Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 435.

Attorney(S)

A.O. Denning, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff. Robert H. Polk, of Franklin, Tenn., for defendants.

Judges

Elmer David Davies

Acts

Agriculture — Agricultural Adjustment Act Of 1938 — Short Title

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion: United States v. Locke et al., No. 435 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 4, 1944)

Factual and Procedural Background

This action was brought by the United States against Albert D. Locke and another to recover penalties under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq.), for producing wheat in excess of farm allotments. The litigation concerns a farm of 695.6 acres in Williamson County, Tennessee, leased and operated by the defendants.

The case was heard on July 25, 1944, and was submitted on the pleadings, evidence, exhibits, and argument of counsel. The district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The court's findings addressed the establishment of wheat acreage allotments and normal yields for the 1941 and 1942 crops, the defendants' production and harvest amounts, notification dates, defendants' cooperative (or non-cooperative) conduct with County Committee officials, and the defendants' failure to apply for adjustment under the applicable Regulations.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendants produced wheat in excess of the farm's acreage allotments for the 1941 and 1942 crops, as established under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and related regulations.
Whether the plaintiff (United States) is entitled to recover marketing-penalty payments for the defendants' excess wheat production for 1941 and 1942, and if so, the quantity of bushels subject to the penalty and the monetary amount due.
Whether the court should require the defendants to file a verified report (Form Wheat–519) containing full and correct information as to the 1942 wheat crop.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis is structured through explicit findings of fact followed by conclusions of law applying the statutory scheme and the Regulations promulgated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

Key factual findings that the court relied upon:

The farm was operated by the defendants under lease and measured 695.6 acres.
Marketing quotas (acreage allotments and normal yields) were established under the Act and the applicable rules and regulations for the 1941 and 1942 wheat crops.
For 1941, the County Committee-approved Wheat Listing Sheet (filed May 23, 1940) fixed the farm wheat acreage allotment at 31.9 acres and the normal yield at 13.3 bushels per acre; defendants were notified of the 1941 allotment on July 26, 1940.
For 1942, the Wheat Listing Sheet (filed July 31, 1941) fixed the acreage allotment at 33.1 acres and the normal yield at 13.0 bushels per acre; the proof did not show defendants were notified of the 1942 allotment until on or about February 23, 1943.
Defendants harvested 130.6 acres of wheat in both 1941 and 1942 and produced 1,736.98 bushels in 1941 (with a marketing excess of 1,312.71 bushels) and 1,697.8 bushels in 1942 (with a marketing excess of 1,293.5 bushels).
The marketing penalties per bushel were fixed at $0.49 for 1941 and $0.57 for 1942.
None of the 1941 or 1942 crops were marketed, stored under Secretary of Agriculture regulations, or delivered to the Secretary; portions were used for seed and fed to livestock, and part of the 1942 crop remained in storage on February 23, 1943.
Defendants did not apply to the County Committee for an adjustment in marketing excess on the basis of actual production for either year, as provided by Regulations.
Defendants were non-cooperative with County Committee officials: they estimated planted acreage rather than measuring it, refused to assist officials or permit inspections and measurements, and failed to keep or report required records of bushels produced and on hand (notwithstanding a sworn statement for the 1941 crop filed as Government exhibit).

How the court applied those facts to the law:

The court treated the established acreage allotments, the fixed penalty rates per bushel, and the measured production figures as the bases for calculating the marketing excess penalties.
Because the defendants produced and harvested materially more acreage and bushels than the allotments supported, and because they did not follow the Regulations' adjustment procedures or cooperate with measurement and inspection, the court concluded that the statutory penalties for marketing excess applied.
The defendants' failure to apply for adjustment under the applicable Regulations and their refusal to permit measurement or inspection were considered significant factual matters supporting the assessment of penalties and the reasonableness of the calculated excess amounts used by the court.
The court also used the defendants' production and disposition evidence (amounts fed to livestock; amounts used for seed; storage status as of February 23, 1943) to determine what portions of the crops existed or were subject to penalty assessment at the relevant times.

The court thus concluded, based strictly on the findings recited above and on the statutory/regulatory framework identified in the complaint, that the United States was entitled to recover specified penalty amounts and to an order compelling a verified report concerning the 1942 crop.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court entered judgment for the plaintiff. Specifically, the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover:

The penalty on 1,312.71 bushels of the 1941 wheat crop at $0.49 per bushel, totaling $643.22; and
The penalty on 750 bushels of the 1942 crop at $0.57 per bushel, totaling $427.50.

The combined judgment amount is $1,070.72.

In addition to monetary recovery, the court ordered that the defendants must file with the Williamson County Agricultural Conservation Committee (Franklin, Tennessee) a verified report on form Wheat–519 ("Wheat Record and Report Made by Farm Operator") containing full, true, and correct information as to the 1942 crop.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: the defendants are required to pay the specified penalties amounting to $1,070.72 and to file the mandated verified report for the 1942 crop.
No broader or novel legal principles were announced in this opinion; the decision applies the statutory penalty scheme and the Regulations to the facts presented. The opinion does not purport to establish new precedent beyond applying the Act and Regulations to the defendants' factual conduct.

Show full summary ...

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE et al.

Action by the United States of America against Albert D. Locke and another to recover penalties under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq., for producing wheat in excess of allotments for farm operated by defendants.

Judgment for plaintiff.

DAVIES, District Judge.

The above entitled cause came on for hearing before the Court on the 25th day of July, 1944. The cause was submitted upon the pleadings, evidence, exhibits, and argument of counsel for plaintiff and defendants, and after due consideration thereof the Court enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:

Findings

1. That the defendants have for many years past occupied and jointly operated a farm of 695.6 acres in Williamson County, Tennessee, belonging to Jim and Marshal Hughes, from whom the defendants leased said farm for money rent.

2. That, pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq., and the rules and regulations duly promulgated thereunder, marketing quotas were duly established and in effect for wheat farms in the United States, including said farm operated by the defendants, for the 1941 and 1942 crops of wheat.

3. That on or about May 23, 1940, on which date the 1941 Wheat Listing Sheet was approved by the State Committee and filed with the County Committee of Williamson County, the wheat acreage allotment for said farm for the 1941 wheat crop was duly determined and fixed at 31.9 acres, and the normal yield at 13.3 bushels per acre.

4. That the defendants were duly notified on July 26, 1940, of the farm wheat acreage allotment of 31.9 acres and of the normal wheat yield of 13.3 bushels per acre so fixed and determined for said farm for the 1941 crop.

5. That on or about July 31, 1941, on which date the 1942 Wheat Listing Sheet was approved by the State Committee and filed with the County Committee of Williamson County, the wheat acreage allotment for said farm for the 1942 wheat crop was duly determined and fixed at 33.1 acres, and the normal yield at 13 bushels per acre.

6. That it does not appear from the proof that the defendants were notified of the farm wheat acreage allotment and the normal wheat yield per acre, so fixed and determined for said farm for the 1942 wheat crop, until on or about February 23, 1943.

7. That the marketing penalty for excess wheat, provided for in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, was duly fixed at 49¢ per bushel for the 1941 crop, and at 57¢ per bushel for the 1942 crop.

8. That the defendants produced and harvested on said farm 130.6 acres of wheat in 1941, and the same number of acres in 1942. No part of either the 1941 or 1942 crops was mixed grain.

9. That the defendants in 1941 produced on said farm 1,736.98 bushels of wheat; and that their marketing excess for that year was 1,312.71 bushels.

10. That the defendants in 1942 produced on said farm 1,697.8 bushels of wheat; and that their marketing excess for that year was 1,293.5 bushels.

11. That the defendants threshed both crops of wheat on said farm, the 1941 crop in the latter part of June or the first part of July, 1941, and the 1942 crop in the latter part of June or the first part of July, 1942, no more exact dates of the threshing being shown in the proof.

12. That no part of either the 1941 or 1942 crops of wheat was marketed by the defendants, or stored under the Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, or delivered up to the Secretary.

13. That all of the 1941 crop of wheat so produced by the defendants was fed to their livestock on said farm, except 100 bushels which they used for planting the 1942 crop; and that no part of the 1941 crop was in existence on February 23, 1943.

14. That of the 1942 crop of wheat so produced by the defendants, they used 100 bushels for planting the 1943 crop and 650 bushels were fed to their livestock on said farm; and that the rest of the 1942 crop was in storage on said farm on February 23, 1943.

15. That the defendants did not make, and have not made, any application to the County Committee for an adjustment in the amount of the farm marketing excess of wheat on the basis of actual production for either the 1941 or 1942 crops, as provided by the applicable Regulations duly promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture, or otherwise.

16. That the defendants have taken no part whatsoever in the agricultural conservation program, and have consistently been non-cooperative with the Williamson County Committee and its officials in the proper administration of the Act and the Regulations with respect to the 1941 and 1942 crops of wheat; (a) that the defendants did not measure and have made only an estimate of the number of acres of wheat planted for the 1941 and 1942 crops, — however, the acreage of the 1941 crop was viewed by an official of the County Committee and was measured by means of an aerial photograph of the crop land, without assistance from the defendants, who in May, 1942, declined to point out or show to another such official their crop of wheat for that year and refused also to answer questions respecting the crop; (b) that the defendants made no measurement of the threshed wheat of either the 1941 or 1942 crops, and declined to allow the wheat to be inspected or measured by officials of the County Committee; (c) and that the defendants failed to keep a record and failed to make the report required by the Regulations, of the number of bushels of wheat produced by them and the number of bushels of wheat on hand of both the 1941 and 1942 crops, although they did furnish a sworn statement as to the 1941 crop under date of January 1, 1943, which was filed in evidence as a Government's exhibit.

Conclusions

1. That the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendants for the penalty on 1,312.71 bushels of the 1941 wheat crop at 49¢ per bushel, or the sum of $643.22, plus the penalty on 750 bushels of the 1942 crop at 57¢ per bushel, or the sum of $427.50, making in all the sum of $1,070.72.

2. That the plaintiff is entitled to an order, requiring the defendants to file with the Williamson County Agricultural Conservation Committee of Franklin, Tennessee, a verified report on form Wheat — 519, entitled, "Wheat Record and Report Made by Farm Operator," containing full, true and correct information as to the 1942 crop of wheat produced by them, as called for by said form of report.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE, (M.D.Tenn. 1944)