Lavitt v. United States, 12
| Citation | 177 F.2d 627 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | Docket 21286.,No. 12,12 |
| Parties | LAVITT et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Dennis P. O'Connor and John W. Joy, Hartford, Conn., attorneys and counsel for plaintiffs-appellants.
A. Devitt Vanech, Assistant Attorney General, Adrian W. Maher, United States Attorney, New Haven, Conn., Roger P. Marquis and S. Billingsley Hill, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., counsel for United States of America, defendant-appellee.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought by the plaintiffs under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of employees of the United States. The three Lavitts, plaintiffs doing business as the Lavitt Potato Company, leased a warehouse in Tolland County, Connecticut, from the plaintiffs Ida E. Rosenberg, Fannie R. Rosenberg, and Francis Homelson, and stored in it a quantity of potatoes and farm equipment. Thereafter, on October 17, 1946, the Lavitt Potato Company applied to the United States Department of Agriculture Production and Marketing Administration for a loan on the potatoes which might be authorized under certain acts of Congress and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. Such loans are made by the United States as part of its price support program. If the commodity can later be sold for more than the amount of the loan, the loan is repaid; if the market price is less than a fixed amount, the commodity is not sold, but the government takes it out of the market. The borrower is not liable for any deficiency arising from the sale of the collateral securing the loan, unless the loan has been secured through fraudulent representations. 7 U.S.C.A. § 1302(h). To administer its loan program the government utilizes the services of local agricultural committees or associations which are to be organized as follows:
* * *
"The Secretary shall make such regulations as are necessary relating to the selection and exercise of the functions of the respective committees, and to the administration, through such committees, of such programs." 16 U.S.C.A. § 590h (b).
Pursuant to regulation of the Secretary of Agriculture, application for the loan in the case at bar was made to the Tolland County Agricultural Conservation Association, which is the local committee for the area involved, and three inspectors were assigned to examine the potatoes. The official form of application for the loan by the Lavitt Potato Company provided that:
The expenses of inspection are paid for by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wollman v. Gross, Civ. 79-4031.
...Cir. 1970); Delgado v. Akins, 236 F.Supp. 202 (D.Ariz.1964); Myers v. Cromwell, 267 F.Supp. 12 (D.Kan.1967). Contra, Lavitt v. United States, 177 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1949). Jake Gross, Jr., was at the time of the accident and is now the District Director for the ASCS State Office. He is a ful......
-
Hollis v. School Bd. of Leon County
...1967); Yates v. United States, 365 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1966); Strangi v. United States, 211 F.2d 305 (5th Cir. 1954); Lavitt v. United States, 177 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1949). The rule in Florida as to non-public employers is the same. See, e.g., Mumby v. Bowden, 25 Fla. 454, 6 So. 453 (1889); S......
-
Martarano v. United States
...principle is that responsibility follows the right of supervision and control. Annotation, 57 A.L.R.2d 1448; Lavitt v. United States (2 CCA 1949), 177 F.2d 627; United States v. State of Maryland (1963), 116 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 322 F.2d 1009; Thomas v. United States (D.Vt. 1962), 204 F.Supp. ......
-
Gross v. Sederstrom
...and Myers were not federal employees entitled to governmental immunity, the appellant relies on the decision in Lavitt v. United States, 177 F.2d 627 (2nd Cir. 1949). We do not view Lavitt as controlling. This Court studied the structure of the A.S.C. Committees in Duba v. Schuetzle, 303 F.......