Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Petitioner v. Brown Brothers Harriman and Company

Second Circuit

Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Petitioner v. Brown Brothers Harriman and Company

357 F.2d 741, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6948

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 1966

Docket347, Docket 30335

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 357 F.2d 741 (Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Petitioner v. Brown Brothers Harriman and Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Petitioner v. Brown Brothers Harriman and Company, 357 F.2d 741, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6948 (2d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The question for decision is whether the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to subpoena, under Section 10(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, 7 U.S.C. § 610(h), witnesses who are not themselves subject to the regulatory provisions of that act. Brown Brothers Harriman and Company, a private banking company, appeals from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York enforcing an administrative subpoena duces tecum served on the bank for the records of a customer’s account. The subpoena was issued in the course of an investigation into unlawful rebates allegedly paid by *742 milk producers to handlers through brokers and sought the production of an account controlled by one Sol Zausner, a broker. The Secretary conceded for purposes of this proceeding that neither the bank nor Zausner was subject to the provisions of the act.

We agree with the district court that § 610(h) does authorize the Secretary to subpoena witnesses who are not subject to the provisions of the act and we reject the narrow interpretation of the statute urged by the appellants for the reasons stated in Judge Bryan’s opinion, D.C., 250 F.Supp. 32 (Feb. 3, 1966) and by Judge Lord in Freeman v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co., 248 F.Supp. 487, 491-492 (E.D.Pa., 1965).

The order of the district court enforcing the subpoena is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The question for decision is whether the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to subpoena, under Section 10(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, 7 U.S.C. § 610(h), witnesses who are not themselves subject to the regulatory provisions of that act. Brown Brothers Harriman and Company, a private banking company, appeals from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York enforcing an administrative subpoena duces tecum served on the bank for the records of a customer’s account. The subpoena was issued in the course of an investigation into unlawful rebates allegedly paid by *742 milk producers to handlers through brokers and sought the production of an account controlled by one Sol Zausner, a broker. The Secretary conceded for purposes of this proceeding that neither the bank nor Zausner was subject to the provisions of the act.

We agree with the district court that § 610(h) does authorize the Secretary to subpoena witnesses who are not subject to the provisions of the act and we reject the narrow interpretation of the statute urged by the appellants for the reasons stated in Judge Bryan’s opinion, D.C., 250 F.Supp. 32 (Feb. 3, 1966) and by Judge Lord in Freeman v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co., 248 F.Supp. 487, 491-492 (E.D.Pa., 1965).

The order of the district court enforcing the subpoena is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 F.2d 741, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orville-l-freeman-secretary-of-agriculture-of-the-united-states-ca2-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack