The processing to which the fresh product is subjected, after leaving the farmers' hands and before appearing in the familiar frozen-food carton on the grocers' shelves, is extensive and complicated. There is a heavy volume of motor carrier traffic in this commodity. Prior to this action by the Court, frozen fruits and vegetables had become a particular bone of contention in the prolonged struggle over the extent and scope of the agricultural exemption. This holding was affirmed, without opinion, by the Supreme Court November 5, 1956. And the District Court for the Western District of Washington held frozen fruits and vegetables to be exempt in Home Transfer & Storage Company v. 814, held that shelled, raw nuts were exempt, and that the incidental processing to which they were subjected, namely, shelling, drying, cleaning, polishing, bleaching, grading, sorting and refrigerating, did not constitute manufacture. But where the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage we cannot say that it has been `manufactured' within the meaning of § 203(b) (6)."Īpplying this most recent test, a three judge District Court of the District of New Jersey in Consolidated Truck Service, Inc. There must be transformation a new and different article must emerge, "having a distinctive name, character, or use."'"Īnd saying "At some point processing and manufacturing will merge. But something more is necessary, as set forth and illustrated in Hartranft v.
336: "`* * * Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labor, and manipulation. 574, 577, wherein the Supreme Court announced the so-called "continuing substantial identity" test, quoting from Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Our holding that fresh and frozen dressed poultry was exempt was affirmed, 351 U.S. 374, at page 379, we considered slaughtered cattle, fresh and frozen meat and meat products to be non-exempt, from which portion of the judgment in that proceeding no appeal was taken. In the related case of East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., v. Since this action was here before, recent decisions have removed the uncertainty surrounding a number of these commodities. Those raised by the petition in intervention of the Secretary of Agriculture are as follows: frozen milk and cream cotton linters chopped hay seeds, deawned or scarified redried tobacco leaves. The commodities enumerated in Plaintiff's complaint, classification of which we are called upon to review are: slaughtered cattle fresh meat meat products frozen whole eggs dried egg powder dried egg yolks cottage cheese cream cheese clean rice rice bean rice polish pasteurized milk fresh cut up vegetables in cellophane bags fresh vegetables washed, cleaned and packaged in cellophane bags or boxes fruits or vegetables (quick frozen) shelled peanuts peanuts shelled ground killed and picked poultry (although not drawn) rolled barley butter cottonseed meal cottonseed hulls beans (packaged, dried artificially or packed in small containers for retail trade) fruits and vegetables canned dried fruits (dried mechanically or artificially) peaches peeled, pitted *402 and placed in cold storage in unsealed containers strawberries canned in syrup in unsealed containers and placed in cold storage milk condensed milk, skimmed, vitamin D milk, powdered buttermilk feathers frozen meat frozen dressed poultry.
FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS FREE
their carriage by a motor carrier is substantially free from ICC regulation and control), or as "manufactured products" of agricultural commodities, in which event they enjoy no such exemption. This requires a review of the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in classifying the many commodities enumerated in the petition of the Plaintiff, or in the intervening petition of the Secretary of Agriculture, as "agricultural commodities" (in which event under § 303 (b) (6) of Title 49 U.S.C.A. 569, and the action remanded for consideration on the merits. Our dismissal of the action on that occasion, on the ground that the challenged order of the Interstate Commerce Commission was one not subject to judicial review, was reversed by the Supreme Court, 351 U.S. The history of this litigation and the issues which it raises are fully reflected in the opinion of this Court on original submission, 128 F. Nisbet, Chicago, Ill., for Class I Railroads.īefore HUTCHESON, Chief Circuit Judge, and CONNALLY and KENNERLY, District Judges. C., for Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route and Contract Carrier Conference.Ĭarl Helmetag, Philadelphia, Pa., and James W.
C., for American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc.ĭale C. Pou, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission.
0 kommentar(er)
