Field Packing Co., Inc. v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Field Packing Co., Inc. v. United States

197 F.2d 329, 14 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 573, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3801

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1952

Docket11471_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 197 F.2d 329 (Field Packing Co., Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Field Packing Co., Inc. v. United States, 197 F.2d 329, 14 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 573, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3801 (6th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the record in this cause that the findings of fact of the District Court, upon which it based its judgment, are not clearly erroneous; and that, therefore, its conclusion of law that the appellant company wilfully violated the provisions of War Food Order No. 15, in that it failed to set aside or to sell to approved buyers required quantities of cheese, is correctly drawn; And it appearing further that the contention of the appellant that the action brought by the United States against it was barred by Act of Congress of June 29, 1948, 15 U.S.C.A. § 714 et seq., is not well grounded, for the reason that the statute was intended to operate prospectively and not retroactively, it being established that no statute of limitation shall be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication, see Fullerton Krueger Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 266 U.S. 435, 437, 45 S.Ct. 143, 69 L.Ed. 367; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596, 84 U.S. 596, 21 L.Ed. 737; Cf. Shwab v. Doyle, 258 U.S. 529, 534, 42 S.Ct. 391, 66 L.Ed. 747; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U.S. 306, 314, 28 S.Ct. 537, 52 L.Ed. 804; Claridge Apartments Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 323 U.S. 141, 164, 65 S.Ct. 172, 89 L.Ed. 139; United States v. St. Louis, S.F. & T. R. Co., 270 U.S. 1, 3-4, 46 S.Ct. 182, 70 L.Ed. 435.

The judgment of the District Court, awarding recovery from appellant of $8,-984.49, with interest, is affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the record in this cause that the findings of fact of the District Court, upon which it based its judgment, are not clearly erroneous; and that, therefore, its conclusion of law that the appellant company wilfully violated the provisions of War Food Order No. 15, in that it failed to set aside or to sell to approved buyers required quantities of cheese, is correctly drawn; And it appearing further that the contention of the appellant that the action brought by the United States against it was barred by Act of Congress of June 29, 1948, 15 U.S.C.A. § 714 et seq., is not well grounded, for the reason that the statute was intended to operate prospectively and not retroactively, it being established that no statute of limitation shall be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication, see Fullerton Krueger Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 266 U.S. 435, 437, 45 S.Ct. 143, 69 L.Ed. 367; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596, 84 U.S. 596, 21 L.Ed. 737; Cf. Shwab v. Doyle, 258 U.S. 529, 534, 42 S.Ct. 391, 66 L.Ed. 747; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U.S. 306, 314, 28 S.Ct. 537, 52 L.Ed. 804; Claridge Apartments Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 323 U.S. 141, 164, 65 S.Ct. 172, 89 L.Ed. 139; United States v. St. Louis, S.F. & T. R. Co., 270 U.S. 1, 3-4, 46 S.Ct. 182, 70 L.Ed. 435.

The judgment of the District Court, awarding recovery from appellant of $8,-984.49, with interest, is affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F.2d 329, 14 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 573, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/field-packing-co-inc-v-united-states-ca6-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack