Rymer v. Garnett
| Citation | 244 S.W.2d 439 |
| Parties | RYMER et al. v. GARNETT. |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1951 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
David C. Walls, U. S. Dist. Atty., Charles F. Wood, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., Louisville, Neil Brooks, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Richard L. Garnett, Glasgow, for appellee.
Appellee, Richard L. Garnett, is the owner of ten tracts of land in Barren County aggregating some 279 acres. The County Committee allotted him 5.8 acres for the growing of Burley tobacco in 1950. In due time he appealed to the Review Committee and insisted that his allotment should not be less than one acre for each of his ten tracts, or an aggregate of ten acres. The only evidence appellee introduced before the Review Committee was his affidavit. The Committee found that appellee's farm originally contained ten separate tracts, but it is operated as one farm, and it allotted him 5.8 acres for the growing of Burley tobacco in 1950.
Appellee filed in the Barren Circuit Court his petition in equity against the three members of the Review Committee wherein he asked the chancellor to direct that Committee to allot him ten acres for the growing of Burley tobacco in 1950 and all the years following. The chancellor granted the prayer of the petition, and the members of the Committee insist that the finding of the Committee being one of fact, supported by substantial evidence, is binding on the courts. It is the contention of appellee that the evidence shows he has ten farms and is entitled to an allotment of one acre on each of them.
As we see it, the issue in this case is whether appellee is operating one farm consisting of ten tracts or is operating ten separate farms.
Contained in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, Title 7 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1281-1407, is an orderly system for the growing and marketing of tobacco. Section 1363 provides if a farmer is dissatisfied with his marketing quota, he may go before a Review Committee; and an appeal from the Review Committee may be taken by filing a bill in equity in a circuit court of this State, Sec. 1365; but the findings of fact by the Review Committee, if supported by evidence, are binding upon the courts, Sec. 1366. We are confronted with no question of procedure, as the requirements of the federal statute were met in every step taken by appellee.
For the purpose of clarifying the Agricultural Adjustment Act and to assist the small grower of Burley tobacco, the 78th Congress passed Public Law No. 276, approved March 31, 1944, 7 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1313 note, which provides that the quota for '* * * any farm having a burley acreage allotment in 1943 shall not be less than one acre, or 25 per centum of the cropland, whichever is the smaller, * * *'. It is under this Act that appellee claims he is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luke v. Review Committee, Civ. A. No. 6202.
...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 The purpose and necessity for the Act are set forth in 7 U.S.C.A. § 1282 and the legislative findings contained in ......
-
Brown Hotel Co. v. Edwards
...77; Howells v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 122 Ind.App. 14, 102 N.E.2d 382. To the same effect, see Rymer v. Garnett, Ky., 244 S.W.2d 439. The claimant to establish eligibility should introduce testimony first at the hearing and has the burden of proof in this resp......
-
Graham v. Lawrimore, Civ. A. No. 7231.
...184, 185; Lee v. Berry, 1951, 219 S.C. 346, 65 S.E.2d 257, 259; Mace v. Berry, 1954, 225 S.C. 160, 81 S.E.2d 276, 281; Rymer v. Garnett, Ky. 1951, 244 S.W.2d 439, 440. It is observed that the entire Review Committee, at the request of the plaintiff, personally visited plaintiff's farm befor......