Luke v. Review Committee, Civ. A. No. 6202.

CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtHUNTER
Citation155 F. Supp. 719
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 6202.
Decision Date14 October 1957
PartiesJohn B. LUKE v. REVIEW COMMITTEE, Composed of S. B. Thornton, R. B. Fritz, and E. L. Roge, Duly Appointed By U. S. Secretary of Agriculture in Accordance With and Pursuant to Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as Amended.

155 F. Supp. 719

John B. LUKE
v.
REVIEW COMMITTEE, Composed of S. B. Thornton, R. B. Fritz, and E. L. Roge, Duly Appointed By U. S. Secretary of Agriculture in Accordance With and Pursuant to Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as Amended.

Civ. A. No. 6202.

United States District Court W. D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division.

October 14, 1957.


155 F. Supp. 720

John A. Boatner, Jr., Bunkie, La., for plaintiff.

T. Fitzhugh Wilson, U. S. Atty., E. V. Boagni, Asst. U. S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for defendant.

HUNTER, District Judge.

This case arises under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "Act". Plaintiff is a cotton farmer operating in Avoyelles Parish. Prior to 1957 he had operated a farm owned by John B. Snelling, comprising 450 acres of land, of which 318.1 acres is crop land, and identified in the records of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee as Farm No. J-6515. On December 3, 1956, a Notice of Farm Acreage Allotment and Marketing Quota for the year 1957 of 71.2 acres of cotton was issued to the plaintiff as operator of the farm. On January 11, 1957, the plaintiff purchased the entire farm from John B. Snelling. On the same date he conveyed 299.92 acres of the farm to F. C. and E. A. Townsend, 220.7 acres of which was crop land. The plaintiff retained 150.8 acres of the farm, which included 97.4 acres of crop land. In the contract of sale the plaintiff attempted to convey one-half of the cotton allotment on farm No. J-6515, erroneously described as a 76 acre allotment, and to retain one-half of the allotment. On the same date, the plaintiff and the Townsends executed a lease agreement whereby the Townsends leased to the applicant 126 acres of the land purchased by them, which included 120 acres of the crop land. This lease agreement recited that the Townsends had received a 38 acre cotton allotment in the contract of sale of 299.92 acres of land, and attempted to grant such allotment to the plaintiff for the term of the lease.

The County Committee proceeded, under applicable regulations, to reconstitute the divisions of the farm. The Committee determined that the 150.8 acre tract owned by the plaintiff and the 126 acre tract leased by him were adjacent and would be operated as to cotton production identically as he had operated the original farm for some seven years preceding, with respect to the rotation of crops and the use of farm machinery and labor. Accordingly, the Committee determined, under Section 722.812(c) of the Acreage Allotment Regulations for the 1957 Crop of Upland Cotton, 21 F.R. 7817, that all the land to be operated by the plaintiff in 1957 constituted a farm and designated such farm as J-9501. The Committee further determined

155 F. Supp. 721
that the land to be operated by the Townsends in 1957, of 173.92 acres, constituted a farm and designated it Farm No. J-9502. Once this determination was made, it became necessary for the County Committee, in accordance with the regulations, to apportion between the two farms the cotton allotment of 71.2 acres which had been granted to the original farm J-6515. The apportionment was made under the provisions of Section 722.817(h) (1) (i) (ii) of the regulations, which provides that the cotton acreage history for a divided farm shall be apportioned among the tracts in proportion to the acreage of crop-land on each tract. Farm J-9501 had 217.4 acres of crop land and farm J-9502 had 100.7 acres of crop land. When the base history for farm J-6515 was apportioned between the two farms, there resulted a cotton allotment for farm 1-9501 of 48.7 acres and a cotton allotment for farm J-9502 of 22.5 acres. Due notice of this allotment on farm J-9501 was given to the plaintiff on February 7, 1957. Within 15 days thereafter and pursuant to 7 U.S.C.A. § 1363, the plaintiff applied for a review of the farm marketing quota, including the acreage allotment by the local Review Committee. After a hearing on April 5, 1957, and the submission of briefs on behalf of the parties, the Review Committee determined that the County Committee had properly applied the regulations and affirmed the reconstitution of the farm and the farm marketing quota and resultant acreage allotment established for farm J-9501. The present action was instituted against the Review Committee pursuant to 7 U.S.C.A. § 1365, for the purpose of obtaining a judicial review of the Review Committee's action. This is a special statutory proceeding in which jurisdiction extends only to review the action of the Committee and the court is limited in its scope of inquiry to questions of law and is bound by the findings of fact of the Review Committee if there is any 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 439

Operation of the Act.

The purpose and necessity for the Act are set forth in 7 U.S.C.A. § 1282 and the legislative findings contained in 7 U.S.C.A. § 1341.

The Act actually establishes a marketing quota for each farm, which is the number of pounds of cotton that are produced on the acres of cotton allotted to the farm. 7 U.S.C.A. § 1345. Throughout the Act, the emphasis is on the farm, not on the owner or operator, and acreage allotments are based on the past planted history of cotton on the particular farm. 7 U.S.C.A. § 1344(f) (6). It is specifically noted in the notice of allotment and quota given to the plaintiff, "This acreage allotment has been established for the farm and not for any individual producer."

The Issues as Raised by the Complaint.

The record discloses that the facts upon which the Review Committee based its decision are not in controversy. The plaintiff pegs its attack on four proposiions:

1. (a) That the contract of sale and contract of lease should govern the reconstitution of the farm for the year 1957, and that the contract of sale and lease settle the right of the plaintiff to plant the entire cotton allotment for the original farm J-6515.

(b) That the farm was improperly constituted, as it should have been constituted in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale and lease, rather than the provisions of the regulation.

(c) That the County Committee incorrectly determined that the land to be operated by the plaintiff in 1957 constituted a farm under the regulations.

2. That the provision of the regulations, Section 722.825, prohibiting the transfer or assignment of cotton acreage allotments is arbitrary and capricious, and exceeds the authority and powers vested in the Secretary under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1375(b).

155 F. Supp. 722

3. That if Section 722.825 of the regulations is within the authority of the Secretary, then said section violates the 5th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

4. That the determination of the Review Committee fails to give effect to the provisions of Sections 485.221 and 485.222 of the regulations under the Soil Bank Act.

It is the position of the defendant herein that it and the County Committee were governed by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • REVIEW COMMITTEE, VENUE VII, ETC. v. Willey, No. 16285.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 18, 1960
    ...substantial evidence to support its conclusions. Lee v. DeBerry, supra, at page 780 of 65 S.E.2d; Luke v. Review Committee, D.C.W.D.La., 155 F.Supp. 719, We consider then (a) the rejection of the applicability of Reason (v); (b) the acceptance of Reason (iv); (c) the elimination of 1954, 19......
  • McClung v. Thompson, No. 19190
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 2, 1968
    ...250 F. Supp. 893, 897 (E.D.N.C.1966); Williamson v. Holland, 232 F.Supp. 479, 483 401 F.2d 257 (E.D.N.C.1963); Luke v. Review Committee, 155 F.Supp. 719, 723 (W.D.La. 1957); Allen v. Benson, 192 So.2d 622 (La.App.1966);2 Duncan v. Black, 324 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.App.1959); Mace v. Berry, 225......
  • Balkcom v. Cross, No. 21032
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • January 5, 1961
    ...in those instances for which provision is expressly made in the regulations. Duncan v. Black, supra; Luke v. Review Committee, D.C.La., 155 F.Supp. 719; Mace v. Berry, 225 S.C. 160, 81 S.E.2d 276. The very [216 Ga. 533] nature of an acreage allotment of the enumerated crops is such that it ......
  • Duncan v. Black, No. 7737
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 15, 1959
    ...bartered or removed to other land. 5 A situation somewhat similar to the one at hand arose in Luke v. Review Committee, D.C.W.D.La., 155 F.Supp. 719. A part of a farm was sold and the parties attempted themselves to divide the then existing allotment. The court said, loc. cit. 'The County C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • REVIEW COMMITTEE, VENUE VII, ETC. v. Willey, No. 16285.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 18, 1960
    ...substantial evidence to support its conclusions. Lee v. DeBerry, supra, at page 780 of 65 S.E.2d; Luke v. Review Committee, D.C.W.D.La., 155 F.Supp. 719, We consider then (a) the rejection of the applicability of Reason (v); (b) the acceptance of Reason (iv); (c) the elimination of 1954, 19......
  • McClung v. Thompson, No. 19190
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 2, 1968
    ...250 F. Supp. 893, 897 (E.D.N.C.1966); Williamson v. Holland, 232 F.Supp. 479, 483 401 F.2d 257 (E.D.N.C.1963); Luke v. Review Committee, 155 F.Supp. 719, 723 (W.D.La. 1957); Allen v. Benson, 192 So.2d 622 (La.App.1966);2 Duncan v. Black, 324 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.App.1959); Mace v. Berry, 225......
  • Balkcom v. Cross, No. 21032
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • January 5, 1961
    ...in those instances for which provision is expressly made in the regulations. Duncan v. Black, supra; Luke v. Review Committee, D.C.La., 155 F.Supp. 719; Mace v. Berry, 225 S.C. 160, 81 S.E.2d 276. The very [216 Ga. 533] nature of an acreage allotment of the enumerated crops is such that it ......
  • Duncan v. Black, No. 7737
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 15, 1959
    ...bartered or removed to other land. 5 A situation somewhat similar to the one at hand arose in Luke v. Review Committee, D.C.W.D.La., 155 F.Supp. 719. A part of a farm was sold and the parties attempted themselves to divide the then existing allotment. The court said, loc. cit. 'The County C......
  • 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