Lee v. Berry
Decision Date | 21 May 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 16507,16507 |
Citation | 219 S.C. 346,65 S.E.2d 257 |
Parties | LEE v. BERRY et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Neil Brooks, Sol., U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., Ben Scott Whaley, U. S. Atty., Charleston, Russell D. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Florence, for appellants.
Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, Florence, for respondent.
According to the agreed statement the respondent, owner of a farm in Florence County, South Carolina, for which a 1949 tobacco acreage of 20.0 acres had been established, leased in January of that year approximately 21 acres of cropland to a tenant named Jordan, it being understood that no part of the tobacco acreage allotment for the respondent's farm would go to Jordan. In the summer of 1949 the Florence County Committee apportioned the 20-acre allotment previously established for the respondent's farm and established an allotment of 17.3 acres for the part of the land operated by the respondent and an allotment of 2.7 acres for the part of the land leased to the tenant Jordan. The respondent appealed from the action of the Courty Committee to the Review Committee, and the Review Committee affirmed the action of the County Committee. Respondent asked under the provisions of sections 361-368 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 62-64, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1361-1368, that the decisions of the Review Committee and the County Committee be reversed and that the tobacco acreage allotment for his farm be established at 20 acres.
The answer of the appellants admits, in substance, the apportioment of the tobacco acreage allotment by the County Committee, the appeal therefrom by the respondent to the Review Committee, and the affirmance by the Review Committee of the County Committee's apportionment. The answer alleges that the respondent's farm was operated in 1949 as two farms, that the respondent had no interest in the crops grown by the tenant Jordan, and that the apportionment of the tobacco acreage allotment between the two farms was made in accordance with the provisions of the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.
The case was heard by Honorable G. Badger Baker, Resident Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in this chambers in Florence, South Carolina, upon the record certified by the clerk of the Review Committee and filed in the office of the Clerk of Court for Florence County. Judge Baker, by an order dated December 29, 1949, held, in substance, that the Review Committee and the County Committee erred in apportioning the 1949 tobacco acreage allotment for the respondent's farm between the land operated by the respondent and the land operated by the tenant Jordan, and that the allotment for the land operated by the respondent should be 20 acres.
Appellants now come to this Court upon exceptions which present the question of whether or not the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, and the regulations issued thereunder require the 1949 tobacco acreage allotment established for the respondent's farm to be apportioned between that portion of the farm operated by respondent and that operated by the lessee.
By a written lease dated January 1, 1949, respondent leased approximately 21 acres of his farm to a nephew named Jordan. The lease was for a period of one year and continues from year to year thereafter until notice of termination is given by either party, the lessee to 'occupy and use' the premises for 'agricultural and related purposes.' It was expressly stated in the lease that he could plant approximately 10 acres of cotton, 3 acres of pepper and 8 acres of corn. No mention was made of tobacco.
During the summer of 1949 the lessee Jordan applied to the Courty Committee for an apportinment between his land and that of respondent of the tobacco acreage allotment which had been previously established on the whole of respondent's farm. The County Committee concluded that the farm was being operated as two farms and proceeded to make such apportionment. Respondent appealed to the Review Committee contending that no apportionment should be made because an agreement had been entered into between him and the lessee to the effect that no tobacco was to be planted thereon. The Review Committee affirmed the action of the County Committee and respondent appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Florence County.
Section 725.521(a) of the regulations (13 F.R. 4813) of the Secretary of Agriculture, issued pursuant to section 375(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1375(b), provides that whenever land which was operated as a sinle farm in 1948 was to be operated in 1949 as two or more farms, the 1949 tobacco acreage allotment previously determined or that otherwise would have been determined for the entire farm shall be apportioned among the two or more farms in a prescribed manner, said regulations being published in 13 F.R. 4813 and set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (7 C.F.R. 725.521), the relevant section of which appears as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
REVIEW COMMITTEE, VENUE VII, ETC. v. Willey
...Lee v. DeBerry, 219 S.C. 382, 387, 65 S.E.2d 775, 777, or, as the same court has described it, "competent evidence." Lee v. Berry, 219 S.C. 346, 352, 65 S.E.2d 257, 259; Mace v. Berry, 225 S.C. 160, 171, 81 S.E. 2d 276, 280. And "* * * it is not the Court's function to substitute its judgme......
-
Board of Bank Control v. Thomason
...the holdings of this Court in Jacoby v. South Carolina State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, 219 S.C. 66, 64 S.E.2d 138; Lee v. Berry, 219 S.C. 346, 65 S.E.2d 257; and Lee v. DeBerry, 219 S.C. 382, 65 S.E.2d 775. I would, therefore, affirm the Order appealed ...
-
Luke v. Review Committee, Civ. A. No. 6202.
...competent evidence to support such findings. 7 U.S.C.A. § 1366, Smith Land Company v. Christensen, 10 Cir., 148 F.2d 184; Lee v. Berry, 219 S.C. 346, 65 S.E.2d 257; Rymer v. Garnett, Ky., 244 S.W.2d Operation of the Act. The purpose and necessity for the Act are set forth in 7 U.S.C.A. § 12......
-
McClung v. Thompson
...(La.App.1966);2 Duncan v. Black, 324 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.App.1959); Mace v. Berry, 225 S.C. 160, 81 S.E.2d 276 (1954); Lee v. Berry, 219 S.C. 346, 65 S.E.2d 257 (1951). We therefore conclude that there is no basis in fact or law to sustain the court's action in submitting the conversion iss......