Krueger v. Acme Fruit Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7364.,7364. |
| Citation | 75 F.2d 67 |
| Parties | KRUEGER v. ACME FRUIT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
T. T. Oughterson, of Stuart, Fla., for appellant.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Annie S. Krueger sued the Acme Fruit Company to recover judgment upon a reparation order made by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, 7 USCA, c. 24, § 551 et seq. She attached a copy of, and made a part of her petition, the order of the Secretary finding that the defendant was a dealer within the meaning of the act; that both parties had waived formal hearing; that in 1928 they had entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase for five years of the oranges and grape fruit grown on the plaintiff's grove in Florida "at the sum of $1 per field crate upon the trees"; that the defendant had failed to pay for 1,233 crates, and therefore owed the plaintiff $1,233, with interest; that the contract price had not been reduced by subsequent oral agreement, as contended by the defendant; that the parties contemplated that the fruit would be shipped to points in other states; and that it was actually shipped to New York City. A copy of the written contract, also attached to the petition, bears out the Secretary's findings as to the sale of the fruit and as to the purchase price. It appears from the petition that both plaintiff and defendant are citizens of Florida.
The District Judge, being of opinion that the cause of action sued on did not arise in a transaction in interstate commerce, dismissed the petition on demurrer for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff appeals.
The act contains the following provisions: A dealer is defined to be a person engaged in the business of buying or selling in carload lots any perishable agricultural commodity in interstate or foreign commerce, but no producer is to be considered as a dealer "in respect of sales of any such commodity of his own raising." 7 USCA § 551 (6). A transaction is to be considered in interstate commerce if the commodity dealt with "is part of that current of commerce usual in the trade" and is sent from one state with the expectation that it will end its transit after purchase in another state. Section 551 (8). It is made unlawful for a dealer to fail or to refuse to account promptly to a person with whom any such transaction is had. Section 552 (4). The dealer is also liable to the person injured in damages, and such liability may be enforced either by complaint to the Secretary, or by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction; the remedy by complaint being in addition to, and not in abridgment of, other remedies existing at common law or by statute. Section 555. Upon complaint to him of any violation, the Secretary is authorized, after hearing had upon due notice to the parties interested, to enter a reparation order directing the dealer to pay the amount of damages sustained by the injured person. If the dealer fail to comply with such an order, the person for whose benefit it was made may file...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Board of Equalization v. Blind Bull Coal Co.
...defined by numerous cases. Comm. v. Pacific States Association, 273 U.S. 52; Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238; Krueger v. Acme Fruit Company, 75 F.2d 67. Wallace v. Currin, 95 F.2d 856, contains excellent review of the authorities. Foster Company v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1. The presen......
-
Walling v. Mutual Wholesale Food & Supply Co.
...of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 43 S.Ct. 470, 67 L.Ed. 839; Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 379, 83 L.Ed. 441; Krueger v. Acme Fruit Co., 5 Cir., 75 F.2d 67. Here the language is different; the test is whether employees are `in In Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 172, 174,......
-
Walling v. Goldblatt Bros., 7892.
...of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 43 S.Ct. 470, 67 L.Ed. 839; Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 379, 83 L.Ed. 441; Krueger v. Acme Fruit Co., 5 Cir., 75 F.2d 67. Here the language is different; the test is whether employees are "in In Stafford v. Wallace, supra, great herds of livestoc......
-
Wallace v. Currin
...is a current of commerce among the states, and the purchase of the cattle is a part and incident of such commerce." In Krueger v. Acme Fruit Co., 5 Cir., 75 F.2d 67, 68, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit upheld the provision of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of ......