United States v. Woerth
Decision Date | 06 May 1955 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 877. |
Citation | 130 F. Supp. 930 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, v. Leslie W. WOERTH, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
F. E. Van Alstine, U. S. Dist. Atty., Sioux City, Iowa, for petitioner.
William A. Shuminsky, Sioux City, Iowa, for respondent.
Harold LeVander and Roger C. Miller, South St. Paul, Minn., for the National Association of Order Buyers and Dealers, amicus curiae.
The petitioner seeks enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum against the respondent under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, 7 U.S.C.A. § 181 et seq.Section 202 of the Act7 U.S.C.A. defines the term "stockyard" as used therein as a "place, establishment, or facility commonly known as stockyards, conducted or operated for compensation or profit as a public market * * * in which live cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or goats are received, held, or kept for sale or shipment in commerce."When, under Section 203 of the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture has determined that a particular stockyard comes within the terms of the definition he posts notices to that effect in such stockyard.7 U.S. C.A. § 203.A stockyard in which such notice has been posted is known as a "posted" stockyard.A stockyard in which such notice has not been posted is known as an "unposted" stockyard.Section 203 of the Act also provides that no person may carry on the business of a market agency or dealer at a posted stockyard unless he has registered with the Secretary of Agriculture.Under Section 201 of the Act one selling or buying livestock in commerce on a commission basis at a "posted" stockyard is known as a marketing agency.Under the same Section a dealer is one, not a marketing agency, who is engaged in the business of buying or selling livestock in commerce at a "posted" stockyard either on his own account or as the employee or agent of the vendor or purchaser.Section 183 of the Act provides as follows:
Section 222 of the Act provides as follows:
Section 49 of Title 15 United States Code Annotated, referred to in Section 222 of the Act, provides, in part:
The Secretary of Agriculture promulgated certain regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act.One of those regulations appears as Regulation 201.94, Code of Federal Regulations.That Regulation provides as follows:
"Each packer, stockyard owner, registrant, and licensee shall give to the Secretary or his duly authorized representatives in writing or otherwise, and under oath or affirmation if requested by such representatives, any information concerning the business of the packer, stockyard owner, registrant, or licensee which may be required in order to carry out the provisions of the act and the regulations in this part within such reasonable time as may be specified in the request for such information."
Section 192 of the Packers and Stockyards Act enumerates a number of trade practices which are unlawful under the Act.Section 210 of that Act provides, in part, as follows:
The Sioux City Stockyards is a "posted" stockyard under the Packers and Stockyards Act.The respondent is engaged in buying and selling cattle on his own behalf at that stockyard.He is registered as a dealer with the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the Act.John Harvey Company is a marketing agency at the Sioux City Stockyards.It is registered as such with the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the Act.It maintains an office at 106 Live Stock Exchange Building at the Sioux City Stockyards.The transactions of the respondent at the Sioux City Stockyards are cleared through it.The books of the respondent relating to his cattle transactions at the Sioux City Stockyards are kept at the office of the John Harvey Company.The respondent owns and operates a farm a short distance from Sioux City.In January, 1951, the respondent and one Paul Fleming formed a partnership known as the Woerth Cattle Company.The partnership was dissolved in October or November, 1952.While the partnership was in existence it operated a stockyard at Clarence, Iowa, about 275 miles east of Sioux City.Since the dissolution of the partnership, the respondent has operated the stockyard at that place under the trade name of Woerth Cattle Company.In the partnership agreement and in the reports made, the principal place of business of the Woerth Cattle Company is given as 106 Live Stock Exchange Building, which, as noted, is at the Sioux City Stockyards.The respondent ships to the stockyard at Clarence, Iowa, cattle purchased by him at various places, including cattle purchased by him at the Sioux City Stockyards.The respondent keeps and maintains at the office of the John Harvey Company a set of records which he contends contains a record of his activities as a registered "dealer" under the Act.The petitioner refers to those records as the "regular account."The respondent keeps and maintains at the office of the John Harvey Company another set of records which he contends relates to his activities at the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
FCC v. Schreiber
...Commission, 200 F.2d 317, 321 (9th Cir. 1952); Detweiler Bros. v. Walling, 157 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1946); United States v. Woerth, 130 F.Supp. 930, 937-939 (N.D.Iowa 1956). The Federal Communications Commission possesses a broad power of investigation and subpoena, and the fact that the resp......
-
Small Business Administration v. Barron
...therefor is apparent. * * * Appellee has failed either to rebut or overcome this presumption." 153 F.2d at 34 In United States v. Woerth, 130 F. Supp. 930, 942 (N.D.Iowa 1955) aff. 231 F.2d 822 (8 Cir. 1956) the Court "Another requirement for an enforceable subpoena is that the information ......
-
Adams v. FTC
...501, 509, 63 S.Ct. 339, 87 L.Ed. 492; Civil Aeronautics Board of Hermann, 353 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 804, 1 L.Ed.2d 852; United States v. Woerth, D.C., 130 F.Supp. 930, 942, aff'd sub nom. Woerth v. United States, 8 Cir., 231 F.2d 822; Chapman v. Maren Elwood College, 9 Cir., 225 F.2d 230; McMa......
-
Murphy v. Society of Real Estate Appraisers
...power includes the ability to issue subpoenas to compel testimony and the production of records. See, e. g., United States v. Woerth, 130 F.Supp. 930, 943 (N.D. Iowa, 1955); Van Teslaar v. Bender, 365 F.Supp. 1007 (D.Md., The United States Supreme Court itself has held that no provision of ......