantial lessening of the supply of milk of proper quality whereby the public health is menaced or jeopardized or is likely to be impaired or deteriorated, and when these facts have been found, it shall fix reasonable maximum or minimum prices or both to be paid for milk in such area.
9. The authority of the milk control board to control milk prices in an area remains with the board as long as the condition which brought about the requisite loss or substantial lessening of the supply of milk of proper quality is found to prevail in such market, section 5 of No. 99 of the Acts of 1937.
10. When findings of an administrative board indicate a determination of the requisite facts for its jurisdiction upon appeal the question of whether such findings so construed are supported by the evidence may be considered.
11. Evidence tending to show that compliance with an order of the milk control board raising the price of milk so that many poor families will not be able to purchase as much milk as before or in some cases may be unable to purchase milk when there has been no change in the supply of milk available for sale does not support a finding of a loss or substantial lessening of the supply of milk but on the contrary tends to create the resulting lessening of availability of milk which the action of the milk control board was calculated to prevent.
12. A price fixing order by the milk control board is issued without authority of law when the requisite jurisdictional facts have not been found upon competent evidence.
PETITION by George L. Loiselle and twenty-five other residents of Swanton to the Milk Control Board requesting abolishment of Swanton Milk Market Area. The Board, E. H Jones, Chairman, T. C. Dale and W. H. Carter, heard evidence, made findings of fact and order. Petition for rehearing was denied and matter passed to Supreme Court. The opinion states the case.
This said order is set aside, vacated and held for naught. To be certified to the milk control board.
Sylvester & Ready for petitioners.
Robert H. Ryan for Vermont Milk Producers Association, Walter Hayward, H. W. Hubbard and Ingleside Dairies.
Present: MOULTON, C. J., SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT and JEFFORDS, JJ.
This case is brought here by several people residing within the Swanton milk market area. They contend that the order of the milk control board, hereinafter referred to as the board, dated April 7, 1941, is illegal for that the board was without lawful authority to make it.
It appears from the record that the Swanton market area formerly included that part of the incorporated village of Swanton over which there was free delivery of mail, excluding R. F D. routes. On January 15, 1941, by an order of that date made after hearing on a petition presented by dealers furnishing more than 70% of milk used in that territory, the board enlarged this market area so as to include the territory for a distance of two miles westerly and two miles southerly of the Swanton post office and to the Highgate line on the north and east. A short time after the above mentioned order was promulgated, several citizens residing in this area brought their petition to the board asking for the abolishment and disestablishment of the Swanton milk area over which the board exercised jurisdiction by maintaining a schedule of prices to be paid for milk and cream therein.
This petition was considered by the board at a hearing in Swanton held March 27, 1941. The Vermont Milk Producers Association and three milk dealers in the Swanton area appeared to oppose the granting of this petition. It also appears from the record that the board at this time "under the authority granted to it by No. 99 of the Public Acts of 1937, on its own initiative, was desirous of inquiring into all and singular the matters of production, distribution and sale of milk insofar as the public health may be menaced, jeopardized or likely to be impaired or deteriorated by the loss or substantial lessening of the supply of milk and cream of the proper quality in the so-called Swanton market."
Findings of fact were made and an order fixing prices for milk and cream in that area was issued by the board April 7, 1941. The questions presented for our consideration are concerned with numbers one and two of these findings, which are as follows:
After making the above findings the board issued an order fixing prices to be paid for milk and cream in that area.
The petitioners contend that these findings are wholly without supporting evidence and are based upon mere conjecture, assumptions and speculation and not upon evidence or inferences which could be drawn from any evidence introduced at the trial.
They also insist that because the findings and order are without supporting evidence said order, including the schedule of prices contained therein, is unlawful and is also unreasonable because it works a hardship on the underprivileged class of people in this district, in that it prevents them from buying milk at a price which they can afford to pay.
The questions raised here have to do with the construction of section 5 of No. 99 of the Acts of 1937, which so far as here material is as follows:
"Whenever the board shall determine, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative, after public notice and hearing, that the public health is menaced, jeopardized or likely to be impaired or deteriorated by the loss or substantial lessening of the supply of milk of proper quality in a specified market, the board shall fix the just reasonable minimum or maximum price, or both, that shall be paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial