Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TITUSVILLE DAIRY PRODS. CO. v. ANDERSON

May 3, 1948

TITUSVILLE DAIRY PRODUCTS CO.
v.
ANDERSON, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCVICAR

This action is before the Court on the complaint of the Titusville Dairy Products Company, the answer of the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States and the record in the proceedings before the Secretary of Agriculture. No evidence was taken in this Court.

Complaint.

 In the complaint, it is averred that plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the provisions of subsection (15)(B) of Section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, and reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C.A., § 601 et seq.

 The complaint contains the following prayers:

 That this Court issue an order commanding the Secretary of Agriculture to relieve plaintiff of all obligations under Order No. 27 prior to October 5, 1941, with respect to such milk was was produced, received, sold and consumed in Pennsylvania.

 That this Court hold that plaintiff was not subject to the provisions of Order No. 27 after October 5, 1941.

 That this Court find that Order No. 27 is illegal and unconstitutional in that it provides for an unconstitutional delegation of authority by the Secretary of Agriculture to local health authorities to determine what handlers were subject to Order No. 27.

 That this Court hold that the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 is unconstitutional and illegal in so far as it permits the said delegation of authority by the Secretary of Agriculture to local health authorities, And

 That this Court hold that the milk of plaintiff as was produced in Pennsylvania, received at its Titusville, Pennsylvania, plant and was sold and consumed in Pennsylvania was not in interstate commerce nor did it directly burden, obstruct or affect interstate commerce.

 The complaint also contains the following averments:

 (3) That on August 6, 1944, the defendant filed in the name of the United States of American, an amended complaint charging plaintiff herein with being a handler under Order No. 27 and with having failed to pay to its producers during the period of July, 1941, through January 1942 the sum of $ 17,021.65 in violation of Section 927.27 of said Order No. 27; with having failed to pay $ 625.84 to the Administration Assessment Fund Account during the period of May, 1941, through January, 1942, in violation of Section 927.8 of said Order and with having failed to pay to the Producer Settlement Fund Account the sum of $ 4,058.55 in violation of Section 927.7(g)(h) of said Order No. 27.

 (5) That on October 27, 1945, plaintiff instituted proceedings before defendant under Section 608c(15)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act requesting an order by which it would be held subject to Order No. 27 only for so long as and for such products as it actually shipped to the New York Metropolitan Milk Marketing Area, in which proceeding it asserted the following:

 (a) That it shipped no products into the New York Metropolitan Milk Marketing Area after October 5, 1941, and was not subject to any of the obligations of Order No. 27 thereafter.

 (b) That prior to October 5, 1941, it was subject to Order No. 27 only with respect to those products which it received at its Titusville, Pennsylvania, plant and shipped to the New York Metropolitan Milk Marketing Area.

 (c) That all the milk which it handled prior to October 5, 1941, was produced in Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania producers, was received at its Titusville, Pennsylvania, plant and was sold within the confines of Pennsylvania for consumption in Pennsylvania, except a small amount of milk converted into cream which was shipped into the New York Metropolitan Milk Marketing Area.

 (d) That after October 5, 1941, all of the milk received at its Titusville, Pennsylvania, plant was produced in Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania producers and was sold in Pennsylvania for consumption in Pennsylvania, and no milk, cream or milk products ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.