Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co, No. 336

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS
Citation87 L.Ed. 460,63 S.Ct. 332,317 U.S. 564
Decision Date18 January 1943
Docket NumberNo. 336
PartiesWALLING, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, v. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO

317 U.S. 564
63 S.Ct. 332
87 L.Ed. 460
WALLING, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor,

v.

JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO.

No. 336.
Argued Nov. 19, 20, 1942.
Decided Jan. 18, 1943.

Page 565

Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Louis Kurz, of Jacksonville, Fla., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit brought by the Administrator to enjoin respondent from violating provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. Respondent is engaged in the wholesale business, distributing paper products and related articles. Its business covers a large area embraced within a number of states in the southeastern part of the country. The major portion of the products which it distributes comes from a large number of manufacturers and other suppliers located in other states and in foreign countries. Five of respondent's twelve branch houses deliver goods to customers in other states and it is not contended that the Act does not apply to delivery employees at those establishments. The sole issue here is whether the Act applies to employees at the seven other branch houses which, though constantly receiving merchandise on interstate shipments and dis-

Page 566

tributing it to their customers, do not ship or deliver any of it across state lines.

Some of this merchandise is shipped direct from the mills to respondent's customers. Some of it is purchased on special orders from customers, consigned to the branches, taken from the steamship or railroad terminal to the branches for checking, and then taken to the customer's place of business. The bulk of the merchandise, however, passes through the branch warehouses before delivery to customers. There is evidence that the customers constitute a fairly stable group and that their orders are recurrent as to the kind and amount of merchandise. Some of the items carried in stock are ordered only in anticipation of the needs of a particular customer as determined by a contract or understanding with respondent. Frequently orders for stock items whose supply is exhausted are received. Respondent orders the merchandise and delivers it to the customer as soon as possible. Apparently many of these orders are treated as deliveries from stock in trade. Not all items listed in respondent's catalogue are carried in stock but are stocked at the mill. Orders for these are filled by respondent from the manufacturer or supplier. There is also some evidence to the general effect that the branch manager before placing his orders for stock items has a fair idea when and to whom the merchandise will be sold and is able to estimate with considerable precision the immediate needs of his customers even where they do not have contracts calling for future deliveries.

The District Court held that none of respondent's employees in the seven branch houses in question were subject to the Act. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Jacksonville Paper Co. v. Fleming, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 395, 397. (1) It held that employees who are engaged in the procurement or receipt of goods from other states are 'engaged in commerce' within the meaning of § 6(a) and § 7(a) of the Act. (2) It also held that where

Page 567

respondent 'takes an order' from a customer and fills it outside the state and the goods are shipped interstate 'with the definite intention that those goods be carried at once to that customer, and they are so carried, the whole movement is interstate' and the entire work of delivery to their final destination is an employment 'in commerce'. Those were the only types of transactions which the court held to be covered by the Act.

The Administrator contends in the first place that under the decision below any pause at the warehouse is sufficient to deprive the remainder of the journey of its interstate status. In that connection it is pointed out that prior to this litigation respondent's trucks would pick up at the terminals of the interstate carriers goods destined to specific customers, return to the warehouse for checking and proceed immediately to the customer's place of business without unloading. That practice was changed. The goods were unloaded from the trucks, brought into the warehouse, checked, reloaded, and sent on to the customer during the same day or as early as convenient. The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals is susceptible of the interpretation that such a pause at the warehouses is sufficient to make the Act inapplicable to the subsequent movement of the goods to their intended destination. We believe, however, that the adoption of that view would result in too narrow a construction of the Act. It is clear that the purpose of the Act was to extend federal control in this field throughout the farthest reaches of the channels of interstate commerce.1 There is no indication

Page 568

(apart from the exemptions contained in § 13) that, once the goods entered the channels of interstate commerce, Congress stopped short of control over the entire movement of them until their interstate journey was ended. No ritual of placing goods in a warehouse can be allowed to defeat that purpose. The entry of the goods...

To continue reading

Request your trial
562 practice notes
  • Burke v. Mesta Mach. Co., Civil Action No. 2744.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 27, 1948
    ...66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607; Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 524, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 571, 572, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460; Pentland et al. v. Dravo Corporation, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 851; Burke v. Mesta Machine Co., D.C., 5 F.R.D. S......
  • Annuity v. Coastal Envtl. Grp., 18 Civ. 5773 (AMD) (ST)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 5, 2019
    ...to the furthest reaches of federal authority." The Court cited an opinion from earlier that term, Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (1943), in which the Court held that an employee is "engaged in commerce", under §§ 6(a) and 7(a) of the FLSA, if that employee is in the "'chann......
  • Gilreath v. Daniel Funeral Home, Inc., No. 19646
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 3, 1970
    ...employee's activities relate to interstate commerce or the production of goods for interstate commerce. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 572, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460 Defendant argues, in substance, that the district court's implicit finding of an indiscriminate interchang......
  • Herman v. Hospital Staffing Services, Inc., No. 99-2165 DV.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • July 27, 1999
    ...federal control in this field throughout the farthest reaches of channels of interstate commerce." Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 567-68, 63 S.Ct. 332, 335, 236 BR 385 87 L.Ed. 460 (1943) ("Where wholesale distributor of paper products picked up at terminals of interstate ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
560 cases
  • Burke v. Mesta Mach. Co., Civil Action No. 2744.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 27, 1948
    ...66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607; Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 524, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 571, 572, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460; Pentland et al. v. Dravo Corporation, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 851; Burke v. Mesta Machine Co., D.C., 5 F.R.D. S......
  • Annuity v. Coastal Envtl. Grp., 18 Civ. 5773 (AMD) (ST)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 5, 2019
    ...to the furthest reaches of federal authority." The Court cited an opinion from earlier that term, Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (1943), in which the Court held that an employee is "engaged in commerce", under §§ 6(a) and 7(a) of the FLSA, if that employee is in the "'chann......
  • Gilreath v. Daniel Funeral Home, Inc., No. 19646
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 3, 1970
    ...employee's activities relate to interstate commerce or the production of goods for interstate commerce. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 572, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460 Defendant argues, in substance, that the district court's implicit finding of an indiscriminate interchang......
  • Herman v. Hospital Staffing Services, Inc., No. 99-2165 DV.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • July 27, 1999
    ...federal control in this field throughout the farthest reaches of channels of interstate commerce." Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 567-68, 63 S.Ct. 332, 335, 236 BR 385 87 L.Ed. 460 (1943) ("Where wholesale distributor of paper products picked up at terminals of interstate ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Massachusetts High Court Decides Intrastate Delivery Drivers Unable to Ditch Their Arbitration Agreements
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • August 10, 2022
    ...involved in transporting said goods to Amazon customers are exempt from the FAA. Id. at 341 (citing Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 568 (1943)). Now let’s imagine two other situations, this time involving Drivers 3 and 4: Driver 3 works for a national soda company and Drive......
  • Massachusetts Food Delivery Drivers Not Exempt From Arbitration
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 16, 2022
    ...drivers are different than last-mile delivery drivers, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (1943). Specifically, while last-mile delivery drivers may be exempt from the FAA, "because they are part of a single, continuous and carefull......

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