Smith Land Co. v. Christensen, 3056.
| Citation | 148 F.2d 184 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 3056.,3056. |
| Parties | SMITH LAND CO. v. CHRISTENSEN et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
E. J. Skeen, of Salt Lake City, Utah (J. D. Skeen, of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
Joseph B. Zimowski, Atty., Department of Agriculture, of Washington, D. C. (Dan B. Shields, U. S. Atty., and Scott M. Matheson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Salt Lake City, Utah, and J. Stephen Doyle, Jr., and W. Carroll Hunter, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
Smith Land Company, a corporation, is engaged in the growing of wheat in Box Elder County, Utah. Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 52 Stat. 31, 52 Stat. 202, 53 Stat. 1126, 53 Stat. 1261, 54 Stat. 392, 54 Stat. 727, 54 Stat. 1209, 54 Stat. 1211, 55 Stat. 88, 55 Stat. 203, 55 Stat. 860, 55 Stat. 872, 56 Stat. 51, 56 Stat. 121, 56 Stat. 653, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1281 et seq., 1301 et seq., and the regulations promulgated under it, the county agricultural committee gave written notice to the company of its farm marketing quota and farm marketing excess in wheat for the year 1941. The company protested but a formal decision was rendered determining the excess. An appeal was taken to the district review committee, and the excess was confirmed, in a reduced amount. In accordance with Section 365 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1365, the company instituted this action in the United States Court for Utah against the members of the district review committee to obtain a review of the determination. The prayer was that the determination be vacated and set aside, and that the defendants be enjoined from claiming a lien against the wheat of the company. Following a pre-trial conference, the court remanded the proceeding to the district review committee for additional hearing into newly discovered evidence, and for further hearing, if desired by the company, upon matters previously heard by the committee; and the additional hearing was had. The defendants filed with the clerk of the court a duly certified transcript of the entire proceedings before the committee, together with the findings of fact, conclusions, and determination of the committee. After final hearing, the court entered an order in which the determination of the review committee was affirmed. The company appealed.
At the time of the filing of the complaint in this action, the excess wheat subject to penalty was in storage in a warehouse in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. A written stipulation was filed in the case which provided that the warehouseman might sell 700 bushels of the wheat and retain the proceeds of the sale in lieu of the wheat, and that the sale should be without prejudice to the rights of either party to the action. The court approved the stipulation and an order was entered authorizing the sale in accordance with its provisions. The wheat was sold, and other wheat — belonging to the warehouseman — was substituted for it in the warehouse. Thereafter all of the wheat of the company was sold and the money representing the penalty was appropriately impounded. The Secretary subsequently suspended wheat marketing quotas and released from penalty all excess wheat then in storage. When the cause came on for hearing in the court below, the company moved that the penalty on 700 bushels of the wheat be released. The court denied the motion, and that action is assigned as error. Section 365, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1365, supra, authorizes a producer of wheat who is dissatisfied with the determination of the review committee to file a bill in equity in the United States Court for the purpose of obtaining a review of the determination. And section 366, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1366, provides that the review shall be limited to questions of law; that the findings of fact by the review committee shall be conclusive, if supported by substantial evidence; that the case shall be heard and determined upon the record of the hearing or hearings before the review committee; and that the court shall affirm the determination of the committee, or remand the proceeding to the committee, with directions. The case was not a common-place one in which the court was clothed with its ordinary jurisdiction, legal or equitable. It was a special statutory proceeding in which jurisdiction extended only to review the action of the review committee. The review committee did not have anything to do with the imposition of the penalty or the release of it. That was entirely beyond the duties and functions of the committee. Since the court was required by the statute to hear and determine the case upon the record of the proceedings before the review committee, and to affirm the determination of the committee or remand the proceeding to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luke v. Review Committee, Civ. A. No. 6202.
...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 Operation of the Act. The purpose and necess......
-
Lee v. Roseberry
...S.Ct. 160, 83 L.Ed. 111, or through the method of an action against the Government under the Tucker Act, * * *." In Smith Land Co. v. Christensen, 10 Cir., 148 F.2d 184, 185, the Court, in referring to such a judicial review under the Act, stated that such a court was not clothed with its o......
-
Corpstein v. United States, 5923
...78 S.Ct. 48, 2 L.Ed.2d 44; United States v. Stangland, 7 Cir., 242 F. 2d 843; Lee v. Roseberry, 6 Cir., 200 F. 2d 155; Smith Land Co. v. Christensen, 10 Cir., 148 F.2d 184; United States v. Lillard, D.C.W.D.Mo., 143 F.Supp. Affirmed. 1 In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 115-116, 63 S.Ct. ......
-
Graham v. Lawrimore, Civ. A. No. 7231.
...of fact of the review committee if there is any competent evidence to support such findings. 7 U.S.C.A. § 1366; Smith Land Co. v. Christensen, 10 Cir., 148 F.2d 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. Ga......