McComb v. Robertson

101 F. Supp. 1018, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2019
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee
DecidedJanuary 12, 1952
DocketCiv. No. 907
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 F. Supp. 1018 (McComb v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McComb v. Robertson, 101 F. Supp. 1018, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2019 (M.D. Tenn. 1952).

Opinion

DAVIES, District Judge.

Findings and Conclusions

The cause was submitted upon the pleadings, evidence, exhibits, and argument of counsel for plaintiff and defendant, and, after due consideration thereof, the Court enters its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as follows:

Findings of Fact

1. Defendant Hugh W. Robertson resides in Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, where he is and for several years past has been sole owner and operator of a place of business operated under the name Robertson Tire Company and located at 1620 West End Avenue. At that place of business defendant is and at all times herein mentioned was engaged in the business of selling and distributing automobile and truck tires, tubes, accessories, gasoline and oil, and in recapping and vulcanizing automobile and truck tires.

2. By agreement of the parties prior to> trial of the case, and for the purpose of shortening the time required for trial, evidence with respect to coverage and exemption issues was limited to the period July 1 through December 31, 1947, that being the last full half-year period preceding the filing of this action.

3. At all times covered by the complaint defendant employed approximately seventeen employees in and about his said place of business in Nashville.

4. Two of defendant’s employees, Low•ery and Hutcherson, were employed during the period under consideration, in defendant’s recapping plant where they regularly engaged in recapping and vulcanizing automobile and truck tires. During every workweek these employees recapped and vulcanized tires, some of which were thereafter used for hauling cargoes of merchandise in transit between points in Tennessee and points outside Tennessee, and some of which were placed on vehicles used in the production of goods for shipment tO' points, outside the State of Tennessee.

5. Some of the customers for whom defendant’s recappers, Lowery and Hutcherson, performed recapping and vulcanizing of tires during the period, and the amounts paid for such work were as follows:

6. The uses to which the tires so recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were put were as follows:

(a) Waverly Transfer Company was engaged in general hauling of freight between Nashville, Tennessee, and Waverly, Tennessee, 24.2 percent of its revenue during the period under consideration was derived from the hauling of goods in interstate commerce by interchange with other carriers. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were used interchangeably by Waverly Transfer Company on motor equipment used in all its hauling.

[1021]*1021(b) Mt. Pleasant Transfer Company was engaged in general hauling of freight between various points within the State of Tennessee. During the period under consideration approximately 3 to 4 percent of its total revenue was derived from the hauling of goods in interstate commerce through interchange with other carriers. In addition, this company hauled during the same period a- substantial amount of materials each week between plants of Victor Chemical Company, which materials were used by the latter company in its production of goods for shipment outside the State of Tennessee. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were used interchangeably on motor equipment operated -by Mt. Pleasant Transfer Company in all its hauling.

(c) Centerville Transfer Company during the same period derived approximately 10 percent of its total revenue from the hauling- of goods in interstate commerce through interchange with other carriers. In addition, this company hauled materials during the same period for Tennessee Products Company, which materials were used in the manufacture of goods which were shipped outside the State of Tennessee. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were used interchangeably on motor equipment operated by Centerville Transfer Company in all types of its hauling.

(d) Washington Manufacturing Company is engaged at its plants in Tennessee and Kentucky in the manufacture of work clothes. 75 to 80 percent of its total production is shipped from Tennessee to other states. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers during the period under consideration were all used on motor equipment operated by Washington Manufacturing Company in interplant hauling. A substantial amount of such hauling was between the company’s Nashville warehouse and its plants in.Kentucky.

(e) W. G. Bush and Company was engaged during the period under consideration in production of bricks, approximately 14.7 percent of which were shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were used interchangeably on all the company’s trucks both for local deliveries and for hauling bricks about the yards and to railroad cars for loading prior to their being shipped out of state.

(f) T. L. Herbert & Sons Company during the same period was engaged in the business of selling construction materials. It furnished such materials to the City of Nashville and to Davidson County for paving and repairing streets and roads, to contractors for the same uses and to Southern Bell Telephone Company for use in extending and enlarging the latter’s building. T. L. Herbert & Sons also- supplied a small amount of materials directly to-dealers and construction firms in states other than Tennessee. Tires which were recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were used on motor equipment engaged in all such types of hauling and delivering.

(g) Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, Inc., is an interstate carrier and during the period under consideration 85 percent of its business involved the hauling of goods in interstate commerce. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s 'recappers were used on Southeastern’s vehicles wherever needed in such hauling.

(h) Tennessee Biscuit Company sold approximately 40 percent of its total production outside the State of Tennessee during the period under consideration. Three of its 14 tractor-trailer combinations operating out of Nashville operated over routes which took them into Kentucky, Alabama and Mississippi each week. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were used interchangeably by Tennessee Biscuit Company on all of its 14 vehicles including those which regularly hauled goods to-points outside the State of Tennessee.

(i) Hoover Motor Express, Inc., is an interstate carrier, and approximately 66 percent of its business during the- period under consideration involved the hauling of goods in interstate commerce. All the tires recapped and vulcanized for this company by defendant’s recappers were used on vehicles which hauled interstate cargo.

(j) Nashville Gas and Heating Company is a public utility engaged in the distribution of natural gas to customers in-Nashville and vicinity. The gas which if [1022]*1022sells and distributes moves in a continuous flow from gas wells in Texas through the gas company’s pipe lines to its many customers. Tires recapped and vulcanized by defendant’s recappers were used on cars and service trucks operated by the gas company in connection with its repairing, extending and servicing of pipe lines, through which the gas is distributed, and in installing, servicing and repairing the appliances which consume such gas.

(k) Cline & Bernheim and Cline & Doochin are affiliated firms engaged in the production and sale of scrap metal.

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

Related

Ensinger v. URBAN
332 A.2d 484 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Quinn v. Earl Bray, Inc.
108 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 F. Supp. 1018, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccomb-v-robertson-tnmd-1952.