Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., No. 9411.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtFOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit
Citation113 F.2d 350
PartiesTROPPY v. LA SARA FARMERS GIN CO., Inc., et al.
Docket NumberNo. 9411.
Decision Date02 July 1940

113 F.2d 350 (1940)

TROPPY
v.
LA SARA FARMERS GIN CO., Inc., et al.

No. 9411.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 2, 1940.


113 F.2d 351

H. L. Hall, of Edinburg, Tex., for appellant.

Sid L. Hardin, of Edinburg, Tex., John S. L. Yost and W. Carroll Hunter, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., Douglas W. McGregor, U. S. Atty., of Houston, Tex., and Jas. L. Abney, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brownsville, Tex., for appellees.

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

The appellant challenges the constitutional validity of the cotton-marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.1 The judgment appealed from denied his right to recover from appellees amounts withheld under the act as penalties on sales of cotton in excess of marketing quotas established under the act for the marketing year 1938-1939. The United States was permitted to intervene as a defendant.2 To avoid repetition, reference is made to the complete statement of facts in the able opinion of the district court in this case.3

This cotton was produced on farms in Texas, and sold in Texas to appellees. They resold it to cotton merchants who, after compression, shipped it to an important concentration point in Texas, where large quantities of cotton were received from many states for reshipment almost entirely to foreign nations. Cotton concentrated at this point usually loses its identity as the product of any particular state or producer. Of the very small quantity reshipped to domestic points, a major portion goes to non-cotton-producing states. It is very probable that the final destination of this cotton was a foreign country, but it cannot be definitely traced beyond the State of Texas.

In 1937, Texas consumed slightly less than 2% of its production of 4,952,000 bales, Mississippi, slightly more than 2% of its 2,562,000, California, 3½% of its 723,000, and Arkansas, a negligible quantity of its 1,809,000 bales. The consumption, if any, in the producing states of Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, and Oklahoma was too negligible to report. On the other hand, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia consumed more than they produced, but, in each of these states, substantial quantities of cotton produced therein were shipped to points outside of the state, and each also received substantial quantities produced in other states. It is estimated that a bale of cotton produced in the United States travels from farm to mill, on an average, a distance of 4,000 miles.

Although the penalties in this case were imposed upon intrastate sales, the question is whether or not they were sales in the stream, or affecting the stream, of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • United States v. Shafer, Civ. No. 8218.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • June 17, 1955
    ...the Fifth Amendment. See also Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. 1092, and Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350. The right to measure asserted by the government in this case is in aid of and ancillary to the right to regulate the marketing of wheat, whi......
  • Filburn v. Helke, No. 118.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • March 14, 1942
    ...Smith, supra. A like decision has been reached as to the provisions relating to cotton. Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350. Denial of the same validity to wheat regulation, as a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, as has been accorded to the tobacco and......
  • Luke v. Review Committee, Civ. A. No. 6202.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • October 14, 1957
    ...D.C., 132 F. Supp. 659; 4 Cir., 229 F.2d 124; Rodgers v. United States, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 992; Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. We do not believe that the regulation in question violates the due process clause of......
  • Enterprise Box Co. v. Fleming, No. 9909.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 24, 1942
    ...954; United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430; Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F. 2d 350. 5 Cf. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L. R....
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • United States v. Shafer, Civ. No. 8218.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • June 17, 1955
    ...the Fifth Amendment. See also Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. 1092, and Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350. The right to measure asserted by the government in this case is in aid of and ancillary to the right to regulate the marketing of wheat, whi......
  • Filburn v. Helke, No. 118.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • March 14, 1942
    ...Smith, supra. A like decision has been reached as to the provisions relating to cotton. Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350. Denial of the same validity to wheat regulation, as a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, as has been accorded to the tobacco and......
  • Luke v. Review Committee, Civ. A. No. 6202.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • October 14, 1957
    ...D.C., 132 F. Supp. 659; 4 Cir., 229 F.2d 124; Rodgers v. United States, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 992; Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. We do not believe that the regulation in question violates the due process clause of......
  • Enterprise Box Co. v. Fleming, No. 9909.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 24, 1942
    ...954; United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430; Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F. 2d 350. 5 Cf. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L. R....
  • 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