Janes v. Lake Wales Citrus Growers Ass'n, 9351.

Decision Date19 April 1940
Docket NumberNo. 9351.,9351.
Citation110 F.2d 653
PartiesJANES, Inspector, v. LAKE WALES CITRUS GROWERS ASS'N et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

George A. McNulty, Gen. Counsel, Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor, Irving J. Levy, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor, and John J. Babe and Bessie Margolin, Attys., Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor, all of Washington, D. C., and Herbert S. Phillips, U. S. Atty., of Tampa, Fla., for appellants.

John S. Lavin, Hugh Akerman, and William H. Dial, all of Orlando, Fla., and John W. Bull, G. L. Reeves, and Counts Johnson, all of Tampa, Fla., for appellees.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

The appellees as handlers, packers and canners of citrus fruits produced in Florida for market in interstate commerce filed their petition in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Elmer F. Andrews as Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor of the United States, and Roy L. Janes as Inspector of said Division for the State of Florida, and Herbert S. Phillips as United States District Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against the enforcement as to petitioners of Sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stats. p. 1060, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 207, and a declaratory judgment that a regulation made by the Administrator defining "Area of Production" is arbitrary and inconsistent with the act and void, and that petitioners are exempt from the operation of Sections 6 and 7. The Administrator was not served, but appeared specially to assert his official and personal residence to be respectively in the District of Columbia and State of New York and that the court in Florida had no jurisdiction over him, and he moved to dismiss the complaint as to him. This motion was granted. The Inspector and District Attorney were served and each moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim against him, and because he was not alleged to be threatening any action or prosecution, and had no power to enforce the act in general, and because neither the Administrator nor the Attorney General who had such power, nor the United States, were parties. These motions were overruled, and a preliminary injunction was granted on elaborate findings of fact and conclusions of law. This appeal followed.

We are of opinion that the injunction should have been refused and the motions to dismiss granted. The evidence showed that the Administrator was preparing to enforce the act throughout the country, but that the Inspector was only an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Acret v. Harwood
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • October 25, 1941
    ...1925, 266 U.S. 507, 45 S.Ct. 148, 69 L.Ed. 411; Jewel Productions v. Morgenthau, 2 Cir., 1938, 100 F.2d 390; Janes v. Lake Wales Citrus Growers Ass'n, 5 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 653; Ernest v. Fleissner, D.C.Wis.1941, 38 F. Supp. 326; Scientific Manufacturing Co. v. Walker, D.C.Pa.1941, 40 F.Su......
  • Hawthorne v. Fisher
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • June 18, 1940
    ...and inappropriate so far as the Secretary is concerned. Yarnell v. Hillsborough Packing Co., 5 Cir., 70 F.2d 435; Janes v. Lake Wales Citrus Growers Ass'n, 5 Cir., 110 F.2d 653; Redlands Foothill Groves v. Jacobs, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 995; Federal Trade Comm. v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160......
  • Ernest v. Fleissner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • April 15, 1941
    ...D.C.Okl., 22 F.Supp. 380; Wheeler v. Farley, D.C.Cal., 7 F.Supp. 433; Barr v. Rhodes, D.C.Ky., 35 F.Supp. 223; Janes v. Lake Wales Citrus Growers Assn., 5 Cir., 110 F.2d 653; Moody v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 66 F.2d 999; Doran v. Charles D. Kaier Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 259; Jewel Productions,......
  • Stroud v. Benson, 7555.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • April 1, 1958
    ...45 S. Ct. 148, 69 L.Ed. 411; Yarnell v. Hillsborough Packing Co., 5 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 435, 92 A.L.R. 1475; Janes v. Lake Wales Citrus Growers Ass'n, 5 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 653. Especially is this rule applied where the judgment awarded would "expend itself on the public treasury or domain......
  • 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