UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIGEST OF DECISIONS of the SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE under the PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT (7 U.S.C., Secs.181-229) 338.1 Un34ra Washington, D. C. January 1942 'UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIGEST OF DECISIONS OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT (7 U.S.C., SECS. 181-229) Act approved August 15, 1921 (42 Stat. 159) Act amended May 5, 1926 (44 Stat. 397 fi U.S.C., Sec. 2057*) 5 August 14, 1935 "(49 Stat. 648/7 U.Sf.C., Secs. 218-218d7) and June 29, 1937 (50 Stat. 395, 406) Including Resumes of Cases Appealed from the Secretary’s Decisions, Cases Testing the Constitutionality and Scope of the Act, Cases Related to the Packers and Stockyards Act or to the Secretary’s Decision Made under the Act, Criminal Cases Arising Pursuant to the Provisions of the Act, and Opinions of the Attorney General Construing Provisions of the Act, up to June 30, 1940. Prepared by the Office of the Solicitor In cooperation with the Agricultural Marketing Service Compilation by? Linus R. Fike, Attorney Washington, D. C. - - ■ . " . • 1 V * - * • ' 11 . . 33ff< 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART ONE Introduction iv PART WO Cases Appealed from the Secretary’s Decisions under the Packers and Stockyards Act 1 Cases Testing the Constitutionality and Scope of the Packers and Stockyards Act and of the Poultry Amendment 25 Cases Related to the Packers and Stockyards Act or to the Secretary’s Decision Made under the Act 30 Criminal Cases under the Packers and Stockyards Act • 36 % Opinions of the Attorney General Construing Provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act 33 PART THREE Index to Digests under Titles I 5 II 5 III, IV, and V of the Act 1-26 » » PART FOUR Digests under Title I 1 Digests under Title II 40 Digests under Title III 110 Digests under Title IV 696 Digests under Title V 704 Case Index by Dockets 876 Alphabetical Case Index 908 i PART ONE Introduction L GENERAL Time has made apparent the necessity for the compilation of a digest of the Secretary’s decisions and other related matter under the Packers and Stockyards Act, Recognizing the cumbersome and sometimes almost impossible task confronting those affected by or dealing with the Packers and Stockyards Act in searching through over 1250 decisions rendered by the Secretary of Agri¬ culture under the Act., the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, has made an initial attempt, in this volume, to digest all of the decisions of the Secretary made under the Act as of the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, While, in a work of this nature, the form of the digest usually will be crystalized by the ideas of the one making the compilation, it is hoped that the method pursued here, in pre¬ senting the digest to those who need it, will substantially fulfill their requirements. SCOPE OF DIGESTS After a great deal of consideration had been given to the matter, it was finally decided that, for the convenience of those using it, the digest proper should be set up in five parts con¬ forming to the titles of the Packers and Stockyards Act, i.e., digests of all decisions relating' to Title II of the Act should appear under Title II in the digest, digests of all decisions relating to Title III of the Act should appear under Title III in the digest, and digests of all decisions relating to Title V of the Act should appear under Title V in the digest. For the convenience again of those using the digest, all definitions picked from the Secretary’s decisions are grouped under Title I in the digest even though the definitions might refer to subject matter related to one of the other titles of the Act, Likewise, all digests relating to accounts, records, and memoranda are grouped conveniently under Title 17 in the digest even though they might refer to subject matter related to some other title of the Act, At the top of each page in the digest will appear the Roman numeral which indicates the title of the Act to which the individual digests on that page are related. Insofar as it was possible to do so, the words of the Secretary, as used in his decisions, were taken verbatim into the digests. In instances whore it was necessary to condense for the purpose of brevity, a serious attempt was made to retain the same meaning reflected by the Secretary in his decisions. While the compilation was made with the idea uppermost in mind of taking from each decision of the Sec¬ retary and grouping under alphabetical headings every legal point involved in each decision, surrounding it with the factual information necessarv, it is realized that in the last analysis the important purpose of the digest will be mainly as a reference book, and that, for a complete study of the particular decision at hand, it still will be neces¬ sary, at times, for the person using the digest to refer to the decision itself, the requirement of the digest having' been fulfilled by its conveniently and. quickly pointing to the decision desired. In connection with the digest of the decisions of the Secretary rendered under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the volume includes a brief resume of the appeal history and _ substantive and procedural law involved in the cases appealed from the Secretary’s decisions, or in some manner related to the decisions or to some provision of the Act itself, of criminal cases arising under the provisions of the Act, and of opinions of the Attorney General rendered construing the provisions of the Act. Since, comparatively speaking, only a small number of these cases and opinions 'were involved, no attempt was made to index the legal points involved in them. As the eases increase in number from time to time, it mil, of course, be necessary that this be done. Under ’’Hearing, Nature of", under each respective title, there will appear a brief digest of the nature of each and every proceeding in which the Secretary made an order, and under "Orders", under each respective title, a brief resume of each order made by the Secretary will appear. It was thought that this information might prove, to be useful. The date of ea„ch order of inquiry, or complaint, and of each order made by the Secretary 'will not appear under these respective headings but will be found in the case index in the back of the volume. v INDEX TO DIGESTS An attempt has been made to cross-index fully the index to the digest so that the person using the digest will be able to find the point involved by referring to any convenient index heading which comes to" his mind* On the right side of the index page, at the top, appears the Roman numerals corresponding to the title of the Packers and Stockyards Act under which the digests are grouped. Under each Roman numeral will appear the page nuir.ber of the commencement, of the digests involving the subject matter of the index heading. For instance, under the heading "incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant evidence", there appears, in the index, the page numbers 50, 215, and 722 under the title numbers II, III, and V, respectively. That means that on page 50 will be found the digests covering incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant evidence in connection with decisions rendered under Title II of the Act, etc. CASE INDEX The index to cases, appearing in the back of the volume, is set up, firstly, in chronological order of the Secretary’s decisions (dockets), and secondly, for the convenience of the user of the digests, in the alphabetical order of the name of the respondent. For a quick reference, the nature of the case is given, together with the title of the Act under which the proceeding was instituted, the date of the inquiry or complaint, the date of the order made by the Secretary, the nature of the order, and the pages of the volume under which each digest picked from the decision appears. ABBREVIATIONS Each of the Secretary's decisions rendered under the Act is listed in the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service as a docket. For the purpose of conserving space, the word "docket" was abbreviated, under each digest in the volume, to "D", so that "D-28", etc., appearing under each digest, means that that particular digest appears in Docket 28 of the decision of the Secretory as it is on file in the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service. The other abbreviations, made necessary to conserve space, appear under various columns of the case index. Most of the words therein were abbreviated to take on their natural meaning so that no key to the abbreviation used is needed. "Chge" would mean 11 charge", and "Repar" would mean "reparation". The other abbre¬ viations used and their meanings arc set forth as follows: abbreviation Meaning ARM Accounts, Records, and C&D Cease and Desist Order Comm, Commission Den Denied Fix Rates Order Fixing Maximum R; Charges Indef p/p Indefinitely Postponed Mod Modified Payts to Trkrs N, Payments to Truckers Pet Petition • Rey Revoked Rev Susp Revocation of Order of Suspension Supp Supplemental Susp or Suspen Order of Suspension T.P. Trade Practice vi 1 CONCLUSION TTith the lapse of time, it will, of course, be necessary to make revisions and supplements to this first edition of the digest to the Packers and Stockyards Act. Therefore, it is desired that all who use it shall first familiarize themselves with the plan followed, and then make notes of errors and of constructive suggestions for consideration in perfecting the digest. Such suggestions as to improvements will be most welcome, but it may not be inappropriate to suggest that everyone has his individual notions and needs, some not common to other persons, and that it will be physically impossible to incorporate every detail that might be of interest, and remain sufficiently compact to be useful. Accuracy, brevity, complete¬ ness, and convenience are qualities ultimately to be achieved. October 1940 / viii PART TWO ! Resumes or Cases Appealed from the Secretary’s Decisions Cases Testing the Constitutionality and Scope of the Act Cases Related to the Packers and Stockyards Act or to the Secretary's Decision Lade under the Act Criminal Cases Arising Pursuant to the Provisions of the Act Opinions of the Attorney General Construing Provisions of the Act CASES APPEALED FROM TIlE SECRETARY’S DECISIONS UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYJiRDS ACT D-5 The Peoria Union Stock Yards Company • APPEAL HISTORY. On July 16, 1924, the Peoria Union Stock Yards Conpany filed a bill of complaint in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois, Northorn Division, praying for an interlocutory injunction staying the- order of the Secretary, dated June 30, 1924, in -which the Secretary found certain rates and charges of the Stock Yards Company to bo discriminatory and unreasonable, and in which the Secretary proscribed reasonable rates and charges. The case came before the court under the title of Peoria Union Stock Yards Company v. U nited S ta tes of Ame rica et al, in equity. No. 280, and the court rendered.a final decree on November 8, 1S26, enjoining and restraining the Secretary of Agriculture from enforc¬ ing portions of his order relating to the rates end charges for the yarding of hogs but denying the injunction as to the remainder of the Secretary’s order, (For a resume of the Secretary’s order, see page 353 of this digest.) It does not appear that the case was re¬ ported or that any question of law or procedure was involved. D-39 Alexander, Conover & Ma rtin Br o s, et al . APPEAL HISTORY. Undcr the stvle XJ C omnis sion C ompany, a of Al exandor, Conover corporation, et al. v. & Martin Live Stock the United States of America , in equity. Court of the United No. 538, the plaintiffs appealed to the District States for the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri for an order to enjoin the enforcement Secretary’s order (see page 356 of this digest). of the The court mode its order (1) denying the plaintiffs a temporary injunction against the Secretary’s cease end desist order relating to the plaintiffs’ boycott activities; (2) denying the application for a temporary injunction as to that part of the Secretary’s order relating to the observance and enforcement of certain rules end by-lavs of the Live Stock Exchange, the cfonial not to be construed as requiring plaintiffs to deal with the Commission Association until end unless it offers insurance protection; (3) granting the application for a temporary injunction as to that portion of the Secretary’s order requiring plaintiffs to cease and desist from ex¬ cluding the Producers Commission Association from participating in the blanket insurance of the Live Stock Exchange (see page 316 of this digest); (4) modifying in certain respects and affirming the Secretary’s order with respect to according to Producers Commission Association the use of the facilities of the Cleaning House or Col¬ lection Association of the Live Stock Exchange. On December 23, 1924, the court made an order'perpetually en¬ joining the Secret.any from enforcing his order da.ted April 19, 1924, relating to the inspection and dockage of hogs at the Kan sac City Stock Yards manket (see page 356 of this digest). It does not appear that this case was over reported* SUBSTANTIVE LAY/. The court hold that the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange had the right, through its rules and by-laws, to prohibit its members from dealing with persons or organizations at the market who did not’carry livestock insurance but that the Live Stock Exchange did not have the right to require the person or organization operating act the market to participate in a particular "blanket" insurance policy carried by the Live Stock Exchange. The court held, further¬ more,. that the Live Stock Exchange could not be compelled to extend its "blanket" insurance policy to nonmenbers of the Exchange upon the more pa.yr.ient of a premium, since if such policy wore extended under that condition to nonmembers of the Exchange, the nonr.iombers would be participating in tho benefits accorded by the Exchange but would not be subject to the obligations and discipline under the Exchange. The court hold that the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange should extend to those nonmomber operators, who desired it, the use of tiie facilities of tho Clearing House or Collection Associa¬ tion sot up by the Exchange provided that the Exchange might use reasonable discretion with respect thereto in requiring a satis¬ factory bond, surety, or blank guarantee of the applicant. 2 Tho court hold that the Secretary acted within the powers law¬ fully granted him by Congress and within the evidence before him in requiring the plaintiffs to cease and desist from entering into con¬ cert of action against any operator or anyone at the market. PROCEDURAL LAW. The court permanently enjoined the Secretary from enforcing his hog inspection order (see page 356 of this digest), on the ground that tho plaintiffs were denied duo process of the law because the order of the Secretary was not vdthin the scope end purpose of the complaint upon which the order was based, or the hearing was had before the Secretary, and that, therefore, tho plaintiffs did not receive due notice of the hog inspection issue. D-98 Donah ue Bros., Inc . APPEAL HISTORY. This case was reported as Uni ted Sta tes v. Donahue Bros., Inc. , 59 Fed, (2d) 1019, C.C.A. Eighth Circuit, July 22, 1952. The appeal to tho Circuit Court of Appeals was by the Government from the Dis¬ trict Court of the United States for tho District of Nebraska. ■While the case is not strictly an appeal case by the respondent from an order made by tho Secretary, the law involves tho interpre¬ tation of certain regulations made by the Secretary under the Packers and Stockyards Act. On November 21, 1924, the Secretary of Agriculture ordered Dona' hue Bros., Inc., to cease and desist from continuing certain unfair practices (see page 360 of this digest). Donahue Bros., Inc., failed and refused to abide by the order and this action was brought against them by the United States to recover certain statutory penalties for such disobedience under § 314 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. (7 u'.S.C.A. § 215) The District Court dismissed the proceedings on the theory that the Secretary had no authority to enter the cease and desist order, because the order was entered pursuant to a regulation of the Secre¬ tary dated June 14, 1923, which was legislative in its nature and without authoritv of law. */ 3 Tho Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and remanded the case with directions to grant the Government a now trial. The decision of tho District Court is, apparently, not reported. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. The court held that before tho Secretary can enter cease and desist orders under the Packers and Stockyards Act (42 Stat. 159) (7 U.S.C.A. si 181-229), the practices complained of must be violative of some provision of the Act. The court held further that the Secretary’s regulation in question, promulgated under the Act, was not legislative in char¬ acter but was merely an administrative measure designed to advise those subject to tho Act in advance what practices the Secretary considered to be in violation of tho Act. Tho court held that tho contention of tho defendant, that Congress had not disclosed any purpose to legislate under the Act in the field of accounting be¬ tween commission men and their customers beyond requiring full and true disclosures to be made by bookkeeping end the furnishing of indemnity in the nature of bonds, was not well founded since such an interpretation would be construing § 301 of tho Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 201) too narrowly. Tho court enters into a lengthy discussion of the intent of the law as construed by Congress in committee hearings. The regulation of the Secretary under attack in this case was regulation 17 (c) of the General Rules and Regulations promulgated under tho Act. D-136 Ame r ican Livestock Commission Co, ot al . APPEAL HISTORY. The plaintiffs appealed as “market agencies" and "dealers", under the style of Amer ican. L ivestook C o mmission Co. v. United States , 28 Fed. (2d~)~63, District Court, W. D. Oklahoma, July 28, 1928, for an injunction against tho enforcement of the Secretary’s order (see page 363 of this digest), made under Title III of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The District Court enjoined the en¬ forcement of tho order on tho theory that the boycott complained of was not illegal because against a co-operative association itself acting illegally. 4 The United States appealed. Un ited States v. American Livestock Commission Company ct al ., 279 U. S. 435, and the Supreme Court, on May 20, 1929, reversed the District Court and ordered that the Secre¬ tary^ order be enforced without prejudice to the right of appellees to refuse to deal with the cooperative association in matters beyond its power. Prior to the initiation of the Secretary’s proceedings in this case, the Government sought to prosecute for conspiracy. This was unsuccessful, the court holding that the indictment failed to charge a conspiracy to commit an offense, as required by I 37 of the Crim¬ inal Code. United States v. B rown et al. , 4 Fed. (2d) 270. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. The District Court enjoined the Secretary’s order on the theory that the complainant Producers Commission Association, a cooperative association, had no authority under the lav/s of the State' of Oklahoma to buy or sell livestock upon the Oklahoma City Stockyards of nonmembers. The Supreme Court, however, stated that the court would have to pre¬ sume that the cooperative association was not acting ultra vires and that, nothing being shown or suggested by the evidence to justify the general boycott against the cooperative association which the Secre¬ tary’s order forbade, the Secretary’s order should be enforced. The Supreme Court indicated that under 1-306 (f) of the Packers and Stock- yards Act, the cooperative association was within the protection of the Act of Congress. D-143 Am erican Livestock Commission Comp any et al . APPEAL HISTORY. In this ca.se, reported as Tagg Bros. & Moo r head ct ad. v. United States et al. , 29 Fed. (2d) 750, District Court, D. Nebraska., Omaha Division, December 18, 1923, the plaintiff market agencies buying and selling livestock on commission at the Union Stockyards at Omaha, sought to enjoin the enforcement of am order of the Secretary, dated November 19, 1926, made under the Packers and Stockyards Act of August 15, 1921 (Chapter 64, 42 Stat, 159; U.S.C. 1925, Title 7, Chapter 9) (7 USCA §§ 181-229), suspending the tariff of rates then in effect and prescribing, in lieu thereof, a new schedule effective Janue.ry 1, 1927. The District Court, consisting of three judges, pursuant to the provisions of the Urgent Deficiencies act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38, Stat. 208, 219-220, U.S.C., Tit. 28 § 47, made applicable in this case by § 316 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, dismissed the bill. 5 The plaintiff narket agencies appealed to the Supremo Court under § 238 (4) of the Judicial Code, as amended by Act of Feb¬ ruary 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938, U.S.C., Tit. 28 i 345 (4), and the case is reportod as Tagg B ros . & Moorhead et al. v. United States et al ., 280 U. S. 420, decided February 24, 1930. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court refused to pass upon the issue of confiscation. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. The Supreme Court held that the contention of the complainants, that Congress did not purport to empower the Secretary to issue an order prescribing the charges of the market agencies, is without sub¬ stance, and in doing so it discussed § 306, subdivisions (a), (e), (g), (h), § 310, subdivisions (a), (b), and § 201 (a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Supreme Court, likewise, dismissed the theory that market agencies are not subject to control by the Secretary because of their personal service nature, the court holding that even though the bus¬ iness of market agencies was personal in character, the agencies also used valuable property of the stockyards to carry on thoir businesses and that the services vrcre affected with a public interest. The court, likewise, held the contention that the Secretary’s order was void because unsustained by the evidence or because of specific errors in rulings or findings, to be without merit, the court holding that the more admission by an administrative tribunal of matters, which under the rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings would be deemed incompetent, or mere error in reasoning upon evidence adduced, does not invalidate an order made by the tri¬ bunal, the only cases in which the order must be sot aside arc cases where: (l) an order rests upon an erroneous rule of law, or (2) is based upon a finding made without evidence, or (3) upon evidence which clearly does not support it. PROCEDURAL LAW. At tho hearing by the District Court, the court appointed a master to take additional testimony on the thoory that the plain¬ tiff market agencies were not given proper notice either by tho examiner who held the hearings for the Secretary, or by the Secre¬ tary, that it was the Secretary’s intention to fix a new schedule of rates and charges. The Supreme Court, however, held that the notice given by the Secretary was neither defective nor misleading; that it informed the plaintiffs that a hearing would be had under Title III of tho Act; that the narket agencies would have the right to appeal end show causo why a further order in respect to said rates and charges should not be made pursuant to Title III of the Act. 6 Tho Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs should have antici¬ pated, therefore, that the Secretary would fix a now rate, if the evidence before him would lead him to believe that such a course was - proper and desirable. The Supreme Court held that a proceedings under § 316 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, on appeal, is a judicial review and not a trial de novo; that the validity of on order of the Secretary, like that of an order of tho Interstate Commerce Commission, must be determined upon the record of the proceedings before the court, save as there may be an exception of issues presenting claims of constitutional right; that the Secretary’s findings must be accepted by the court as conclusive if the evidence before the Secretary was legally sufficient to sustain them and there was no irregularity in the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that where it is believed by the market agencies that the Secretary erred in his findings because important evidence was not brought to his attention, the appropriate remedy is to apply to the Secretary for a re-hearing or to institute new proceedings, not to apply to the court for the appointment of a master• The Supreme Court also held that a rate order is not res adjudi- cata; that every rate order made nay be superseded by another. D-l60 Roberts & Poke, a corporatio n. APPEAL HISTORY. This case. Unit ed Stat es v. Ro berts & Poke , 1 Fed. Supp. 797, District Court, N.D., Illinois, E.D., November 9, 1932, is not strictly an. appeal ca.se but was instituted by a petition brought by the United States to enforce an order of the Secretary of Agri¬ culture directing the defendant packer to file a bond, in compliance with the requirement of the proviso of the Act of June 5, 1924, making appropriations for tho Department of Agriculture, 43 Stat. 460. The District Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. Tho Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on June 5, 1933, affirmed the action of the District Court. United Sta.tes v. Roberts & Oake, 65 Fed. (2d) 630. A brief digest of the Secretarv’s order, which was attacked, will be found on page 357 of this digest. 7 SUBSTANTIVE LAY/. The United States sought to compel the defendant packer to exe¬ cute a performance bond on the theory that the packer is a. dealer under the terms of the. Packers and Stockyards Act. Both the District and the Circuit Court of Appeals, however, held that the Congress did not intend, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, to include packers within the meaning of dealers. The District Court discussed §§ 315, 516, and 401 of the Act and the Circuit Court of Appeals discussed II 301 (d) and 201 (a) of the Act, concluding that under the Packers and Stockyards Act a packer is not required to give a dealer’s bond. Before litiga¬ tion started in this case, the Attorney General, in his letter dated October 22, 1928, expressed grave doubt whether the order could bo enforced. D-208 Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd. APPEAL HISTORY. This is a suit in equity brought pursuant to Section 316 of the Packers end Stockyards Act of 1S21 (7 U.S.C.A. § 217), in which the plaintiff market agency dealing at the Union Stock Yards at Omaha, Nebraska, seeks to enjoin the Stock Yards and the Secretary of Agriculture from enforcing certain reweigh charges, for livestock sold and delivered at the Stock Yards, and to enjoin and restrain the Stock Yards Company from collecting a judgment obtained by it against the plaintiff for similar charges exacted by the Stock Yards Company, which judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit in Iiighra m v. Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha , 64 Fed. (2d) 390. Tho case in question is entitled Inghran v. Union Stock Yards Comp a ny of Omaha,, Ltd, ot al. and is reported in 5 Fed. Supp. 486, District Court, D. Nebraska, Omaha Division, Octo¬ ber 28, 1933. (For a brief resume of the Secretary’s order, see page 373-of this digest.) • The District Court dismissed the bill of complaint of the plaintiff market agency. SUBSTANTIVE LAV/. The District Court dismissed the bill for wont of jurisdiction, because the order of the Secretary complained of by the plaintiff directed no alfirnativo relief but was negative in character, since it dismissed the complainant’s complaint for reparation alter hear¬ ing, the Secretary having found that the reweigh charge assailed was not unjustly discriminatory. 9 8 Tho District Court hold further that even though it should not dismiss tho bill for wont of jurisdiction, on the theory above stated, it would still dismiss tho bill because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the Secretary’s order rested upon an erro¬ neous rule of law or was based upon a finding made without evidence or fron ovidonee which clearly did not support it, citing Tagg Bros, v. United States, 280 U.S. 420, 50 S. Ct., 220. D-2S1 IT a s hid lie Union S toe In/era, Inc. APPEAL HISTORY. Proceeding was instituted in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Hash'd lie Division, to enjoin the order made by the Secretary in this case, but after attention was brought to tho court that one jud^o had no jurisdiction in the natter, by virtue of I 516 of the Packers and- Stockyards Met, the suit was mthdrawn. It was apparently not reported. D-298 St. Joseph Stockyards Company. APREAL HISTORY. This case, St. Joseph St oc kyard Co. v. Un ited States ot al. , 58 Rod. (2d) 290, District Court, 17. D., Missouri, St. Joseph Division, April 16, 1932, was an action in equity brought by the Stockyards Company to enjoin tho enforcement of an order made by the Secretary (soc po.ge 381 of this di 0 ost), - fixing certain mcjcimun stockyards’ rates end charges under § 310 of the Packers and Stockyards net of 1921 (7 USCA § 211). The District Court issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the order on tho theory that the Secretary should have granted the rehearing applied for by tho Stockyards Company. There¬ after the Secretory reopened the case, end made a now order i 1934 (sec page 380 of this digest). i. ; iL vh Tlio Stockyards Company again made application to reopen the o.so, which the Secretary refused c cation to the District Court 11 Fee ,,--n u*. cJiu tho Company j. %J Jo: Supp. 522, may 1, 1955, for a order. District Court, ,D, ain made aiopli- x. X Cy. v. United States, Missouri, St. Joseph Division, Stockvarus injunction to restrain the enforcement of the new 9 The District Court vacated the tcuporary injunction which it had previously issued and dismissed the petition for want of equity. The Stockyards Connery appealed directly to the Supreme Court (7 UoS.C. 217; 28 IJ.S.C. 47), and the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of tho District Court which dismissed the bill for went of equity. St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, decided I33S. ' April 27, SUBSTANTIVE LAW. In this case the Supreme Court held that under the facts of record the Secretory properly refused a second rehearing to tho Stockyards Company. Tho court reiterated the rule that in eases not concerned with confiscation, judicial inquiry into the facts goes no further than to ascertain whether there is evidence to support the findings made by the Secretary, the question of weight of the evidence lying with the legislative agency acting within its statutory authority. On the- issue of confiscation' the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of tho court on appeal to exorcise an independent judgment, but that, in doing this, the court nay be permitted to indulge in a strong presumption in favor of tho conclusions reached by the admin¬ istrative body after a full hearing, tho burden of establishing confiscation being upon tho complaining party. Tho court said that it follows, therefore, in the application of this principle, that as the ultimate determination whether or not rates are confiscatory or' primary findings • r-k- able amount for roing concern value (see oage 601 of this digest), the court hold that the Secretary had tho right to refuse such an allowance at tho rehearing since no convincing proof was furnished as to items going . min; concern value. The Supremo Court also realowed other make up the rate structure. 4 - , U -J 10 PROCEDURAL LAirtT. The Supreme Court held that at rehearings the Secretary is not estopped or controlled by his rulings made at prior hearings; that the Secretary was entitled, and that it was his duty to re-examine the case on the subsequent hearing and to roach the conclusion which the evidence justified. D-301 Denver Union S tock Yards Company , APPEAL HISTORY. This was a suit to set aside and permanently enjoin the enforce¬ ment of a Secretary’s order (see page 382 of this digest), fixing reasonable stockyards rates and charges. The case, Denver Union Stock Yard Compa ny v. United Stat es, 57 Fed. (2d) 735, District” Court, D. Colorado, April 4, 1952, came on for hearing before a throe-judge court, as required by I 316 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. On the issue of confiscation, the court exercised its independ¬ ent judgment as to the reasonableness of the rates and charges and entered a decree setting aside the Secretary’s order and enjoining its enforc ement, SUBSTANTIVE LAW. The District Court laid down the rule, which seems to have been later reiterated and affirmed in St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States , 298 U.S. 38, that in proceedings whore the Secretary’s order is attacked on the ground that the order (l) rests upon an erroneous rule of law, or (2) is based upon a finding made mthout evidence, or (3) is based upon evidence which clearly does not support it, the attack must be determined upon the record of the proceedings before the Secretary and it is not .competent for a court to receive addi¬ tional evidence; that when the Secretary’s order is attacked upon constitutional grounds, the court is required to exercise its in¬ dependent judgment as to both the law and the facts, there being a presumption, however, that the findings of the Secretary are correct. Since the order of the Secretary in this case was attacked on the ground of confiscation, the District Court exhaustively reviewed all of the evidence and made findings of its own as to (l) the value of the real estate, (2) the valua of the structures, (3) percent condition, (4) going concern value, (5) depreciation reserve, (6) rate of return, (7) vacant.1 end acquired for expansion, (8) railroad right of way, (9) the live stock show property, (id) incidentals, (ll) the test period. 11 Tho District Court disagreed with the Secretary with respect to the inclusion of land for expansion purposes (see Secretary’s findings page 610 of this digest), tho court holding that land for expansion purposes should be included in the rate base. At a second hearing, however, (D-450) the Secretary still refused tq include land for expansion purposes which had no reasonable ex- poctancy of being used for such purposes (see Secretary’s order page 615 of this digest), and the Supreme Court upheld hin. Den¬ ver Union Stock Y ards C o mpany v. U nited States , 304 U. S. 470. Likewise, the District Court found that the Secretory should have included in the rate base the value of property used for livestock show purposes, which was contrary to tho Secretary’s findings. And, likewise, at tho second hearing (D-450) the Secretary again refused to include the value of property used for livestock show purposes (sec pages 615 end 632 of this digest), end the Supreme’Court up¬ held the Secretary. Denver Union Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 470. " ' “ The District Court held it to be error for the Secretary to predicate his rates upon the experience of a single and abnormally high yean. D-308 D. L. Barton et al. APPiwJs HISTORY. In this case tho market agencies filed a bill in equity to enjoin the Secretary from enforcing his order fixing certain com¬ mission rates and charges (see page 383 of this digest) but the plaintiffs did not petition for a temporary injunction. Bro wn et al. -v. United States of Amer ic a et al ., Ho. 332 in Equity, in the District Court of tho United States for tho Northern District of Iowa, Western Division, August 22, 1931. The Government filed an answer but the ca.so was never prosecuted hy the plaintiffs and tho suit was dismissed at the cost of the petitioners on July 1, 1933, The differences 7/ore, apparently, settled by stipulation between the Secretary and tho market agencies. The case was not reported. D-311 A ndrew s Livestock Com missi on Co. et al. (the Morgan ca.sc). APPEAL HISTORY. On Juno 14, 1933, tho Secretary made an order fixing commission rates and charges at tho Kansas City Stock Yo.rds sas City, Missouri (soo page 384 of this digest). By bills July 19, 1933, tho market agencies sought injunctive relief tho enforcement of that order, Morga n v. United States et Fed. Supp. 766, District Court, V. D. Adssouri,* u. DV/Uct. maximum in Kan- filed against al ., 8 “29, 1934. 12 The District Court entered a temporary restraining order upon condition that the petitioners deposit with the Clerk of the Court the amount of commissions collected by the petitioners by virtue of the rates which they put into effect pending the outcome of the case over and above the rates prescribed in the order of the Secre¬ tary. Upon hearing the issues involved, the District Court dismissed the bills of the petitioners on December 20, 1934. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court ori Hay 25, 1936, Mor gan v. U nited S ta tes , 298 U. S. 468, and the Supreme Court reversed the District Court on the theory that the allegation of denial of a full hearing should not have been stricken by the District Court. * The Supreme Court remanded the,. case for further proceedings and the District Court, after hearing, decided that petitioners had been accorded the full hearing required by law and again entered decrees dismissing the bills. Morgan v. United States, 23 Fed. Supp. 380, July 2, 1937. ' Petitioners again appealed and the Supreme Court, on April 25, 1938, reversed the District Court on the ground that the Secretary ho.d not accorded the petitioners the full hearing required by lav;, Morgan v. United States , 304 U. S. 1. The Government petitioned the Supreme Court for a. rehearing on May 20, 1938, Morgan v. U nited States , 304 U.S. 23, and the petition was denied on May 31, 1938. Pursuant to the mandate of the Supremo Court, the District Court, on June 12, 1938, Morgan v. U nited States , 24 Fed. Supp. 214, entered its final decree setting aside the'"decree of July 2, 1937, and per¬ manently enjoining the enforcement of the Secretary’s order of June 14, 1933. at the some time, the District Court overruled the motion of the Government for an order staying distribution of the impounded moneys until such time a.s the Secretary might reopen proceedings to make findings and enter a nunc pro tunc order prescribing what com¬ mission rates and charges would bo considered reasonable from the ■ date of the original order. The Government appealed from the order of the District Court overruling its notion for an order staying distribution of the in- pounded moneys, and the Supreme Court reversed the order of the District Court. United States v. Morgan, 307 U. S. 183. The case was again returned to the District Court, Morga n v. United S tates , 32 Fed. Supp. 546, npril 9, 1940, and the Federal Court held that the Secretary’s rehearing, based partly on the evidence adduced at his original hearing, did not provide the full hearing required by law and entered a decree to redistribute the impounded fund to the market agencies. 13 Tho Government appealed to tho Supreme Court end that fourth appeal is non ponding, SUBSTANTIVE Lid/. Tho Supreme Court held. Uni ted States v. M organ , 307 U. S. 183, that the Packers and Stockyards Act denounces unreasonable rates as unlawful; that tho reasonableness of rates is not established by market agencies filing schedules with the Secretary; and that where an order of the Secretary fixing new and lower rates in substitution for the filed rates has been set aside for lack of due procedure, the Secretary remains free under the Act to determine in a reopening of his proceedings what rates will bo reasonable for the future and for the period in which the original order was made; end that the District Court, sitting as a court of equity, should not distribute moneys impounded in the interim until tho Secretary has held such a hearing and determined the reasonableness of the rates; that the Dis¬ trict Court is not obligated as a contracting party to a stipulation to dispose of impounded funds, in accordance with the terms of the stipulation, but must melee disposition of the funds in conformity with equitable principles. PROCEDURAL LATT. There is no basis for tho contention that the authority conferred by § 310 of the Packers end Stockyards Act is given to the Department of Agriculture in the administrative sense that one official may ex¬ amine the evidence and another official, who has not considered the evidence, may make the findings and order. Morgan v. U nited Stat es, 298 U. S. 468. The one who decides must also hear but this necessary rule docs not preclude practicable administrative procedure in ob¬ taining tho aid of assistants in the Department. Assistents nay prosecute inquiries. Evidence may be taken by an examiner and sifted and analyzed by competent subordinates• Arguments na.y be oral or written. The requirements arc not technical but there must be a hearing in a. substantial sense and the officer who mokes the deter¬ minations must consider and appraise tho evidence which justifies them. Morgan, v. United States, 298 U. S. 468. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Secretary of Agriculture sits in a. quasi-judicial proceedings and a. full hearing requires that the Secretary do more than rest, tho summary presented by tho appellants 1 briefs and confer with his subordinates, who sifted and analyzed the evidence for him. A full hearing requires the right of tho respondent at the hearing to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet thorn. In the absence of a definite complaint, in a prococdin :s begun by the Sec¬ retary on his own initiative under § 310 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (42 Stat. 159, 166; 7 U.S.C. 211), the respondents ha.ve the right to know what claims are advanced against them, an shown by the findings proposed by the Bur can of inina.1 Industry, so that they na.y make objection before the Secretarv’s order is ma.de, Conceiva.blv, the Secretary right himself hear tho evidence and contentions of both parties and make his findings upon the spot. There is no set rule of 14 procedurek The evidence being in, the Secretary might receive the proposed findings of both parties, each being notified of the pro¬ posals of the other, hear arguments thereon, and make his own find¬ ings, but if the Secretary himself accepts and makes as his own find ings those which have been prepared by the active prosecutors for the Government, after an ex parte discussion with them, and without according any reasonable opportunity to the respondents in the pro¬ ceeding to know the claims thus presented and to contest them, such a practice is more than an irregularity, it is a vital defect to the entire proceedings. Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1. D-330 Alexander, Conover & Co. ot al. APPEAL HISTORY. A suit instituted to enjoin the enforcement of an order of the Secretary entered February 24, 1931 (see page 389 of this digest), wherein the Secretary found that the plaintiffs were participating in an illegal boycott, ordered them to cease and desist, and sus¬ pended their registration as market agencies for ninety days. Far¬ mers L ive Stock Commission Company v. United S tates , 54 Fed. (2d) 375, District Court, S.D. Illinois, December 14, 1931. The court granted a temporary injunction against the suspension provision of the order but, after a hearing upon the merits of the case, the bills of the plaintiffs were dismissed for want of equity, except as to four companies as to whom no substantial evidence to support the order was found. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. The court discusses §§ 307 (7 USCA § 208), 309, end 310 (7 USCA §§ 210, 211), and 316 (7 USCA § 217) of the Packers end Stockyards Act. The court concluded that the'.order was not subject to attack on the ground that the Packers end Stockyards Act is invalid or on the ground that the order was beyond the authority granted the Secretary by the steetutc end -unsupported by the evidence, or that irregulari¬ ties attending the proceedings held by the Secretary worked a nullity of the order. The court found also that the suspension of the plain¬ tiffs by the Secretary without a. jury tried was not in conflict with the Sixth and Seventh-Amendments to the Constitution; thpi, the Govern¬ ment heaving been given the right to supervise the business, under the Packers and S to clever ds Act. it had. the right to fix the conditions under which the parties may engage therein. The court found edso that alleged misconduct on the part of complainant National Order Buyers Association end of the complainant. Producers Livestock Com¬ mission Company, furnished no ground for the justification of the mis¬ conduct of plaintiff market agencies. The court discussed at length the issue of conspiracy and the evidence required to sustain a. find¬ ing of conspiracy. The Court curio to a conclusion that the order of suspension was authorized by the statute$ that the Secretary acted fairly and not arbitrarily, and that it was beyond the power of the court to restrain his order, PROCEDURAL LAW, YJhen respondents, in a boycott proceeding held by the secretary, complain that the persons or companies, who are the object of their boycott, are also -acting illegally, the proper method of procedure is not to set up such alleged illegality of action bv way of answer to justify their boycott activities but to complain to the Secretary for proceedings to be instituted to determine the i legality of their actions In proceedings before the Secretary, the order of inquiry and notice need not conform to common law requirements as to pleading. Furthermore, technical rules as to misjoinder of parties applicable to an action at law or a criminal prosecution do not apply with the same rigidity to proceedings by administrative tribunals. D-344 Union Stock Yards Comp any of Omaha, Ltd. v APPEiJL. HISTORY. This was a suit in'equity. Union Stock Yards Co. o f Om aha v. Unite d State s, 9 Fed. Supp, 864, District Court, D. Nebraska, Omaha Division, July 7, 1934, brought by the plaintiffs in accordance with § 316 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (7 USCA § 217) to enjoin the enforcement of the Secretary's rate order of March 1, 1933 (sec page 391 of this digest), .The District Court heard the case on its merits, dissolved the temporary injunction theretofore granted, denied the permanent in¬ junction, dismissed the petition without prejudice, raid ordered the refund of excess charges impounded with the court prior to the final decree. SUBSTANTIVE Law. The court determined that a petition to the Secretary proceedings for rehearing need not bo granted as a matter of upon allegations of changed economic conditions. in a rate course The court determined that it is not the province of the courts to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary cxcopt when the plaintiff has sustained the burden of proof and has clearly established confiscation of its property, and that injunction should issue if the court is able to allocate the margin of allowance made by the Secretary to different findings to compensate for undervaluation so that if upon the whole there is no unlawful confiscation. 16 On. tho issue of confiscation, in violation of the Fifth and Four¬ teenth Amendments to the Constitution, tho court appointed a master to take testimony and the court reviewed the various items constitut¬ ing tho rate base which included (l) whether the real estate of tho plaintiff was given an unfair valuation, (2) whether there was cm unjustified exclusion of the value of certain lands from tho rate base as used end useful, (3) whether a. proper rato of return was allowed to the plaintiff, (4) whether working capital was properly computed, (5) whether changes for services were fixed on an allow¬ able be.sis under the evidence, (6) whether the charges for tremors wore lawful, (7) whether a. sufficient test period was taken, (8) whether accrued doprociaction was properly determined, (9) whether tho evidence supported the findings and order as to the amount of annual reserve for depreciation, and (10) whether certain items of expense wore improperly eliminated. The court could not say as a ma.tter of law that the methods employed by Z el in ski in making real property va-luactions were erroneous. The court distinguished the situa.tion from the situation in tho Denver ca.sc (D-301) and con¬ firmed tho findings of the Secretary that no land should be allowed included in the rate bene for expansion purposes; and tho court up¬ held the Secretary’s rates and charges for yard traders. The court interpreted I 310 of the Packers end Stockyards Act (7 USCil § 211). D-402 CL EL. Acke r ot al. APPEAL HISTORY. Suit in equity. Acker ct al, v. Unit ed States ot a.1. , 12 Fed. Supp., 776, District Court, 1LD. Illinois, E.D., December 31, 1934, and February 1, 1955, by market agencies engaged in business c.t the Union Stock Yards, Chica.go, Illinois, to restrain the Secretary from enforcing a commission rate order dated January 8, 1934, and a supple¬ mental commission rate order dated Larch 12, 1934 (see pa.ges 597 and 437 of this digest). the the 298 Tho District Court dismissed tho bill Secretary’s findings were supported by s plaintiffs appealed to tho Supreme Court of complaint, holding that ubstartial evidence, and . Acker v. United States, U. S. 426, lecidod Hr.v 18, 1936. 17 The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court. In the same case, after the District Court had awarded an interlocutory injunction restraining the enforcement of the See- rotary’s rate order, the market agencies tendered to the Secretary a new schedule of rates and orders, and the Secretary refused to accent the same, assi-'niiw as reasons for his refusal that once ra.tcs are fixed by him, no change therein may bo made except by his order or by action of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that litigation was then pending challenging the validitv of his outstanding orders. The market agencies proceeded to charge the rates set forth in their schedule tendered to but refused by the Secretary, end the District Court entered an interlocutory decree enjoining the prosecution of the plaintiffs for the violation of the Packers and Stockyards ^ct. The Government appealod from this order of the District Court, and the Supremo Court, in Unit ed St rates v. Corrick, 298 U c ks © 435, decided ■,ay 18. IS33. held that the Dis¬ trict Court ho.d no jurisdiction to restrain the prosecution of the plaintiffs, and reversed the docroc of the District Court and remanded with directions to dismiss the bill. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. On the issue of confiscation the District Court, subject to the Government’s objection, received new evidence. The court hold that while the Secretary ha 1 no authority under the Packers and Stockyards net to control the policy of businesses affected with a. public interest, the Secret any did have authority to fix reasonable ra.tes and changes for the market agencies even though such a. determination bv the Secretary might directly in- flucnco the wages or salaries paid to salesmen, The court having concluded that the Sccrctarv’s orders were not unreasonable or orbitreny or contrary to the evidence, or without evidence, it refused to find error in the Secretary pre¬ scribing his commission rates on a consignment basis rather then on a draft basis. The District Court held that the Secretary did not act arbi¬ trarily in denying two petitions of the plaintiffs for a rehearing, o t/ -L O * the record indie acting tha.t their petitions. the plaintiffs wore not timely in filing 18 The District Court found no confiscation in the ease. The Supremo Court found all the issues with the District Court and determined that in spite of the allegations of con¬ fiscation, included in the plaintiffs’ petition, the co.sc did not involve any question of confiscation end that, therefore, under § 316 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the District Court was not required to'afford the plaintiffs o. triad, do novo but was required only to review the adrninistra.tive action of the Secretory. Acker v. Un ited Stat es, 298 U. S. 426. The Supreme Court held that when the Secretory, pursuant to i 310 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, orders specified rates thereafter to be charged, those rates so ordered become the only lawful rrotes end remain so until the further order of the Secre¬ tary; that while § 306 of the Pe.elcers and Stockyards Act directs the manner in which voluntary schedules of rates and charges be¬ come effective o.fter the Secretory has given notice that c. stock- yard falls within the definition of 1 302 of the Act, no ro.tcs ex¬ cept those ordered by the Secretory can become effective alter the Secretory he.s mc.dc on order pursuant to I 310 thereof. The Supreme Court concluded, therefore, that the District Court wo.s without jurisdiction to grant on injunction restraining the prosecution of tho plaintiffs for the violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act by filing a new schedule of rates end charges alter the Sec¬ retory ho.d prescribed a. schedule under 1 310 of the Act, and that the injunction so decreed by tho District Court should bo vacated. United States v. Corrick, 29S U. S. 435. D-418 Wilmi ngton Provisio n Co. , Inc. APPEAL HISTORY. This was a petition under § 204 of the Rankers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 159) (7 USCA § 194) to set aside an order of the Secretary (see cage 73 of this digest) directing tho plaintiff to cease ana desist from certain unfair and unjust practices in commerce resulting in undue and unreasonable preference or advantages to the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea. Company. Wilmington Provision Co. v. vi! all ace, 72 Fed. (2d) 989, C.C.A., Third Circuit, September 21, 1934. ' The Third Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the order of the Secretary. 19 SUBSTANTIVE LAi'H. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the undisputed evidence in the record showed that the 'Tea Company received no price advantage, as alleged in the complaint of the Secretary, end that, therefore, the order of the Secretary should be set aside* The Circuit Court of Appeals determined that under the facts in the case it did not feel justified in granting the Government's peti¬ tion to order a rehearing for the taking of additional evidence, under S 204 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (7 USCA § 194). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals distinguished the facts in this case from the facts in a similar case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Trun z Pork Store s, Inc, v. Wa llace , 70 Fed. (2d) 688 . " .. D-419 Trunz Pork Stores, Inc. APPEAL HISTORY. The petition in this case was filed by the plaintiff to sot aside a similar cease and desist order to the order made in D-418 by the Secretary (see page 73 of this digest). Trunz P^£k Stores, Inc. v. Wallace, 70 Fed. (2d) 688, C.O.A., Second Circuit, April 3Cf, 19 3 4,~ The Second Circuit Court modified and affirmed the order of the Secretary, SUBSTAFTIVE LAW. The Second Circuit Court held that the Secretary had authority, and was justified under the evidence, under I 202 of the Packers, and Stockyards Act (7 USCA § 192) to order the plaintiff to coa.se and desist from granting the Grca.t Atlantic & Pacific Tea. Company the preference and advantage disclosed by the evidence; tha.t under Title II of the Pankers and Stockyards Act a. "packer" is defined a.s one who engages in commerce in meats, an-, that since the plaintiff admitted being a packer, the Secretary had authority to entertain the order, the packer bcin b doomed to be engaged in interstate commerce. The Circuit Court held tha.t there was no taking of nr o per tv without due process of law nor we.s there a. deniaol of equal protection of the law. The Circuit Court held tha.t the first para.gra.ph of the Secretary’s order should be modified to provide that the refunding the plaintiff wa.s ordered to cease and desist from should be tha.t which the plaintiff knew or had reason to believe was being made to the Grea.t Atlantic & Pacific Tea. Company. 20 D-435 I .nor i c an C omni s s i on C onp any APPEAL HISTORY, Bill in equity by market agencies buying end selling on commis¬ sion at the Denver Union Stock Yards against the United States and the Secret any of Agriculture, pursuant to S 316 of the Packers and Stock- yards Act of August 15, 1S21, praying the court to enjoin, set aside, and annul a rate order issued by the Secretary en September 27, 1934, as modified by supplemental order, of October 15, 1934, American C oiimi s s ion Conpcny v. Un ited St at c: D. Colorado, August 29, 1935. 11 i 1 O v_«. . Supp. 965, District Court The bill attacked the conclusions and order of the Secretary charging that they were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, con¬ trary to the evidence, raid wholly without support in the record. The District Court dismissed the bill end dissolved the tempo¬ rary injunction. (A brief resume of the Secretary’s order in this ease mil be found on page 400 of this digest, and of his supple¬ mental order, on page 439.) SUBS TAK TIVE LAY. The District Court held that to raise the issue of confiscation there should be separate allegations of ultimate facts in respect to each plaintiff; that the existence of a substantial question of the constitutionality must be determined by the allegations of the bill of complaint in that the charge of confiscation, as alleged in the complaint, must bo supported by allegations of fact showing the true values for rate-making purposes before the court mil consider it. The court concluded that tho issue of confiscation was not properly presented by the bill end narrowed its review of tho ease to the de¬ termination whether the evidence before the Secretary supporting his findings or if his findings wore supported by any substantial evidence or were contrary to the evidence. Tho court concluded that his findings wore supported by substan tial evidence that the bill of ire, slioul d b o ui sid. sscd. The District Court concluded tho Secretary was not arbitrary in refusing to grant the petition for a rehear in"" because tho ^r )unds upon which the rehearing was requos page 310 of this digest.) tod were too speculative (See D-450 Denver Union Steel: Yards Company. APPEAL HISTORY. Suit in equity to enjoin the Secretary of agriculture fro.ii enforc¬ ing a rate order made February 17, 1937. D enver union Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 21 Fed. Supp. 83, District Court, D. Colorado, October 8, 1937. Thu action was brought under s 316 of the Packers and Stock- yards xict (7 US (da § 217). By agreement, arr interlocutory injunction was granted by the District Court on March G, 1937, pending.final hearing. This appeal was nude from an order made at a second hearing initiated by the Secretary after the first hearing (D-301) was hold and the enforcement of the order therein i7ia.de enjoined by the District Court. Denver U nion Stock Ya.rds . v. Unit ed Stat es, 57 Fed. (2d) 735* In this hea.ri.ng, the District Court dismissed the bill in equity and the plaintiff appealed, to the Supreme Court* Denver Union Stock Yand Co * v. United Sta.t os, 304 U. S. 470, decided May 31, 1938. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. (A brief resume of the order appealed from is found on page 403 of this digest.) SUBSTANTIVE Lid/. The Stock Yards Company, as of ri 'lit, safeguarded by the ’’due process 1 ' cla.uso of the Fifth Amendment, is entitled to rates, not per so excessive and extortionate, sufficient to yield a. rca.sona.blc rate of return upon the value of property used, a.t the time it is being used to render the services. Denver Union Stock Ya.rds Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 475. In the appeal from D-301 the District C >urt, 57 Fed. (2cl) 735, hold the Secretary to be in error to exclude the stock show property as an item of valuation in the rato--ba.se. However, on the second hearin^, the Secretary continued to exclude the stock show property and the District Court and the Supreme Court both upheld his cxclusi >n. Other items of the ra.tc ba.se approved by the Supreme Court, as found by the Secretary, were (l) trackage and unloading and loading facili¬ ties, (2) land value, (3) going concern value, in which the Supreme Court uphold the Secretary’s refusal to add a separate amount there- for, (i) yardage charges to trr.dcrs, (5) duos, donations, and sub¬ scriptions, (6) ra.to of return. The question of amortization of court costs not having boon raised by the bill, the Supremo Court refused to decide it. The burden was on tho appellant by direct allegations to plainly set forth the facts on which it intended at tho trial to maintain that the ra.tcs were confiscatory. 22 D-476 Th e Great Atlant i c & Pacific Ton . Co. , a corporation . APPEAL HISTORY. This case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals under Title II of the Act. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Secretary was revoked. The co.se appears to have been not reported. D-580 Armour & Co. and Swift & Co, APPEAL HISTORY. Proceeding on a petition by Swift A Company to set aside a cease and desist order issued by the Secretary under Title II of the Packers and Stockyards *ct, Swift A Co. v. Wallace, 105 Fed. (2d) 848, C.C.A., 7th Circuit, July 15, 1959. (For a resume of the Secreta.ry’s orders, sec page 77 of this digest.) The petition to sot aside the- order of the Secretary was granted. SUBSTANTIVE LAI Actuo.1 competition, carried on in good faith by normally fa.ir methods, not heretofore regarded as opposed to good morals, because characterized by deception, bad faith, fra.ud or oppression, is a fact which must be given substantial weight in determining whether preferences or discriminations arc unrec.sona.ble id thin the meaning both of the Interstate Commerce Commission Act and tho Pa.ckcrs and Stockyards Act. The court hold that the granting by tho petitioners of credit for a longer period of time to the institutional trade than to the purveyors did not constitute an unfair preference under § 202 (b) of tho Packers and Stockyards Act, because the two classes of trade were not in competition with oc.ch other and that, therefore, the petitioner is not giving a competitive advantage to the institu- tional trade as cnainst the purveyors. The court, likewise, held tha.t v_> zj J J for a subsidiary corporation of the petitioner, engaged in the busi- ness of purveying, the a.gont of the petitioner, to give discounts to some of its customers, while withholding discounts from other cus¬ tomers, was not an unreasonable preference, the evidence disclosing tha.t the giving of discounts wa.s not confined to tho petitioner but tha.t tho purveyors themselves cnga.god in the practice, tho evidence further disclosing tha.t tho discounts •'more not Ivon by the metitionor for tho purpose of injuring or discriminating against any particular customer but were O ivon to meet the needs of bona fide competition. As to the allowed unfair preference by the petitioner of char-'in? some purchasers on tho "boxed weight" basis end other purchasers on the "stripped weight", the court found tha.t the evidence did not indicato that the petitioner required any pa.rticula.r purchaser to purchase one or the other. The court found tha.t tho cca.se and 23 desist order in so for ns it applied to tho practice of selling by boxed weight and stripped weight methods must be set aside, because it did not conform to tho findings of fact and prohibited nondiscrim¬ inatory practices as veil as discriminatory. The fundamental. difficulty in this case was that tho Secretary of Agriculture was attempting to exorcise authority to enforce uni- formity of discount terms, terns of credit, and trade practices in the business of distribution of packers’ products, while the Packers end Stocky ends Act confers no such extensive, authority upon the Sec¬ retary. Under § 203 of the Act, the Secretary is authorized only to require packers to cease and desist from engaging in conduct which is prohibited by the section. Tho Act prohibits tho making or giving of any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality, or subjecting any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. Neither a discount nor a terra of credit can be an undue or unreasonable pref¬ erence or advantage if it is a. reasonable discount or torn of credit; and whether it is must be determined in the light of business reali¬ ties and accepted standards of fairness in business relations, assum¬ ing that there is no valid rule of law which exacts a. higher standard of business conduct than is required by the accepted standard of fair¬ ness in tho business. If a. practice in respect to tho giving of dis- counts or terns of credit in fact constitutes an unreasonable and undue preference or advantage, or subjects some person or locality to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage, then the Secretary ha.s the power to restrict the practice to the point where it is fair and roa^- sonablc; but the Secretary docs not have the power to change a prac¬ tice, which is assumed to bo unrca.sona.blo and to crea.te an unreason¬ able preference, into c. proper practice by requiring it to be extended to all interests who may be effected thereby. There is no evidence in the Packers and Stockyards Act of an intention by Congress to confer upon the Secretary the power of removing from the ne.tionol picture any competitive need fir differ- ences in discounts end terms of credit and trade prentices generally by issuing cease and desist orders of the type utilized in the present case against all who are engaged in the distribution of packer products. PROCEDURAL LA'.T, The court held that tho petitioner was not constitutional rights to a. full and fair hearing; appeared in the proceedings which came within the Morgan v. United States, 298 U. 3. -168. deprived of its that nothing c ondomnation o f 24 CASES TESTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND SCOPE OF THE PACKERS iUID STOCKYiiRDS ACT AND OF THE POULTRY AMENDMENT Stafford v. Wallace , 2 58 U. S* 495 , decided May 1, 1922 . APPEAL HISTORY. Appeal by certain commission men, operating at the Union Stock Yards of Chicago, from orders of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois refusing to grant to the commission men an inter¬ locutory injunction restraining the Secretary of Agriculture from carrying out the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act* The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the District Court refusing the interlocutory injunctions* SUBSTANTIVE LAW. In an exhaustive discussion of the purposes for which the Packers and Stockyards Act was passed, and after a review of the authorities, the Supremo Court held the Packers and Stockyards net to bo constitutional. PROCEDURE LAW. Section 515 of the Packers end Stockyards Act of 1921 makes applicable to suits for injunction against the orders of the Score- tary of Agriculture the same procedures, original and appellate, provided in the Act of October 2, 1913, c. 32, 38, Stcvt. 208, 219, 220, for suits for injunction against the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Tho latter Act gives a right to a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from tho granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction. Title II of the packers and Stockyards Act constitutes tho Secretary of Agriculture a tribunal to been complaints and ma3.ee find¬ ings thereon and to order packers to cease any forbidden practice* An appccJL from tho Secretary’s findings and orders is given to tho Circuit Court of Appeals. Tho findings end orders of the Secretary are to be enforced by tho District Court by poncLty if not appealed from and if disobeyed. 25 Cudahy pac king Company v. United Stat es,- Swift & Compan y v. U nited States, Wilson & Conpany v. United Stores , 1 5 Fed . (2d) I 3d, C.C.A. Seventh C ircuit, October 27, 1926 . • “ APPEAL HISTORY. Asserting authority under 9 of the Federal Trade Comission Act (Comp* St. 8836i), which is one of the sections incorporated by reference into the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (Comp. St. 8716^ - 8716~z), the Secretary demanded that his auditor and agents be given access to and the right to copy the books of accounts, records, memoranda, end documentary evidence in possession of the plaintiffs in error (the packers), relating to any business referred to in Section 201 of Title II of the Packers and Stockyards Act, to provide information for the use of Congress, and in order to enable the Secretary to carry out the provisions of the Act, and to rid him in mailing investigation and inquiry necessary to his duties under the Act. The packers refused to comply with the demand end, on request of the Secretary, the Attorney General, on behalf* of the United Stoics, instituted in the District Court mandamus proceedings against the packers to compel compliance with the demand. The District Court gave judgments against the packers, hold¬ ing that it had jurisdiction to hoar the cause. The cases were c ons o 1 i da.te d on app e al. The Seventh Circuit Court of appeals reversed the District Court, remanded the causes, and directed that the petitions of the Secretary be dismissed. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. In determining that the Secretary had no authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act to make such a, broad demand for the books and records of packers, tho Supreme Court considered § 402 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, § 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, S 6 of the Interstate Commerce Commission Act of 1887, ns amended in 1889, § 4 of tho Federal Trade Commission Act and § 401 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Circuit Court concluded that tho demands in question wore so broad and inclusive as to be unreasonable- and that their enforce¬ ment would amount to an unreasonable search and seizure in contravention of tho Fourth Amendment; that the Packers and Stockyards Act did not intend the unlimited inspection of books. records, memoranda., and cor¬ respondence of packers without process of lav/ in some pending proceedings. 26 Hourly Bros. Co. v. Wallace, 16 Fed. Supp. 662, District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania , O ctober 9, 153 6. APPEAL HISTORY. This was a suit in equity brought in the District Court by poultry dealers in Philadelphia to restrain the enforcement of the Poultry Amendment of August 14, 1935, to the Packers and Stockyards Act, enacted as Title V of the Act (7 USCA, § 218 et seq.). The constitutionality of the Amendment is attacked upon the grounds that it contains an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Secretary of Agriculture and that it transgresses the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The bill was dismissed by the District Court. No a.ppeal was token therefrom. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. After a. full discussion of the Poultry Amendment to the Packers and Stockyards Act, the District Court concluded that it docs not contain an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fo Ry. Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 193, decided April 29, 1935. API EAL HISTORY. This cc.se involves separate appeals from a decree of a. three - judge court dismissing a suit to enjoin enforcement of an order of the Interstate Connerco Commission. 8 Fed. Supp. 825. Reversed. SUBSTANTIVE I AW. The Supreme Court in this cr.so discusses the r cl active juris¬ diction of the Interstate Commerce Commission end of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Supreme Court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission Act and §1 301 (b) and 406 of tho Packers and Stockyards Act, approved August 15, 1921, cloarly disclose an intention that jurisdiction of tho Secretary shall not overlap that of tho Intersta.te Commerce Commissions that tho boundary is the pla.co where transportation ends and that where transportation ends is a matter of fact. 27 Calloway et al. v. At chinson, Topeka uc Santa Fe Ry. Co. , 5 5 Fed. (2d) 319, C.C.A., Eighth Circuit, October 9, 1929. APPEAL HISTORY. Action brought by tho Atchinson, Topeka A Santa Fe Ry, Co, against a market agency to recover an alleged undercharge for tho carriage of livestock. Judgment below was for the carrier, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed tho lower court. SUBSTANTIVE LAW The defense, by the market agency in this case, that the market agency, under the provisions of the Packers end Stockyards Act of 1921, (42 Stat. 159) (7 USCA §§ 181 ot seq.) and the Railroad Company, as a common carrier under the transportation Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 456), are instrumentalities of equal rank of a public character in the current of interstate commerces that both are subject to Federal control - of service, and to penalty to adhere to filed tariffs respecting charges md services, and the Federal laws prohibiting direct and indirect rebating; and that tho market agency can a.ct, therefore, lawfully only as an agent of tho shipper and cannot legally assume responsibility for obligations of the shipper for underpayments of freight charges, was held by the Circuit Court of Appeals to ha.ve no merit. The mere fact that the market agency could not collect these undercharges back from the shipper, in tho case, because of the insolvency of the shipper, would not, the court held, constitute a rebate by tho market agency, under the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, such a.s would permit tho Secretary to subject tho market agency to discipli¬ nary proceedings, (See I 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act which nay modify this decision.) Has on City Productio n C redit As s hi v, Sig Filings on & Co,, 28 6 i\b W. 713, Minnesota, June 30, 1939. APPEAL HISTORY. > Action by the plaintiff to recover from the market agency the conversion of 21 steers. From a judgment in favor of the pi tiff, the defendant appealed, arm tho Supreme Court affirmed tho judgment of the lower court. The case involved tho question of effect of provisions of the lackers and Stockyards Act upon tho law relating to mortgages on personal property. for adn- the State 28 SUBSTANTIVE LAW. Although Rule 17 (c) of the General Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture, by authority of the Packers and Stockyards Act, is to be obeyed by the defendant market agency, the rule was not intended to govern the rights of holders of chattel mortgages on livestock brought to public stockyards. The Rules of the Secretary of Agriculture have not the standing or force of statutes. There is no indication in the history of the legislation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, nor in the Act itself, of an intention to shield either purchasers or market agencies from liability on account of wrongful sales in the stockyards of livestock not owned by the consignors or covered by chattel mortgages of which the purchasers or market agencies may be in fact ignorant. Courts should bo slow to conclude that the Act was designed to supersede local law respecting the force and effect of chattel mortgage secur¬ ity upon livestock received at public stockyards. Congress did not intend by the Packers and Stockyards Act to take over the entire field of the livestock industry. (See page 350 of this digest (D-98l) in which the Secretary holds that while a. market agency is liable in civil conversion for having remitted the proceeds from the sale of mortgaged livestock to the mortgagor instead of to the mortgagee, under a State law, it does not necessarily follow that the market agency has violated § 307 or I 312 of the Packers end Stockyards Act when it refuses to remit the proceeds to the mortgagee without having first required the mortgagee to establish the validity of its claim.) 29 CASES RELATED TO TEE PACKERS AMD STOCKYARDS ACT OR TO A SECRETARY’S DECISION MADE UNDER TEE ACT Sullivan v. Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha, Ltd., 26 Rod. (2d) GO, C.C.A. , Eighth Circuit, April 19, 1926. APPEAL HISTORY. Cause of action to collect yardage charges theretofore paid by the plaintiff and his assignors to the defendant. This case arose out of the Secretary’s decision in D-6 (sec page 555 of this digest), in which the Secretary found the Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha to bo making unreasonable and dis¬ criminatory reweigh charges against dealers at the stockyards and ordered the Stockyards Company to cease end desist from demanding and collecting the same. Ho reparation, however, was ordered by the Secretary and no findings of the existence of right to any reparation were made. The District Court gave judg¬ ment to the defendant on the ground that in the absence of an order ma.de by the Secretary fixing rights to reparation, the court had no jurisdiction to award damages to the plaintiff. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. When the plaintiff is given a. statutory right for reparation, under certain conditions, under the Packers and Stockyards Act. which did not exist under the common law, the right to recover in a judicial proceedings must be predicated upon the order of tho Secretary made pursuant to tho provisions of the Po.c3.cers and Stock¬ yards Act. If tho Secretary has not found that tho plaintiff is entitled to reparation, under the Act, the court has no jurisdiction to award the plaintiff judgment. 30 Inghram v. Uni on Sto ckyards Go« of Omaha, Ltd, , 64 Foci, (2d) 590 , C.C.A., Eighth Circuit , March 21, 19 35. APPEAL HISTORY. Action at law to recover reweigh charges assessed by Union Stockyards Company against Inghram under a schedule of rates raid charges filed with the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stockyards net. After, in D-6, the Secretary had found the reweigh charges of the Union Stockyards Company to be discrimina¬ tory and unreasonable, the Stockyards Company filed a new tariff covering re weigh charges which was attacked in D-208, but which was found by the Secretary to be not discriminatory or unroe.son- ablc (see page 373 of this digest). The plaintiff in error, Inghram, refused, however, to pa.y the reweigh changes assessed under the new schedule so filed, and the defendant in error brought this action to recover said amount. The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff below, the Union Stockyards Company, for the amount sought, and from that judgment the appca.l is brought to the Circuit Court of Appea.ls by the plaintiff in error, Inghran, The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmod the judgment of the District Court, PROCEDURAL LAW. After the Secretary of Agriculture has determined under the Packers and Stockyends Act that a particular change is lawful, a person subject to the change cannot attack the validity of it in a defense to an a.ction at law for the collection of the change. The proper procedure to attack the validity of the charge is to challenge the fair action of the Secretary, which means to test, in a proper proceedings, whether the Secretary acted in an arbi¬ trary and unreasonable manner in reaching his conclusion. The order of the Secretary should bo challenged by a direct proceeding to enjoin or annul it. It cannot be attacked by a. defense to collection of changes which are in compliance with the order. To permit this would, in a sense, c rente a discrimination in fcavor of such a defendant and against all others who heal paid such charges. 31 Carnes v. St, Paul Union Stockyards Co. , 221 N. F. 20 ,.. Minnesota , Aug ust 3, 1928 . APPEAL HISTORY. The original action in this case was' instituted by Jnines E. Gibbons against the defendant Stockyards Company to recover damages for the refusal of the defendant to permit the plaintiff to carry on a business as a market agency at the defendant stockyards. Carnes v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co. , 205 N.T7. 630, October 16, 1925. The Stockyards Company answered alleging tha.t the plaintiff, operating an Gibbons and Carnes, a market agency as defined under the Packers and Stockyards Act, had boon suspended by the Livestock Exchange for misconduct in business transactions with shippers of livestock (a. eeo.se and desist order was issued by the Secretary of Agriculture in this case in D-47, see page 356 of this digest), and that the defendant was justified in excluding the plaintiff from operation cat its stockyards. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion for dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, denied a motion for a. now trial, and the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed the lower court on the ground that the plaintiff had made out a. prima facie cause of a.ction and tha.t the lower court should have required the defendant to prove its justification of exclusion. The defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for a. rehearing, Cannes v. St. Pa. ul Uni on Stock- yards Co 4 , 206 N.W. 396, December 11, 1925, but the petition was denied. At the new trial, Cannes v* St. Pa.ul Union S tocky a rds Co. , 221 N.W. 20, the District Court found that the defendant was justified in excluding the plaintiff from operation at a. stock- yards and gave judgment for the defendant but refused the defendant an injunction restraining the plaintiff from carrying on a com¬ mission business or accepting employment in that lino in the future a.t the stockyards • and the The defendant appealed from the order denying the Supremo Court a.ffirmed the judgment of the lower injunction, court. 32 SUBSTANTIVE LAW. A stockyards company has lawful interests to protect and may properly refuse to admit to its yards a commission nan or ono of its employees if there is justification or valid excuse for tho refusal. tlhat vould ho justification the court does not attempt to decide hut the court does say that because tho Stock¬ yards Company has a legitimate interest to protect, in that it is tho owner of tho stockyards and responsible for their efficient management end proper use, particularly by local market agencies, it has liberty of action much wider than that of a third party having no such interest or duty in the premises, the Stockyards Company also having a discretion of management not likely to bo interfered with by the judiciary who have none of the regulatory and administrative power, legislative in origin, which has been assigned by Congress to the Secretary of agriculture• C arne s v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co., 205 N.W. 630. The trial court acted properly in refusing to grant cn injunction forever prohibiting a market agency from doing busi¬ ness at a stockyards, since it is within the province of the Stockyards Company to again exclude tho market agency upon a now showing that the market agcncv is continuing or has com- menced again to deal in unfair practices with shippers or owners of livestock. One wrongdoing by a market agency should not necessarily prevent him forever from employment at a stockyards. Carnes v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co., 221 N.W. 20. Ncishvillo Union Stockyar ds L Inc. v. Grissim , 280 S ,\U 1015, Tonnessco , F ebruary 13, 1926. APPEAL HISTORY. The bill in this cause was filed by the Nashville Union Stockyards, Inc., seeking to enjoin the defendant from entering upon the premises of the plaintiff to conduct his business as a commission merchant or as on employee of another market agency, or for any purpose except as a shipper or consignee of livestock. Upon consideration of tho motion by tho defendant to dissolve tho preliminary injunction theretofore issued, tho chancellor was of tho opinion that tho bill was without equity, sustained tho motion, dissolved the injunction end dismissed the bill. 33 Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Supremo Court of Tennessee affirmed the action of the lower court upon the theory that the bill was too general said vague in its allegations. SUBSTANTIVE LAW. While, apparently, the bill was dismissed because it was improperly and indefinitely framed by the plaintiff, the Supreme Court of Tennessee did discuss §§ 301 (a), 303, 304, and 305 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, and said that under § 304 of the Act, it is the duty of the plaintiff to furnish to those engaged in shipping, buying, selling, and handling livestock on its promises, upon reasonable request without discrimination, reasonable stock- yard services; that to this extent the plaintiff is a public cor¬ poration, and that the plaintiff docs not allege that the defendant is claiming a right, to enter upon the property of the Stockyards Company, which is not available to him under any law, common or statutory. Wall owa National Baric v. Sc vior Commission Company , 5 P. (2d) 100 , Oregon, November 24, 1931. APPEAL HISTORY. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the net proceeds from the sale of certain livestock sold on the North Portland Stockyards by the defendant.on the theory that the defend¬ ant did not properly follow instructions in remitting the proceeds to the plaintiff. In the Circuit Court of Mulnomah County, Oregon, judgment was for the plaintiff and the defendant appealod. The Supremo Court of Oregon affirmed the judgment of the lower court and the defendant appealed to tho Supreme Court of tho United States, Tho Supremo Court of tho United States dismissed tho writ of certiorari for want of a substantial federal question, Sov ior Comnission C o. v. Wallo wa N at ional Bank , 287 U. S. 575, November 14, 1932. SUBSTANTIVE LAI. Tho principal foa.turo in tho ea.se, with, rela.tion to tho Packers and Stockyards Act, wan a regulation, a.ffirmed bv tho Secretary of Agriculture, oursunnt to the orovisions of the Act, xJ O J -i 4. 9 in force at tho Portland Stockyards at the time, which said in substance that every market agency connected with tho Portland Livestock Exchange shall keep a separate bank account, into which shall bo deposited all funds received from the- sale of or the 34 i * purchase of livestock handled on a commission basis, and that no disbursements shall bo made from this account except in accord with the faithful and prompt accounting by the market agency in its capacity as such. The court held that the defendant would not have violated any of tho provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, nor the Rule of the Secretary, in rendering a "stockyard service" by depositing tho net proceeds in question in the First National Bank of Portland, pursuant to the order of the shipper, instead of in the Bank of Kenton, which later failed; that in this position, where one of two innocent partios must suffer, the market agency, which failed to obey the orders of the shipper in remitting proceeds, should be tho one to hern the obligation. The court discussed § 301 (b) (7 USCA, c. 9, § 201 (b)). § 304 (7 USCA c. 9, I 205), .§ 307 (7 USCA c. 9, § 208), (7 USCA c.9, I 228) of the Packers and Stockyards Act. no. 407 D-278 S ol Dickerson v. Portland Union’ Stock Yards Company . A case was brought in the United Strobes District Court in Oregon involving these partios. Tho case is, apparently, not reported, but the court hold that brand inspection is a stock- yard service, Tho decision is dated January 1929 (see pc.gc 662 of this digest for a resume of tho Secretary’s findings on this question). D-1233 In Ro Charles McNamara, Edward C. Maher, Edward J. Yfolfo, and Martin S. Polachek. In connection with the trial of this ca.se, action was taken to compel tho respondents to testify. Judge Wilkorson of the District Court in Chicago directed tho respondents to give testimony. 35 CRIMINAL CASES UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT D-38 Sol H a rtman . On May 6, 1924, the Secretary referred violations by the respondent in this case to the .attorney General for appropriate action under § 506 (g) and (h) of the act. On June 6, 1925, the respondent pleaded guilty and was fined 0300.00 end costs. D-136 American Livestock C ommission Co m pany . Prior to the initiation of the Secretary’s boycott proceed¬ ings in this case, the Government sought to prosecute for conspiracy. The Unite d Sta tes v. Broun , 4 Fed. (2d) 270, District Court, TAD. Oklahoma, March 2, 1925. But the Government was unsuccessful. The indictment was for a violation of § 37 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10201). The District Court sustained a demurrer to the indictment on the theory that no indictment would lie until the prerequisites to liability had been established, the prerequisites being a hearing, upon notice, an adverse finding, an order by the Secretary to coa.se and desist the violation complained of, and a disobedience of the order. In this connection, the District Court discussed si 312 (a.) to 315 inclusive of the Packers and Stockyards Act (Comp. St. inn. Supp. 1923, §§ 8716x0 - 8716^q). D-142 Chicago Producers Commission Association ct al. The facts of the case served a.s n basis for indictments for conspiracy to violate the Packers and Stockyards net. Judge Milker- son overruled the demurrers to the indictments in September, The case is not reported. Compare it with the result in the of United Sta.tcs v. Brown, 4 Fed. (2d) 270 (D-136). 1927 case 36 D-272 and D-275. (272) H’ovmrd Ottcn & C. L. Gallagher; (273) William Sonner and C. L. Gal1aph or. In a case involving C. L. Gallagher, related indirectly to these cases, a fine was imposed upon an indictment for falsi fication of records under Title IV of the net. There was no question of law raised end the ease is not reported. 37 OPINIONS OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSTRUING PROVISIONS OF THE' PACKERS iHlD STOCKYARDS ACT SECTION 502. Goner In 34 Op. Att’y Gon. 32, November 23, 1923, tho Attorney 1 construed. § 302, Title III, Packers end. Stockyards Act, 1921. The opinion was rendered after tho hearing on tho con- plaint in D-l, Amour & Co. ct al, In this opinion, tho attorney General concluded that the Aistlctoc Yards was not a stockyard a within the meaning of the i.ct since it was not conducted as public market or for compensation or profit but merely as a A a. jl */ facility for a packer in the receiving of hogs for its establish¬ ment. The opinion was affirmed by the Attorney General in 35 Op. Att’y Gen. 442, November 23, 1923. SECTIONS 202, 203, end 402. In 33 Op. Att’y Gen. 371, December 9, 1922, the Attorney General determined that the language used in the Packers end Stockyards Act, 1921, does not require the Secretary of Agriculture to take any formed action against a contompla.ted merger of packers unless he has reason to believe that the lav; has been violated or is being violated; but that if tho Secretary has reason to believe that such contemplated merger has violated or will violate the Act, the Secretary is vested with broad powers of inquiry, end to, under § 203, issue a complaint end conduct a hearing end, if he finds that the packer has violated or is violating the Act, to issue a cee.se end desist order against the continuation of tho unlawful acts set forth in § 202. Tho Attorney Genore.1 concluded that tho Act is essentially a regulatory e.ct, end that neither the Act itself nor the rcgule.tion provided for therein contemplates or requires that the Secretary should advise the industrv in regard to e. merger transaction in advenee of its consummation. This opinion was rendered in D-19, mmour & Go. ct al. before the complaint was issued 38 SECTIONS 306 (f), (g), (h), 309 (c), and 312 (a), (b) This informal communication of the Attorney Gfonoral was given to the Secretary on November 23, 1923, in connection with the proceedings instituted against Sol Hartma n, D-38. The Attorney General advised that if the market agency remitted or refunded in any manner any portion of the rates or charges speci¬ fied in its tariff on file with the Secretary, not w ithin any of the exceptions set forth in § 306 (f), then § 306 (g) made the market agency liable to a civil action brought by the United States to recover the penalty therein prescribed, and if the market agency wilfully did these things, then under § 306 (h) it was liable to a fine or imprisonment upon conviction therefor. The Attorney General advised further that it is not necessary for the Secretary to issue a cease and desist order against the violation before the bringing by the Government of a civil suit under § 306 (g) of the Act; that, likewise, it is unnecessary for the Secretary to issue a cease end desist order before the institution by the Government of a criminal prosecution under § 306 (h) of the Act; that if there is a violation by the market agency of both o s 306 end § 312 of the Act, the Secrcte.ry may pursue the remedies provided for in £ 312 without regar 1 to the remedies of the Govern¬ ment under § 306; that under I 309 (c) of the Act the Secretary has powor and discretion to make end enforce cease and desist orders but that proceedings under § 309 (c) of the Act instituted by the Secretary would not relieve the Secretary of the duty of reporting violations of I 306 for appropriate action under £ 306 (g) or 306 (h) when the Secretary believes such violations to exist. SECTIONS 305, 310 (a), 6 (f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (incorporated in § 402 of the Packers and Stockyards Act), end 407. During the progress of proceedings instituted in D-132, Ale xa nder , Conove r & Martin ct al«, the question was raised whether it was proper for the Government to introduce into evidence audits of respondents’ businesses made by the Government accountants. Tho Attorney General informally advised the Secretary, on July 29, 1925, that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution v. r as not violated in this case by the admission of tho evidenco in* question because tho statements wore compiled from data obtained from the respondents without objection end that, therefore, no question of search and seizure was involved. 39 The Attorney General advised also that. the Fifth Anendr.icnt to the Constitution was not violated by the admission of the state¬ ments in evidence because the only portion of the'Fifth Amendment that could be applicable is that part forbidding deprivation of property vdthout due process of law, end that information is not property since it cannot be exclusively appropriated, end that the books and papers were not appropriated because they wore taken with the consent of the respondents. The Attorney General also said that the admission of the sta.tements in question in evidence was impliedly authorized under §§ 310 (a) and 407 of the Act; that the Secretary had ample lati¬ tude under § 6 (f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as incor¬ porated in § 402 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, to protect the trade secrets of the respondents in the possession of the Secretary by withholding then from publication. SECTIONS 303 raid 315, end PUBLIC ACT NO. 39 2, 70th AMENDED REGULATION NO. 17 (b) of the GENERAL RULES promulgated by the Secretary. Congress, and and ~ REGULATIONS Two informal comnunic at ions of the Attorney General, on October 22, 1928, were required in connection with the enforce¬ ment of orders made by the Secretary requiring Howard S. Turn er (D-159) and Roberts and Poke , a corporo.tion , (D-160), to furnish performance bonds, pursuant to the provisions of the Annual Appro¬ priation Acts for the Department of Agriculture since 1924, (43 Sta.t. 460; ibid 851; 44 Sta.t. 527; ibid 1002; Public Act No, 392, 70th Congress), and the requirements sot forth in the Secretary’s Amended Regulation No. 17 (b) of the General Rules and Regulations promulgc.ted under the Act. The Attorney General aAvised that the form of bond required from Howard Turner (D-159) obligated Turner to, in fact, discharge not his own obligations but the obligation of his principal, Roberts and Oako, Inc., and that such a. bond could not be required and that, therefore, the Sccroto.ry could not prosecute under § 303 of the Act bcca.usc Turner haul not refused to give any bond that might be lawfully required of him; that, similarly, the procedure by mandatory injunc¬ tion, etc., provided in § 315 of the Act, was una.vaila.blo to the Sccrota.ry because there had been no failure on Turner’s pant to ■ obey a lawful order. The theory of the Attorney General being that Turner could not lawfully be required to execute by the Secretary’s order. bond in the form required 40 With rospcct to tho onf ore onion t jf the order requiring Roberts rai d Ocko, a corp orat ion, to execute a bond (D-160), the Attorney General was doubtful that an action to enforce tho order would lie under S 315 of tho Act; that tho order could not be enforced under the provisions of tho Annual Appropriation Acts for tho Department of Agriculture because thoso Acts provided no penalty for refusal to pive such bond, or other procedure to enforce tho requirement. Tho Attorney Goneral’s d^ubt was confirmed in United Sta tes v. Robe rts and Ocdcc, 65 Fed. (2d) 630, C.C.A., 7th Circuit, June 5, 1933, in which case the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a docroe of tho District Court dismissing tho action brought by the United States to prosecute the defendant for refusal to furnish the bond. SECTIONS 2 (a), 301 (b), (c), 504, end 307. In 34 Op. Att’y Gen. 267, August 14, 1924, the Attorney General considered the question of the right of nonmember rionkot agencies to avail themselves of services rendered by a livestock exchange. Tho specific question was whether the Farmer’s Union Livestock Commission, a co-operative, was entitled to tho privi¬ leges of hog inspection end dockage system established end main¬ tained by the Chicago Livestock Exchange at the Chicago Union Stockyards, tho co-operative being a nonmember but willing to pay for tho service. Tho .attorney General concluded that tho Chicago Livestock Exchange is a "market agency" as defined in § 301 (c) of the Act, and that since, therefore, it is a "person" within the term as used in i 2 (a) of tho net, "engaged in the business of * * * furnishing stockyards services", § 304 makes it the duty of tho Exchange to furnish tho services in question, upon reasonable request, without discrimination to tho co-operative; that § 307 would cause any practice or regulation of the Exchange which, in effect, denied to tho co-operative or others operating at the stockyard the benefit of hog inspection end dockage services, upon equal terns and conditions with the members of tho Exchange, to be unlawful, unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory. 41 SECTION 306 (f). In 34 Op. ntt’y Gen. 306, the Attorney General concluded that a co-operative association of producers operating a market agency is not permtted to pay a dividend out of its surplus earnings to a shipper of livestock who was not a member of the association at the time such livestock was sold by it; that the Act speaks as of the time when the market agency performs tho service for its patrons and a refund can be made only to members upon the basis of their patronage as members. In construing § 306 (f), tho Attorney General also ..dscussc §§ 301 (c), 305, 306 (g), 306 (h), 307, and 310 (a) and (b). The opinion was rendered September 18, 1924, SECTION 301 (d). In 35 Op. Att’y Gen. 47, March 18, 1926, the Attorney General discussed the question whether the torn "dealer" as defined in § 301 (d) of tho Act includes persons regularly employed on salary by packers to buy livestock at a stockyard for the latter for slaughter, Tho question arose in connection with the proposed enforcement against packer buyers of tho re¬ quirement that market agencies end dealers give suitable bond, as authorized in the Act making appropriation for the Depart¬ ment of Agriculture for tho fiscal year Juno 30, 1926 (43 Stat, 822), and as provided in Rule 17 (b) of the Secretary’s General Rules and Regulations for carrying out the lackers and Stockyards Act, 1921, with respect to stockyard owner; dealers. market agencies, and The attorney General concluded that the word "or", as used in s 301 (d) of the Act in the phrase "buying or soiling in commerce livestock at a stockyard" should bo construed in the disjunctive and that packer buyers, as well as packers, should be included within § 301 (d), especially in view of tho probable purpose of tho registry requirements in § 303 of the Act. This opinion of the Attorney General was reversed, however, in United States v. Roberts end Oake, 1 Fed. bupp. 797, 65 Fed. ( 2d"J 630. 42 SECTIONS 501 (a), (b), (c), 304, 307, 309 (b), 407, raid RULE 14 of tho GENERAL RULES .RID REGULATIONS promulgated by the Secretary under the ^ct. Tho question discussed in 35 Op. Att’y Gon. 110, December 22, 1924, was tho priority of tho State of Minnesota weighing laws over tho n or tin on t provisions of the Pact or s and Stockyards Ret or vi c c versa. Tho Attorney General concluded, after an exhaustive dis¬ cussion of the State lav; and of tho Packers and Stockyards Act, that tho statute of tho State of Minnesota, while it is a proper police power regulation, is in direct conflict with tho Packers and Stockyards Act, and that whore there is a conflict between tho State and Federal laws, the Federal 1aw is supreme. Tho Attorney General held, therefore, that, the Packers and Stock¬ yards Act hc.ving been within the constitutional power of Congress, Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495, the Secretary of Agriculture should enforce the weighing provisions of tho Act without regard to tho Minnesota state statute. The Attorney General concluded that the proper procedure would be for the Secretary to proceed to enforce the provisions of the Act with respect to weighing at a stockyards under his jurisdiction and that if anyone, whether a State officer or not, should undertake to prevent, hinder, or interfere with the carry¬ ing out of tho requirement by thp Secretary, then the Secretary should proceed to bring an action in the United States District Court of proper jurisdiction to enjoin and restrain such acts. SECTION 503. In an informal eommunication, dated August 11, 1923, the Attorney General advised the Secretary that under § 303 of tho Act, tho Secretary had no authority to refuse to register or to revoke registrations of market agencies end dealers guilty —V V.J o of illegal or improper practices. However, since the date of that informal communication, tho Packers and Stockyards Act has boon amended (7 USCA 205, approved May 5, 1926) to provide for the revocation by tho Socrctc.ry of registrations under certain conditions. 43 igSHHi 1 • im ■ m— t x - vS MS ' . * •• 5 r • i ; ’ . ^ 1 rs? ■ ! V U'* V PART THREE Index to Digests under Titles I II III IV of the net A. LIBRARY UNIVERSITY ILLINOIS UK , I N D lb I_ II III IV_V Abandonment of Complaint or Proceedings 465 Accounting, Delay in 110 704 Ac c ount Fur ehas c 1 ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, HSMOEiiNDA 696 As Evidence 696 Necessary under the Act 696 Production of 701 Unfair Practices in Connection with 701 Account Sale 1 Accounts Sale, Failing to Render 110 704 (See also "False Accounts Sale") Action for Reparation 536 Acts in Restraint of Commerce 42 136 Acts of Employees as Acts of Corporation 181 714 Adrdssions 717 Adopting Complaint of /mother 93 465 Advantages 84 Affidavits or Other Instruments as Evidence 202 717 AGENCY (See also "Corporation") 40 111 705 Acts of Agent, Acts of Principal 40 112 705 Clearing Agents, Obligations to 113 Commissions of Sub-Agents 705 Compromising Claims without Authority of Principal 705 Interest of Agent 113 Jurisdiction with Respect to Controversies Involving 323 Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent 40 113 706 Proof of 203 Receivers as Agents 706 Rights and Obligations of Agents 41 707 Agreements end Stipul.ations 52 227 726 Allegations in Petition for Rehearing As Evidence 208 Allegations, Insufficiency of Evidence to Sustain 218 All oy 2 1 Anbiguity of Rates and Charges Re-solved in Favor of Shipper V 662 Amendments to Orders 433 Oil Ans war ■ 94 469 823 Answer, Extension of Tine to 97 484 Amended end Sup piomental Answers 93 465 Amended raid Supplemental Complaints, etc. 93 466 823 Appeal from, or Exception to, Exa.liner's Report * end Proposed Order, Waiver of Right to 690 Appeals 95 472 Application for Liconsos 758 App ortionment 84 Appraisal Work 2 Arbitr ary Re funds 507 Arbitration 473 ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE S EC RE Till Y Oral .100 4-4 829 Written y6 \473 823 Assignment of Claim for Reparation 4 535. • i - A. . V Assignment of Pens 580 Assignment of Scales 532 ■ r ' Attorney's Fees, Reparation for ■ 535 ■ •r Authority of Secretary in Aat>, Cr.sea 318 « Authority of Secretary to Supervise Packers 63 • Authority of Secretary ,ardor the Act 64, •7 o n occ Bad Checks 526 837 Betterment 3 Bias end Prejudice, Disqualification for 483 825 Bidding, Custom of Market agencies in 339 • «. Body Snatcher 3 Bonds, Failing to Execute 122 708 Bonds or Security in Lieu Thereof 122 708 (See also "Suspension of Registration of") Books of account 696 (See "accounts. Records, Memoranda") Boycott CO W . 816 Brand Inspection 631,662 Broach of Contract, Reparation for 105 537 840 Briefs 96 473 823 Burden of Proof 1-9 209 717 Butcher Stuff u Butcher Trader Buying and Selling Rates 664 851 Buying on the Ticker 4 Buying lower of the Market By-Laws ana Rules of Livestock Exchanges I 4 II III IV >40 V Calves Cancelling Proposed Few Ratos, Effect of 0 ar: ian Carmen. I ao/ments to * V Carriers CatcP. Pens Cattle Cease and Desist Ornors. Authority of Secretary to ;uc Change of Place of Hearings Checks Checks, Bad Chute Pens Chutes Civil Actions for Rop ar ation Civil Actions, Proceedings as Evidence in oftor Institution of Civil Action, Reparation Clearing Cleaning Agents, Obligations to m leaning Agents, Rondoriw; loariiia House Benefits Fal s e Au nor t s to Closed Territory Collatoral Attack on Orders Collusion with 1 Toigliriasters Collusive agreements Combinations Combinations or Agreements Against other Registrants COMMERCE Acts in Restraint of Feed Charges Interstate Commission Division Pons C ommis sion Divisions C ommis sion Pirns Commis sion Perch: nts COM. PI So I OH ra: il.O MD CHARGES Rate Ea.se, Factors in Determining Rea.s on ableness of Rules for Determinin': Reasona.bloness o 5 6 6 7 7 7 0 8 8 8 9 65 52 69 ■:-.c -i-2 43 oo 64 326 265 526 537 225 113 194 345 192 460 349 148 156 156 137 137 150 154 834 709 837 839 812 816 710 710 3 I II III IV V COMMISSIONS • 1. -U 172 711 Charging both Shipper or Ovmcr said 1urchaser 172 Charging other them hosted Schedules 174 711 Failing to Charge 177 712 Packers Charging 1 A -C Putting Hew Schedules into Effect 178 Ref undin,; C on ui s si ons Charged 516 Set-off, As Proper Item of 849 Commis sIons of Sub-A : ents 713 Competitive haricots at Stockyards 566 Complaint, Inquiry, Petition 97 477 824 Complaint, Laches in Filing 67 C on f1ic ting Evidonee 212 721 Consignment 9 Consignment, Livestock Shipped on 330 Consolidation of Dockets and Issues 480 824 Conspiracy 45 , 50,68 ,192,213,331 Constitutionality of ii.ct, Presumption of 814 Constitutionality of Packers and Stockvar Is *-• «✓ Act, as amended 83 444 Construction of 31atutes 107 Contractors 10 Control of Cooperative Associations 179 COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 179 Control of 179 Discrimination Against (See "Boycott") Patronage Dividends 179 Cooperative Association, What Constitutes 180 Coop Ratos 851 Coop Services, Jurisdiction over 756 Corn-Fills 11 CORPORATION 181 714 Acts of Employees as Acts of 181 714 Knowledge of Officers of Status of Corporate Affairs, 1 resumption of C orroborati ve Evi < 1 one c Counsel, Effect of No Representation bv C o untcr-C onp 1 ai n t Counterfciting Reucigh Tickets COUNTRY BUYERS Use of Shippers* iroceods to Discharge Debts of Country Livestock, Jurisdiction over Tran s acti ons Invo 1 vin ” 213 482 482 193 182 554 714 1 'a: 328 • I II III IV V : ountry Oper ation 182. ;ows 11 redit Extension 85 •151 715,817 rip Scale 11 roes Examination of 'fitnesses 109 682 874 ustons of the Trade 108 686 875 Janages, Measure of in Reparation j roceedin ’s • 5C8 316 )anares, Necessity to Trove for Reparation )ealer 12 840 DEALERS AND TRADERS 190 .Is Essential Market Factors 190 Functions of ISO Suspension of Registration of 637 (See that Title) Mho Arc 191 )EALER T-RACTICES .192 C o 11 us i on vi th Ai ghmas t or s 192 Conspiracy 192 Counterfeiting Rcured gh Tickets 193 Divertin ’ ; rococos in Violation of A-"reorient v j 193 Failure or Refusal to Deal id th ^ Market Agencies 148 Failing to Execute Bonds Posting or Circulating Fictitious 122 708 Bulletins 194 Rendering False Reports to Clearing Agencies 194 Switching or Intermingling Livestock Death of Respondent, affect of, on Setting Date 335 for Henri nr * _ > 733 Debts of Country Buyers, Use of Shippers’ Troceeds to Discharge 554 Default of Respondent, Hearings on DEFINITIONS 1 301 749 Ac c ount Fur chase 1 Account Sale 1 Alloy 2 Appr ai s al 1 io rk 2 * Betterment 3 Body Snatcher 3 Butcher Stuff 3 Butcher Trader Buying on the Ticker 5 II III IV V DEFINITIONS (Cent cl.) Buying Lower of the Market Calves C arnon Carriers Catch Ions Cattle Chute fens Chutes Cloarin" Closed Territory Conr.iission Division hens C onrni s s i on Di vi s i on s C onmi s s i on Fi ms Connis sion Herchants Consi jmaent Contractors Corn-Fills Co ITS Crip Scale Do o.l or Division Dockapc Docks Dope Sheet Draft Drive-Ins Filler-In First-Hand licvcnuc-Iroducinp Locoipts Fresh Consi. merits Fresh Stuff Giving Livestock a Fill Heavy o'cipht Bovines Hi;’h Line Scale Hops Holdup Insolvency Inspection honk Interest Interspersed Land Jack Lot Jackpot Mon Jackpot Scale Key-Man Lipht acipht Cattle I 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14- la 1-1 15 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 6 I II III IV DEFINITIONS (Cant’d.) Li vo 7 oultry Dealer Livestock Going to the Country Livestock Tr af f i c As s > c i nti on Loaders Market Agency Medium Weight Devines Order Buyer Original Shipper 7acker Holding i oils latent Carnen Person Figs Planting Poultry Unloading G-cj r±g Prorate Sheet Pullers Purchasers’ Temporary Holding Pens Kcccivors Resale Re-Yarding Sales Pen Seale Crew- Scale Ticket Seconds Selling Side of the Market Service Shippers 1 Buy Solvency Speculators Spindlo 3asket Splits Spread Stale Livestock Stanchion Stockers and Feodors Stockyard Through Shipments Throning Fits Throw Outs Total Fresh Revenue-Producing Receipts Total public Buy Track Buying ’’Track Buying" end "Soliciting", Difference between 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 2b 2b 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 29 29 29 SO 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 35 7 I II III IV V V DEF DTI TI OHS (C on t M. ) Traders Traders' Division Dens Train Runner Trippers Try the Llarkot Water Fills Waybill "YTciph" as synonymous v.lth "Soil” ITincTups Within the Scope of Enployncnt Yards, pc Yardage Charpcs Yardinp Yardinr; the Livestock Ycarlinps Dclo.v in he countin" Delaying Remittances Delivery Denial of Licenses (See "Licenses”) Depositions Depreciation on Stockyard's T'roperty, F omul a for Designated areas. Jurisdiction over Destruction of Documents Discounts Discrimination apainst Cooperative Associations Dismissal, Discontinuanco, cmd Tornination of Hearings Disqualification of Examiner Division Dockapc (See "False Accounts Sale"; "False Accounts iurchase") Dockapo Refunds Docks Docunents, Destruction nf Dope Sheet Draft Drafts Drive-Ins Duties of Market Agencies Duties of Secretary under the i.et 34 34 35 35 35 35 36 56 36 57 58 38 38 59 39 ■16 110 550 195,582 214 704 716 758 722 8o 571 : 5 5 i-i-8 755 5o 235 733 729 15 13 13 14 14 509 455 47 196 345 64 322 8 I II III IV V Eggs, Jurisdiction over 755 Engaging in Business without Sufficient . Financial Requirements . 456 817 Estrays, Care and Disposition of 572 EVIDENCE 49 202 717 Admissions 717 Affidavits or Other Instruments as 202 717 Agency, Proof of 203 Allegations in Petition for Rehearing as 208 Books of Account, Records, Memoranda 208 717 Burden of Proof 49 209 - 717 Conflicting Evidence 212 721 Conspiracy 50 213 . Corroborative 213 Depositions 214 722 Exclusion of 215 Incompetent, Immaterial, and Irrelevant 50 215 722 In Mitigation of Violation of the Act 217 Insufficiency of, to Sustain Allegations 218 ' Judicial Notice 219 722 Of Monopoly 51 Order of Presentation of 51 Partnership 223 • ■ ; Presumptions 51 224 • ; 725 Proceedings as Evidence in Private Litigation 52 225 Proceedings of Prior Hearing as 52 225 725 Relationship of Stockyards to Operator 578 Respondent Failing or Refusing to Give, Significance of 695 875 Review of by Secretary 226 Right to Offer 226 Statements of Counsel during Oral Argument as 226 State Statutes .227 Stipulations and Agreements 52 227 726 Value of Land, in Rate Cases 235 Waiver of • 235 Yfeight of 54 235 728 Examination of Witnesses 109 692 874 Examiner, Disqualification of 729 Examiner’s Report and Proposed Order, Waiver of Right to Appeal from, or Make Exception to 690 Exceptions, Time for Filing 483 826 9 II III IV V Exclusion of Evidence Expenses of Prosecution, Reparation for Export Testimony Extension of Time to Answer (See also "Answer") FACTORS IN DETERMINING RATE BASE Commission Poultry Stockyards Failure to Pay, Reparation for Failure to Render Reasonable Service, Reparation for Fair Return on Investment, Right of Stocky ends to FALSE ACCOUNTS PURCHASE Arbitrary Weight Estimates Dockage Purchase Price, Misrepresenting True Seller, Failure to Disclose Weight, Misrepresentation as to FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE Arbitrary Weight Estimates Dockage Failure to Disclose Condition of Animals Fictitious Number of Livestock Sold, Misrepresentation as to Pecuniary Interest, Failure to Disclose Plural Owners, Failure to Show True- .Amount Each Entitled to Reporting Price Different than Price Received for Livestock or Poultry Sex of Livestock Sold, Misrepresentation as • to True Purchaser, Failure to Disclose Weight, Misrepresentation as to False Food Charges False Reports (See also "False Accounts Sale"; "False Accounts Purchase") False Reports, Rendering of to Clearing Agents Fictitious Accounts Sale Feed Charges Food Charges as Part of Commerce Fictitious Bulletins, Posting or Circulating T 546 692 97 484 137 051-870 586 540 842 86 544 ■ 573,615 237 237 237 237 241 241 243 730 243 244 244 244 246 248 250 251 730 257 258 731 264 732 457 818 458 818 194 244 665 860 710 194 10 II III IV Fiduciary Relationship of Market Agencies Filler-In Filling Orders from Consignments Financial Reports to the Secretary Financial Requirements, Engaging in Business without Sufficient Findings of Fact, and Exceptions to First-Hand Revenue-Producing Receipts Formula for Property Depreciation Fraud, Statutes of Fraudulently Obtaining Possession of Animals Fresh Consignments Fresh Stuff Functions of Dealers and Traders Functions of Stockyards K/ General Allegations Subject to Motions Giving Livestock a Fill Granting of Licenses Gratuitous Refunds HEARINGS Change of Place of Death of Respondent, Effect of on Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of Inspection of Records in Preparation for Issues Considered at Nature of Necessity for Notice of On Default of Respondent Place of Ho1ding Postponement of Postponement of Some but Not All of Issues Involved Po¥\ror of Secretary to Hold Questions Involved in Ra.tc Cases Rchcarings Reopening of Supplemental ’Taivcr of Heavy Height Bovines Highest Bid, Failing to Accept V 14 14 14 - lb 15 ] 5 98 55 55 57 60 61 64 338 459 458 456 485 571 532 190 574 487 507 265 265 265 284 284 285 300 300 301 301 668 305 311 313 313 332 817 827 850 763 733 733 733 741 748 749 750 750 750 11 I _II III IV V High Lino Scale 15 Hogs 16 Hog Inspection System 347 Holdup 16 Illegality of Practices and Devices 818 Immunization Services (Soe "Special Rates and Charges") Impeachment of Testimony 693 Incompetent, Immaterial, and Irrelevant Evidence 50 215 722 Inquiry and Notice, Complaint, Petition S7 477 824 Insolvency (See also "Suspension of Registration of") 17 315 754 Inspection oork 17 Insufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Allegations 218 Insurance 316 Interest 17 Interest of Agent 113 Interspersed Lend 17 Interstate Commerce 43 Intervention 98 488 828 Intrastate Transactions, Jurisdiction over 756 Issues Considered at Hearings 284 Jack Pot 18 v Jackpot Man 18 Jackpot Scale 18 Joinder and Severance of Parties 99 Joint Orders 81 Judicial Notice 219 722 JURISDICTION (See also "Waiver") G3 318 755 Authority of Secretary in Rate Cases 318 Duties and Authority of Secretary Under the Act 64 322 Over Controversies Involving Agency 323 Over Dcsigne.tod Areas 755 Over Eggs 755 ■Over Intrastate Transactions 756 Over Livestock Exchange 323 Over Livestock in Transit 324 Over Management of Market Agency .uf fairs 324 Over Trucking end Coop Services 756 Power of Secretary to Hold Hearings 64 m m 12 1 II III IV V JURISDICTION (See also "Waiver”) (Cont’d.) Right of Secretary to halve 524 Set-off, to Determine Right of 525 To Award Reparation 525 To Issue Cease and Desist Orders 65 526 To Suspend the Registrant , 527 Transactions Involving Countrv Livestock 328 Key-Men 18 Knowledge of Status of Corporate Affairs, Prosumption Against Officers Laches in Filing Complaint 67 Land Values, Evidence of, in Rate Cases 235 LICENSES Application for Denial for Financial Reasons Deni al f o r 0 thar Ro ns on s Granting of Obtaining by Fraud Revocation of Revocation of Suspension of Suspension of Waivers, Effect of on Granting of Working Capital, What Constitutes Light Weight Cattle 19 Limitation of Time Within Which to Seek Reparation 548 Live Poultry Dealer 19 Live Poultry, Method of Handling Live Poultry on Consignment Livestock Exchanges, By-Laws and Rules of 340 Livestock Exchanges, Jurisdiction over 323 Livestock Going to the Country 19 Livestock in Transit, Jurisdiction over 324 Livestock, Loss of During Trenspprtation 329 Livestock on Consignment 330 LIVESTOCK SiXES AND TRANSACTIONS 68 331 Conspiracy in 68 351 Drafts 47 193 Failing to Render Accounts of 110 Fraudulently Obtaining Possession of Animal s 532 Highest Bid, Failing to nccopt 332 Imposition of Penalties on 333 On Contingent Price Basis 353 Stolen Livestock 333 Switching Animals 335 757 714 758 758 758 761 763 768 770 774 774 777 777 846 779 780 13 1 II V III r Livestock Traffic Association 20 Loading Rates Loaders Loss of Livestock During Transportation of 20 329 Management of Market Agency Affairs, Jurisdiction over 324 Manner of Handling Shippers’ Proceeds 556 Market Agency Affairs, Jurisdiction over 324 Management of MARKET AGENCIES 337 Ac ting as Dealers 337 As Fiduciaries 338 As Public Utilities 339 Bidding, Custom of 339 By-Laws and Rules of Livestock Exchanges Change in Nature or Management of 340 Business, Pci lure to. Report 344 Clearing House Benefits '345 Commissions (Sec "Practices end Devices") 172 Credit Extension 451 Duties of 345 Financial Reports to the Secretary 458 (See also "False Reports") Hog Inspoction Systcm 347 Liability for Acts of Apparent Agent 113 Limiting Business of, to Posted Stockyards 348 Offer of Restitution, Effect of 340 Set-off, Right to Shippers’ Proceeds for 553 Suspension of Registration of 649 (See that Title; Market Agency 20 Measure of Damages Medium "Height Bo vines 20 105 549 Mergers Method of Handling Live Poultry v_> 0 748 Necessity for Registration 521 Non-Registrant, Reparntion Against 535 Notice of Hearings 300 Notice that Act Applies to Stockyards, How Given 575 Offer of Restitution, Effect of 348 On Consignment 330 780 Oral Arguments Before the Secretary 100 494 829 Order Buyer 21 Order of Presentation of Evidence 51 ORDERS 72 352 782 Amendments to 433 811 Cease and Desist 441 Coll a coral Attack on 812 Joint Orders 81 Postponement of Effective Date of 441 812 Orders not Res Adjudicate. 552 Original Shipper 21 Packer Holding Pens 22 PACKERS 82 As Public Utilities 82 Authority of Secretary to Supervise 63 Who Arc 82 PACKERS AND STOCKY,EDS ACT (See also "Waiver”, "Jurisdiction" ) 83 444 814 Constitutionality of 83 144 Duties of Secretary Under 64 322 Notice of Application of to Stockyards, How Given 575 Presumption of Constitutionality of 814 Purpose of 83 444 Rules and Regulations Promulgated Under 446 Rules of Practice Under 499 829 Violation of. Evidence in. Mitigation of 217 Waiver of Violation of 691 Packers Charging Commission -14 Packers, Maintenance of Stockyards by 87 Parties, Joinder and Severance of 99 Partnership, Evidence of 223 patent Carmen 22 Patronage Di "A donds 179 ./ 15 I II III IV V Payments to Carmen 834 Faymonts to Truckers 447,511 835 Pecuniary Interest, Fed lure to Disclose 248 Penalties, Imposition of or. Sales and Transactions 333 Person 22 Petitions, Jurisdictions over Figs 23 Place of Holding Hearings 60 FI anting 23 Pleading (See "Procedure") S3 465 823 Pleading and Proof, Variance between 504 Pleading, Technical Defects in 102 503 Policies Contrary to Custom 88 Posting or Circulating Fictitious Bulletins 194 Posting Schedules of Hates and Charges 668 Postponement of Effective Date of Orders 441 812 Iostponoment of Hearings 81 301 750 Postponement of Some but Hot All Issues Involved 750 Poultry Merchants Acting o.s Both Dealers and Commission Men 819 Poultry, Requiring Buyers to Purchase Undosirab1c S toek 820 P o ul t r y T r on s p o r t at ion Ch or g o s 815 (See also "Commerce" ) Poultry Unloading Gong 21- PRACTICES idJD DEVICES 84 448 816 Accounting, Delay in 110 704 Advantages 84 Apportionment 84 Boycott 448 816 Civil Actions for Rep mod ion 537 Commissions (Sec that Heading) 44 172 711 Cooperative Associations 179 (See that Title) Country Oporodion cu CO 1 — 1 Credit Extension 85 451 817 Dealer Prentices (See thod Title) 192 Destruction of Documents u55 Discounts 85 Engaging in Business without Sufficient Fi none i al R e qui r oment s 456 817 Fo.lso Accounts Purchase (Sec thod Title) 237 Fed so Accounts Sale (See thod Title) 243 730 16 I II III IV V PRACTICES AHD DEVICES (Cant’d.) False Feed Char ;cs 457 818 False Reports 86 458 818 Filling Orders from Consignments Illegality of 459 818 Livestock Sales and Transactions 68 351 (See that Keaaing) Maintenance of Ov/r. Stockyards by Lackers 87 Mi s ;r adlng 87 Monopoly (gee that heading) 69 349 lackers Charging Commission .. LA iolicics Contrary to Custom 88 Foultry Merchants Acting as both Dealers V L_J and Commission Men 819 ireferences 88 Irice Control and Manipulation SO 819 Rebates and Illegal Payments (See that Heading ) 507 834 Receiving 820 Remittances (See that Keaaing) Roquiring Poultry Buyers to .t urchase 105 526 837 Undesirable Stock 820 Scc ret Agroonionts •160 Stockyard I ro.c tic os (See that Reading) Substituting Inferior ’inducts for 580 Superior products 91 IJnl oading ’’Wcighing-up” by Market Agencies to 820 Themselves 463 Weighing (See also ’’False Accounts Purchase”, A O O 'xbc 821 ’’False Accounts Sale”, ’’Stockyards i racticcs”) 1 references 88 Frcsumpti ons 51 224 725 Price Control and Manipulation Principal, Acts of .agent, ixts f 90 819 (See ’’Agency”) 40 112 705 i rincipal. Liability for Acts of Apparent Agent Private Litigation, Proceedings under Act as 40 113 706 Evidence in 52 225 Privileges of the Market 575 Proceedings as Evidence in Civil Actions 52 225 PROCEDURE ' 93 465 823 Abandonment of Complaint or Proceedings 165 Adopting Cornelmint of Another 93 ±65 17 I II III IV V PROCEDURE (Cont’d.) Anended and Supplemental Answers S3 465 Amended and Supplemental Complaints, etc» 93 466 823 Answer 9-i 469 t>o C\2 CO Appeals 95 472 Arbitration 473 Briefs and Written Ar guments 96 473 823 Complaint, Inquiry, Petition 97 477 824 Consolidation of Dockets and Issues 480 824 Counsel, Effect of No Representation by 482 Counter-Complaint 482 Dismissed, Discontinuance, and Termination of Hearings 55 265 733 Disqualification for Bias and Prejudice 483 825 Exceptions, Tine for Filing 183 826 Extension of Time to Answer 97 484 (See als o n Answer” ) Findings of Fact, and Exceptions to 98 435 827 General allocations Subject to Motions 487 Hearings (See that Title) 55 285 733 Intervention 98 488 828 Joinder and Severance of parties 99 Motions and Objections 99 48 S Oral Arguments before the Secretary -U fj 100 494 829 Orders (Sec that Title) 72 352 782 Rchcarings 305 Reopening Hearings 311 750 Rules of Practice 499 829 Service of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. 101 500 830 Supplemental Findings of Fact 502 Surprise 502 Technical Defects in Pleading 102 503 Testimony, Impeachment of 693 Testimony, Right to Give 226 Variance between Pleading and Proof 504 Waiver (Sec that Title) Witnesses (See that Heading) 109 692 874 Proceedings of Prior Hearing as Evidence 52 225 725 Production of Accounts, Records, Memoranda 701 Prorate Sheet 25 Public, Utilities 506 Public Utilities, Expending Funds in 506 Contravention of Statute Public Utilities, Market Agencies as 339 Public Utilities, Stockvards as 568 Public Utilities, lackers as 82 18 I II III IV V Pullers Purchasers’ Tenporary Holding Pons RATH BASE, FACTORS Hi DETERMINING Commission Poultry Stockyards Rate Cases, Authority of Secretary in Ratos (S c e T ar i £‘f s and R at os) REASONABLENESS OF RATES AND CHARGES Commission Poultry Stockyards REBATES i:d v ID ILLEGAL PAYMENTS Arbitrary and Gratuitous Refunds Dockage Refunds Ovor-Rcmittanc os Payments to Truckers, Carmen, or Others R c fun ding G omnis sion s Refunding Yardage Charges Refunds to Third Persons Receivers Receivers as Agents Receiving Records, Inspection of in Preparation for Hearing Re funding Conmissions Refunds to Third Persons Refunding Yardage Charges Refusal to Make Remittances in Full Registrant, Provision Authorizing Suspension of REGISTRATION Necessity for Revocation of Revocation of Suspension of Suspension of (See that Title) Regulations Promulgated under the Act Rchearings Relationship of Stockyards to Operator remittances' Bad Checks Drafts Prior to Salo of Livestock Refusal to Make in Full 25 25 26 103 103 47 103 137 586 318 662 150 615 507 507 509 510 511 516 519 519 284 516 519 519 527 636 521 521 521 521 637 146 305 578 526 526 196 526 527 851-870 851 851-870 834 834,835 706 820 858 857 837 838 19 I II III IV V EEMITTANCSS (C out * d. ) Supplemental Payments to Correct previous Errors, Effect of 527 To *Third Persons without Authority 528 838 Withholding or Del ay in,; C_> v o 530 Remittance to Employee, Reparation for 845 Reopening Hearings 311 750 REPARATION 105 534 839 After Institution of Civil Action 839 Against Agent for Compromising Claims mthout Authority V 839 Against a Non-Registrant \ 535 Assignment of Claim for 535 Attorney’s Foes V 535 Authority of Secretary to Award 325 757 Cause of Action for 536 Civil Actions for 537 Damages, Necessity to move 8 40 For Breach of Contract o i— l 537 840 For Fa ilure to Pay 540 842 For Failure to Render Reasonable Service 544 For Remittance to Employee 845 For Transportation, Fare, Meals, end Expenses of Prosecution 546 For Unfair Practice 546 845 For Unreasonable Rate or Charge 547 For Unreasonable Shrinkage 846 Jurisdiction of Secretary to Compel 325 757 Limitation of Time to Seek 548 846 Measure of Damages 105 549 847 Sot-off 325 Trucking Charjos 551 Requiring agencies to Limit Business to Posted Stockyards r- o f? oou Res Adjudicata 552 848 Resale 26 Respondent as Witness 694 Review of the Evidence by the Secretary 226 Revocation of Licenses 770 Revocation of Registration 521 Revocation of Suspension of Licenses 774 Revocation of Suspension of Registration 521 Roweieh Tickets, Counterfeiting 193 Re-yarding 26 6 20 (•; . i ■ 1 _ ' I II III IY V • Rights rind Obligations of agents ■xl 707 RULES FOR DETERHIUIUG REASONABLENESS OF ' RATES AID CHARGES Commission 154 Foultry 351-070 Stockyards 622 Rules of Fracticc 499 829 Rules iromulgated under the Act 446 Sales and Transactions (See "Livestock S al e s and Tr an s ac ti on s " ) SO 531 Sales Fens 27 Scale Crevj- 27 S c alc s, As cignnont o f • 502 Scale Ticket 27 Seconds .20 Secret Agreements 460 Secretary of Agriculture, Duties of under the Act 64 322 Selling Side of the Market 29 Service 29 Service of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. 101 500 030 SET-OFF 553 349 Commissions as Froper Item of 049 Shippers* irocceds Subject to 553 049 Set-off in Reparation irocccein w s 325 Set-off, Jurisdiction of Secret,.re to Determine j.,i ght of 325 Shipper’s Buy 29 SHIFTERS ’ x ROCEEDS 554 Appropriation of to Dischex ;c Debts of Country Buyers 554 As Trust Funds 555 Manner of Handling 556 Mingling of with Other Funds 55G • Subject to Set-off 553 849 Using for Other I urnoses 560 Solvency 30 Special Rates end Charges • 669 Special Stockyard Services / 570 • ' ■ Speculators 30 Spindle Basket 30 Splits 30 Sprce.d 31 Stale Livestock 31 \ 21 - _I_ _n_ III IV V Staridncn 51 Statononts of Counsel During Oral .^rpunent 226 as Evidence State Statutes 106 564 State Statutes as Evidence 227 Statutes, Construction of 10 V Statutes in Current Appropriation Acts, Aernancncy of 636 » Statutes of frauds 050 Statutes, State 106 564 Stipulations and Apreorients 52 227 726 Stockcrs and Feeders o2 Stockyard 52 STOCKY. JiDS 566 ids Coi'-ipotitive Market xluces 566 As I'ublic Utilities 560 Custonarv Mode of Operation at 560 Depreciation on Iroperty of, Fomula for 571 Estrays. Caro and Disposition of 572 Fear Return on Invest-lent, Ripht to 573 Functions of 574 Maintenance of by A ackers 37 Nature of Business 57 4 Notice that ,-.ct Applies to. How Given 575 Trivilcpcs 575 Relationship of to Operator 570 SpccicTL Services 578 Trade Territory of. Method of Deter, dniup 579 Stockyards, Maintenance of by ±ackers 07 S TOCKYMRDS x ILX TICHS 500 xlssi pni.iont of I ons 500 Assipnnont of Scodes 502 Delivery 502 Feed Charpcs 457 Requiring Apcncios to Limit Business to Tostod Stockyards 503 Rciphinp 505 Yardape Char.pes 5.; x Yardage Charpcs, Rofundinp 535 STOCKYARDS RATES *AJD CIAJ,GnS 506 Rate Base, Factors in Jeter..iininp 60S Reasonableness of 615 Rule for Detemiininp Reasonableness of 622 22 1 II III IV V Stockyards Services (See also "Tariffs and Rates - Yardage Charges") 631 Stolen Livestock 333 Subpoenas 634 8 5 Oft Substituting Inferior products for Superior Products 91 Supploriental Findings of Fact 502 S upp 1 orient al II c nr i ng s 313 Surprise 502 Suspension of Ho?/ Schedules of Rates end Charges 669 Suspension of Licenses 774 Suspension of Rcgistrant, Jurisdiction of Secretary to Order 636 S us pension of Rogistrant, Ir o vi s i on Authorizing 636 SUS.FITSIOn OF REGISTRATION OF 637 Dealers and Traders, for Fraudulent Practices 637 Dealers and Traders, for Insolvency 638 Dealers and Traders, for Hot Executing or Filing Bonds 640 Dealers and Traders, for Unfair Trade Practices 644 Market Agencies, for Insolvency Si-9 Market agencies, for Hot Executing or Filin:.; Bonds 650 Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practiccs 653 Snitching or Substituting Animals 335 TARIFFS AID RATES r* r> o O'zA 851 Ambiguity of Rates Resolved in Favor of Shipper 662 Brand Inspection 662 Buying and Selling r> r* > o o ■ 851 Cancelling I roposed How Ratos, Effect of 66 a Commission Rates end Charges (see that Heading) 157 C : op 851 Feed Charges 665 060 How Bee one Effective 667 * Loading 060 II III IV V I TARIFFS iiFID RATES (Cont ’d. ) Posting Schedules Questions Involved in Hearings 663 to Determine 663 Special Charges Stockyards Rates and • Charges (See 669 th at II e adinj) 5o6 Suspension of New Schedule of Rates and Charges 669 Truck 362 Unloading Vac c i n at i on C h ar g e s 674 067 Weighing and Reweighin ■ Charges 675 Yardage Charges 676 Tariffs, Proper Hethod of Changing Technical Defects in Pleading / 102 505 371 Testimony, Expert 692 Tcs timany, Inpe achncnt o f 693 Testimony of Interested Witness 109 695 Testimony, Prevention of by Respondent Testimony, Respondent Failing or 694 Refusing to Give, Significance of 695 875 Testimony, Right to Give Through Shipments 32 226 Throwing Fits 53 Thrown uts Tine to Qualify for Licenses 53 750 Title Total Fresh Revenue-Producing Receipts 33 635 872 Total Public Buy 33 Track Buying ’’Track Buying” and Soliciting”, V rr o 6 Di f f cr one e Be twocii 54 Trade Customs Tr ader s 34 100 nr OtO 075 Traders’ Division ± oils o4 Trade Romes, Use of Train Runner Transportation, Pare, meals. Expenses, 35 600 Reparation fir 546 Transportation of Livestock, Inss Durin^ Trippers 35 329 Truckers, Payment to 447,511 335 II III IV Trucking Charges, Reparation for Truck Rates Truckin'; Services, Jurisdiction over Try the Market Unfair Practice, Reparation for Unfair Practices in Connection vlth Accounts, Records, Memoranda Unloading Unloading Rates Unreasonable Rate or Charge, Reparation for Unreasonable Shrinkage, Reparation for Using Shippors* Proceeds for Other Purposes 551 55 V 362 756 546 . A f— (A-: 5 701 020 067 5-1-7 560 o 1 U’JC 6 Vaccination Charges Value of Land, Pvidonee of Varion.ee between Iloadin * and iroof Violation of hulas and By-Lav/s 3f Livest ck Exchanges Violation of the net, Evidence in Mitigation of '-a Violation of the -let, Waiver ,of ^Waiver of Evidence ' Waiver of Hearings Waiver of Jurisdiction, Right of Secretary to Make Waiver of Right to Appeal fron, or Moke Exception to. Report and Iroposod Order of Examiner Waiver of Violation of the .at Waivers, Effect of on Grrntin^ of License Water Fills Waybill "Weiph" as Synonymous with ’Sell" Wei ghing Wei ’hing end Rewoi ’hin • Char -os "Weighing-up" by Market Agencies to Themselves Weight of the Lvidonee Who i_rc Dealers and Tradors Who Arc Packers Windups 674 235 504 540 217 691 235 313 690 691 777 35 36 36 462,503 321 675 463 # 54 235 723 191 32 \ 25 . • • X II . A 1 !. IV _ V_ Y/ithho 1 din ; * ncni ttoneos * ■ 530 Tfithin the Scope of Lnploynont 37 ' YilTNESSES 109 692 P7_; Examination end Cross E&oaination of 109 692 G7d Expert Testimony 692 • Impeachment of Testimony -f 693 Opportunity to bo Heard 693 ire volition of Tostimonv of bv f/ iy despondent 69 d despondent as » 69 f despondent Fed linn or defusing to Testify, Sipnificonco of 695 G75 Testinony of Interested fitness 10 s 695 . dor kin.; Capital for Licenses 777 dr i 11 on j . ,r puaent s 96 173 623 Yardape be Yardago Charpcs 3G Yarding 3;.! Yardinp the Livestock 39 Yearlings 39 I'iJcT FOUR Digests Under Title I of the hot Definitions DU FI IT T T1011S I Account Purcha accounts purclic.se are prepared by order buyers covering pur clauses n&do on order, uji account purchase usually con tci. ns the date of the shipuont, the name of the customer, the location, the name of ■ the con. iission firm from which the •livestock is bought, the nun- bor of head, weight, price, total weight, the railroad >vor which the shipment is nado, the charges, the average rroi pht, end total cost, -The itons of expense entered on an account sale arc com¬ missions, fire insurance pro. nuns, food, and the charge for ox- change, which is the char pc on the draft drawn tv joins t the cus- ■touor *> . ! D—102 Account Sale For a plural -rune r ship con si,gnnent, the commission firm usually melees out a master prorate sheet shoving the facts with respect to the sole of the livestock for each owner, end the allocation of the various expenses. The commission firm may be requested to furnish individual account sales in addition to the master prorate sheet* D-30G The account stile rivos complete information in regard to the weight, price, nemo of purchasers, and expenses incident to the handling of the livestock at the stockyards• D-oOG Forms krunm as accounts sale are used in ronaorinp accounts in the case of livestock sold by market agencies. One of these forms is prepared covering each consignnent, showing the name of the purchaser or purchasers, the number of drafts, the number of hoaweight and price of each draft, press proceeds, items of expense (such as froipht, feed, yardape, commissions an' other d.oductiblc items), and the not proceeds, A copy of this is sent to the owner. D-oll (Second Aohearing•) 1 DEFINITIONS I Account Sc'.lc The M account scJLo" shows infornr.tiori as to the correct number, if .it is a rail consi jonaht, the amount of the freight, feed, yard- awe, end caw other expenses incident to the sale of the livestock, includin' thv> con-missions clicer od. This information is in acldi- —- tion to the purchase price, name of purchaser, and other informa¬ tion vdth relation to the actual sale made D-3G3 The office staff employed by each respondent receives a copy of the "dope sheet" showing the livestock which is consigned to the firm. As soon as the scale tickets arc brought to the office, they are assorted according, to consignments, ’.hen all the live¬ stock in c. consignment has been accounted for, an account srhc is prepared. The account sale contains the name of the buyer, address, number of head, weight, price, and nano >£ the buyer of each draft. D—145 ml ley in alloy is a narr yvr paved driveway, used in driving the live¬ stock from the chute pens to the sales pens. D-29G in alley is a. narrow paved way used in driving livestock from chute pons to sales pens. D—125 Appr ai s al 1' /or 1: Frequently, salesmen of market agencies are called upon to go to the country to look at livestock before shipment and nay be re¬ quests 1 to sort the livestock preparatory to shipment. This ser¬ vice is confine ' largely to ccvbtlo and sheep and is requested by a relatively small proportion of the producers of livestock. This service, demand for which has grown during the past few years, is known as "appraisal work" and is ordinarily confined to those producers who have a carload or more of livestock to ship to arlcet. D-50G 2 N DEFINITIONS I Appraisal fork Some shippers of lives tool; will request members of the respondent market ayencics, or their sa.losncn, to cone to the country to look at their livestock end render rn opinion with respect to the con¬ dition of the livestock. This activity if the market r.poncy is commonly referred to ns "appraised." >r "inspection work". D-311 3 otter :noit A "betterment" is n physical chanpc in n structure v/hich has the result of ncdcinp the properties affected norc useful or of proator capacity than they wore at the tine of their original installation or acquisition* Under tho classification of a betterment, the Secretary covered the addition of a concrete floor to the hop house of the respondent stockyards c nip my as a bettement instead rep car. D—125 Body Snatcher A "body snatcher" is a tern commonly onployod in the Kensas City Stockyards aid noons an irresponsible person who has no office and who attempts to secure money from the unsophisticated in the Kansas City Stocky ends, in connection with the purchase of livestock for then* D-39 Butcher Stuff "Butcher stuff" consists of livestock sold from the stockyards by traders to packers or corrals si on men for butchering* D-200 k , DEFINITIONS I Butcher Trader The "butcher trader" usually buys the class 11 '-dels ci id ends", i/hich c ones free: ordinary by the c oiieds si on non. The "butcher trader r.iissi on division, since it is the practice buvinr livestock for slaughter to resort t :> o’ -J • yards to make their purchases. of livestock called sorting of livestock " operates in the con- j. of the buyers who me that section of the D-6 Buying on the Ticker "Buyin u on the ticker" soon after ii.o:in his p •. r oi t ;ht as the be.sis fm is the practice odoureby urchases, raid tliv buyer settlonent. a trader sells vorv v accents the original D-191 Buyin; ?. h.-or of the Market The action ties conducted by ry order buyers, dealers or tr stockyards, when considered "the buyinj power of the :ia; or through local packers, local butchers adors, tJid fcoders end finishers, at a collectively, mo usually donor -.dilated rket"• " D-29G The denand on the p ext of locel or traders, end feeders ana far*, property of the bioux City btock "buyin p power of the market". ..ckms, order buyers, dealers ms jpmatiiy_ \athin or nearby the Yards is usually denoLiinated the D—125 DEFINITIONS I Calves In his’ order fixin 0 certain c .mol s si on rates and charges for sell- in j end buy in ’ livestock, the Secretary- determined that cattle v;oi 'hin, less then 125 p junds sh ml x be considered calves • ' D-113 Calves are* mini.1 s of the bovine species, i/ciphed in drafts, the average wei ;ht of the minal s in which is 100 nounds or under. D-30G Calves arc animals of the bovine species, vrei plied in drafts, the aver a jo wcielrt of the animals in which is 100 pounds or under. D-511 (First and Second Uchcariny.); D-102 Calves arc mi rial s of the bo\lnc species woiphod in droits, the aver eye iTCipht of the minds in -which is 100 pounds or under. D-15G end D-157 C arnan kith each car of live poultry, there is an attendant employed by the shipper and known as a carman v/ho feeds, waters, end cares for the poultry during trmsit and until it is relieved fron the car. It is the usual practice for the carnan to food the poultry early in the riorninp/ at least several hours before tine for uni ending. D-553, 551, uid 555 Carriers Two non of the poultry uni oadiir; yen * wlv- carry the poultry from the car t the platform md place it in the coops are called "carriers". D-537, 573, 571, and 575 DLFUvITIOJIS I Catch Tons It is solemn practicable or convcnicut for purchasers to receive their livestock hi root f r on the vendors c.t the stockyards raid to ronevc the mine!s from the yo.rds immediately after they arc driv¬ en off the scales. The stockyards company re-yards such livestock in what is known as purchasers’ holding pens, or catch pens, D-150 Cattle Cattle arc animals of the bovine species, wci.phcd in drafts, the aver ape weipht of the animal s in which is over 100 pounds • D-30G Cattle arc animals of the bovine specie's, weiphed in drafts, tho aver ape weight of tho animals in which is 001 pounds or over. D-311 (First end oocond kchoarinj. ) Cattle arc animals of the bovifie species, weighed in drafts, the avorapo v/ei ht of the initials in which is over 000 pounds • D-135 Cattle ore animals of the b vine species, ^ei -hod in drafts, the aver a ;o weipht of the animal s in which is over COO pounds , D-115 Cattle arc animals of tho bovine species, woiphod in drafts, the avorapo weipht of the animals in which is over 000 pounds. D-45G end D-157 m. m b DEFINITIONS I Chute I or.s Chute pens oj*c whieh are used ’’sales pons”. fenced enclosures into which the chutes lead, end to hold the livestock until it can be driven into D-29J . Chute pens are fenced enclosures into which chutes lea’ end are used to hold the livestock until it can be ..riven to ,.ens called ’’sales pens” where it is warehouse.', by respondent for sdo by the owner or his representative. UiC.L accepted D- 1-25 Chutes Chutes are ihclincd wal’cways for livestock, docks • leading down fron D-293 Chutes are inclined walkways for livestock to chute pens. leading fron docks D—125 portable chute is used cars. for unloading end loading double-dock D-425 Cloaring Monv commission firns do not maintain their own ganizations for handling their business. There independent or- arc arrangements whereby a regularly established narkot agency performs sone or all of the office, yard, and selling functions for other individuals or firms. This arrangement is generally knnm as ”clcaring” • There are a few firms on the market which arc chcruu by other firms only as t..> their finances. D-1-02 Some of the resconsent firms en. *c. the office w.>rk for other firms, "clearing” • In subs trxti ally all in j firm finmeos the operati or>.s .go in the business of performing This is usually referred to as clearing operations, the clcar- of the firm domed. D—Id5 V 7 DEFINITIONS I m Closed Territory Closed territory referred, according to tory r.ientioncd in the arroonont between which prices wore to bo fixed. \ testinony, to that terri- thc respondent packers, in D—ii-0 Commission Division runs Cor-rai s si on division pens are pens custody of c omni s si on aponts • sot aside for livestock in the D-301 C omni s s i on Di vi s i ons Comission divisions within a stockyard ore divisions where livestock of the ori jinol shippers is warehoused. D—125 Coraiissi on Firms The owner has the privilege of sell in,;, his own livestock, but it is almost the invariable practice for him to select someone to sell it. As a result, there arc those who hold themselves out to the public as agents of the owners in the sale of their livestock. These arc commonly known as "commission firms". D-5J3 The system for handlin; end. scllinj of livestock which has been developed on the market is so complicatea that regularly estab¬ lished ajencies, familiar with the routine of the market place, located at the market, hold themselves out to receive and sell livestock for those who consi ,n livestock to the market. They arc usually referred to as "commission firms". D—1-02 The producers and others usually operate throu ii shipping livestock to market for sale a pent s known as "commission men". D-425 •ptiatin ; sales end purchases of livestock on assumed by those who have become familiar The function of 11 c, tho markets has boon with tho business end arc skilled in the pcrformencc of such oper¬ ations. This is the primary function of the respondents. They arc referred to as "commission firms". They hold themselves out to the 1i ve stock-pro duein 0 public to negotiate sales end purchases of live¬ stock for those who wish to on, a 0 c them. Thoy perform their ser¬ vices at the markets upon a compassion basis. D—1-505 and D—1-57 o O DEFINITIONS I C ommi s s i on Fi rris Commission firms hold themselves out to the public both to buy omi.'sell livestock on a. commission basis* Order buying by cor.mission men constitutes a very small part of thoir total business. D-534 Commis si on Merchants In the contracts between the receivers and the contractors, for unloading poultry at Now York City, the receivers are referred to as ’’commission merchants”* D-537, 573, 574, and 575 Consignment A consignment, for the purpose of assessing buying charges, is all the livestock of me species, bought at any time, but shipped or delivered to one person on one market agency. D-311 (First and Second Eehcarinp); D-I-35; D-153 D-300; D-102; and 1-57; D-534 L consignment, for tho purpose of assessing, sell in;; charges, is all the livestock of one species delivered in the name of one person to one market agency to bo offered for sale during the trading hours of one day* D-508; D-383; D-402; D-435; D-445; D-456 and 457; D-534 9 DEFINITIONS I Consignment A consignment, for the purpose of assessing selling charges, is all the livestock of one species delivered in the name of one per- son to one market agency to be offered for sale during the trading hours of one day, provided, however, that when the livestock of several owners arrives in one car and in not more than one car, each species in that carload shall be considered as one consign¬ ment. D-311 (First and Second Rehearing.) Contractors The receivers do not maintain regular employees for the purpose of unloading poultry cars at the terminals. They contract with others to do this work at a stipulated charge. Those with whom these contracts are made are known as ’’contractors". D-537, 573, 574, and 575 There are those engaged in the business of unloading live poultry from patent cars. These men are known as contractors. They make contracts with receivers and do the work and they also moko con¬ tracts with a labor union, of which the men who actually do the work arc members, A contractor assigns a. gang of five men to un¬ load a car. Those men are known, as patent carmen. Two .of the gang' act as pullers, who pull the birds from the compartments in the car; two act as carriers, who carry the poultry from the car to the coop, which remains on the scales outside the car; end one unloador acts as a filler-in or nailer, i/hon the filled coop is weighed, it is placed in trucks by two men who have boon assigned to the car as loaders. D-553, 554, and 555 DEFINITIONS I Corn-fills "Corn-fill" hogs aro hogs which arc given both corn and water after arrival at the stockyards end before being weighed for sale. D-l As a general rule, hogs slaughtered following only a water fill dress a higher percent of moat in proportion to the gross weight of the animal then, do hogs following both a corn and water fill, after arrival at the stockyards. Therefore, when the same price per pound is paid in both cases, the dressed meat from hogs having only a water fill costs less per pound then dressed moat from hogs having both a corn and water fill.- D-l Cows Cows arc animals of the bovine species, weighed in drafts, the average weight of the animals in which is 400 pounds or under. D-435 Cows are animals of the bovine species, weighed in drafts, the average weight of the animals in which is 450 pounds or over. D-445 Crip Scale A "crip” scale is a scale used for weighing crippled hogs which are gathered up by the stockyard company and, after weighing, removed by the packers who purchased them. D-I511 DEFINITIONS I Dealer The Packers and Stockyards Act defines the term "dealer’' as "any person, or market agency, engaged in the business of buying and selling ***"„ Obviously, Congress did not contemplate that the term "dealer" should bo confined to those who engage in the busi¬ ness of both buying and selling on a stockyard. It mil be noted that the difference is disjunctive and not conjunctive. It is the conclusion of the Secretary, therefore, that the respondent is a dealer as that term is defined in the Packers and Stockyards Act, even though some of his operations may be carried on in the coun¬ try or at other markets, and even though he may remove the live¬ stock from the stockyard after it is purchased before disposing of it elsewhere, and even though the superintendent of the stock- yards company did not assign him any pons at the stockyards for use in engaging in business. D-655 Division Collectively, the pens devoted to the warehousing of a single species of livestock are called a "division". There arc also "divisions" within "divisions". For example, the "cattle division" is divided into the "commission division", wherein livestock of the "original shippers" is warehoused, and the "traders' division", wherein livestock which has boon purchased by the traders is warehoused. or dealers and is being held for resale by them, D-298 Collectively, the pens devoted to the warehousing of a single species of livestock are called a "division". D-425 12 DEFINITIONS I Dockage '‘Dockage” is the amount that of a hog, or number of them, hog or hogs in question. is deducted from the actual weight on account of the condition of the D-39 Docks Docks for loading and unloading livestock arc long, narrow plat¬ forms adjacent to and parallel vdth railroad tracks, and raised to a height practically level with the floors of standard live¬ stock cans# D-298 Docks for loading and unloading livestock ore long, narrow plat¬ forms adjacent to and parallel vdth the trank of the Sioux City Terminal Railway Company, end raised to a height practically level vdth the floors of stenderd livestock cars. D-425 Dope Sheet For each consignment of livestock by radl, the stockyard company fills out a form on which there is provided space for information as to tho date, tho timo of arrival, the railroad car number and initial, the chute, block, end pen number where yarded, the number of head and kind of livestock, the number of head of crippled and dead animals, vdth tho tag number, the names of the consignee and the consignor. This form is known c.s the “dope shoot”. D-445 13 DEFINITIONS I Draft A draft is all those animals in one sales or purchase classification. D-311 (First and Second Rehearing); D-456 and 457; D-534 consignment weighed as a single D-308; D-383; D-402; D-435; D-445; Drive-ins Hogs brought into Mistletoe Yards by trucks or wagons, or other¬ ms e than, by railroad, commonly known as "drive-ins”. D-l Fillor-in The fifth men of a poultry unloading gang keeps a slat open end nails the coop up when it is filled. Ho then prepares the next coop to be filled. That operation completes the work of the un¬ loading gong. This fifth men is known as a "filler-in". D-537, 573, 574, and 575 First-hand Revenue-producing Receipts By "first-hand, revenue-producing receipts" is meant the livestock on which respondents received first-hand commissions, excluding resales, trading, country, and buying operations. D-534 Fresh Consignments Livestock arriving by rail and by truck to bo sold by commission firms arc known as "fresh" consignments. D-308 DEFINITIONS I Fresh Stuff When a trader places livestock with a commission men for sale, it is said to be ’’planted”,' while arrivals from the country arc termed "fWisVi Giving Livestock a Fill Each comi.ii ssion firm considers it a mark of good s or vice to handle the livestock so that it will con suae a substantial amount of food and drink water liberally. It is this operation which is known as "giving the livestock a fill". D-383 Heavy Weight Bovines «/ o Ho avy-wei glat cattle arc animals of the bo vino species, weighed in drafts, the average weight of the animals in which is 1201 pounds or over• D-402 Heavy-weight bovinos arc animals of the bovine species, weighed in drafts, the average weight of the animals in which is over 700 pounds. D-534 High Line Scale A "high lino" scale is a scale used for weighing drafts of ten head of cattle or more. D-311 15 DEFINITIONS I KogS Hogs ore swine, neighed in drafts, the average weight of the animals in which is 131 pounds or over. D-311 (First end Second Rehearing); D-402 Hogs are swine, weighed in drafts, the animals in which is over 130 pounds. Hogs ere svdr.c, weighed in drafts, the animals in which is over 125 wounds, / .“i • average weight of the B-383; D-435; D-445 average weight of the D-456 and 457 Holdup After the purchaser of property is committed to the project through having acquired a portion of the property, the owners of the re¬ maining portions frequently compel extortionate prices which advance the averse price to cr unreasonable high level. Such a process is commonly referred to as "holdup", B-291 / IS DEFINITIONS I Insolvency A market agency reflects such a pay its debts as is insolvent which, as of a p deficit in its accounts that they beeone due in the usual v articular day, it is unable to course of business D-1181 Inspection Fork Some shippers of livestock vdll request members of the respondent market agencies, or their salesmen, to cone to the country to look at their livestock and render an opinion with respect to the con¬ dition of the livestock. This activity of the market agency is commonly referred to as "appraisal" or "inspection work"• D-311 Inter ost Tho term "interest" has a vdde usage. There arc many kinds and do at o of "interest". Y-hilc no technical definition of the tern is rorairod. hero it would be fixed as meaning some tiling more than the ordinary interest in human affairs. D-464 Interspersed Land "Interspersed land" consists of small portions of vacant land so interspersed among the various service units of stoe’eyards property that there is no doubt as to its used end useful character• D-450 17 DEFINITIONS I Jack Pot "Jack pot" is a trade torn applied to a car of as to kinds and grades, such as some old cons, fat steers, some stackers, etc., end requiring sorting. Jackpot Man The larger c air'll s si on firns at the Kansas City Stockyards main.- tain what is known as a "jack pot" nan. Ho is a nan who possesses tho peculiar ability to identify nmy different mimnls as to own- orship and buyers. D-311 cattle badly mixed s one bulls,, s one a great deal of D-143 I Jackpot Scale A "jack pot" scale is cattle. scale used for weighing small drafts of D-311 Keynm Thc "key nan" is cn employee of the stockyard company who keeps the custody of tho key to the stocky-.nd pens to which cattle arc delivered on arrival, Tho commission firms go to the "key mm" to obtain delivery of the livestock from the custody of the stock- yard comp my 1 1 the custody of the commission firm. D—402 18 DEFINITIONS I Light ’.'/eight Cattle Light vreight cattle are minals of the bovi.no species, weighed in drafts, the average weight of the animals in which is from 401 pounds to 800 pounds. D-402 Light weight cattle arc animals of the bovine species, weighocl in drafts, the average weight of the animals in which is over 450 pounds and not over 800 pounds. P-445 Light weight ccattle are animals of the bovine species, weighed in drafts, the average vreight of the animals in which is not under 400 pounds and not over 800 pounds. D-456 and 457 Light weight bovinos arc animals of the bovine species, weighed in drafts, the average vreight of the animals in which is 300 pounds or under. D-534 Live Poultry Dealer The term ’’live poultry dealer" is defined by the Act as "any per¬ son engaged in the business of buying and selling live poultry in commerce for purposes of slaughter, either on his own account or as the employee or agent of the vendor or purchaser"• .D-1090 Livestock Going to the Country "Livestock going to the country" consists of stcckcrs and feeders being returned from the stockyards to the country for finishing before being sold for butchering. D-208 19 DEFINITIONS I Livestock Traffic Association There is maintained at the Fort North market what is known as "Livestock Traffic Association"• This is on organization formed chiefly by those located at the market and producers’ organiza¬ tions for the purpose of handling a.ll questions involving the transportation of livestock. D-445 Loaders The New York Live Poultry Trucking Company furnishes two distinct services. It employs the loaders who load the filled coops of poultry. These loaders pick up the coops after they arc filled t joultrv. Two loaders are assigned e t/ O to each ecu’. The trucking company also furnishes the service of cartage. The truck ".rivers deliver live poultry from the terminals to the buyers ’when that service is desired, or to the stands of the receivers at the "Test 'Tcishingt^n Market, when so directed. D-553, 554, end 555 end-weighed end place them upon the trucks which are waiting ^ the platforms to receive th Market Agency The statute defines a market a 0 cncy as a person employed in the business of buying end seilin.. livestock "on a coiimission basis". A commission merchant acts as agent for mother. B-1266 Medium "/eight Bovines Medium weight cattle ere animals drafts, the average weight of the to 1200 pounds. of the bovine species, weighed in animal in which is from 801 pounds D-402 Medium weight bovincs arc animals drafts, the aver aye weight of the pounds and not over 700 pounds. of the bovine species, weighed in animals in which is over 300 D-534 20 41 DEFINITIONS I OrNor Buyor The "order buyer" is one who must in order to meet the requirenents buy hogs raid sort of his customers. raid grado them D-3 Those who seek to buy livestock on the- market nay not be able to cone to the market in person, or nay not find it to their adventag to maintain employed buyers, or even attempt to do their own buy¬ ing personally. Consequently, there is a donand for the services of those who are ready to act as representatives of the buyers on the market, This group of respondents is commonly referred to as "order buyers". D-383 c "Order buyers" clo no selling at the market, but confine their activities to buying livestock on order, D-402 In addition to the commission firms at the markets, there arc those who make purchases on a commission basis but do not sell on a commission basis. They arc usually referred to as "order buyers", D-456 and -157 Order buyers is a class composed of p^rs livestock on order and doing no selling ms specializing in buying ui a c on. ii s si on basi s . D-534 Original Shipper The "original shipper" is the owner of livestock who brought, or caused it to be brought, to the market, D-298 I 21 DEFIFITIONS I Packer Holding Pens ’’Packer holding pons" are pens set apart at livestock purchased by local packers. The physical characteristics to the so-called '' pens. the stockyards to hold pens are similar in cOi.L.ii s si on di vi si on” D-301 "Packers' holding pens" form part of the general classification knoiTO. as "purchasers' temporary holding pons", end are approximate¬ ly similar in physical characteristics to the commission division pens anr . ractically the sane services arc rendered by the stock- yards company in connection with the livestock in the one pen as in the other, except that in the packers' holding pens the live¬ stock is not fed or watered. D-425 Patent Carmen i There aru those engaged in the business from patent cars. Those men are known t contracts idth receivers road do the vnrl- tr.acts with a labor union, of which the :>f unloading live poultry O J- s contractors, Thoy r lake and they also make con- men who actual!v do the %# work are members. A contractor assigns a gang of five men to unload, a car. Those men arc .known as patent carmen. Two of the gang act as pullers, who pull the birds from the compartments in the cor; two a.ct as carriers, who carry the poultry from the car to the coop, which remains on the scales outside the car; and one unloadcr acts as a filler-in or nailer• Then the filled coop is weighed, it is placed in trucks by two men who have been assigned to the car as loaders, D-553, 554, and 555 Pors on A person is an individual, a partnership, a corporation association of any such, acting as a unit* D-311 (First and Second Rehearing); D-402; D-435; D-445; end D-457; D-534 and/or D-308; D—456 22 DEFINITIONS I Pips Pigs r.ro swine, weighed in drafts, the average animal s in which is 150 pounds or under• (First and Second Rehearing); D-383; D-402; D- Pi.js arc swine, weighed in drafts, the average animals in which is 125 pounds or under. weight of the D-311 455; D-445 weight of the D—156 end 457 PI anting V.'hen a trader places livestock is said to be "plcntod", while "fresh stuff". with a commission f >r arrivals from the country «/ srhe, it are termed D-143 Dealers end traders end others who stockyard sonetimes’ glace it with Such livestock is said t: be "plant haVw purchased livestock a commissi '-n nan to bo r cd." end s vie times it is in the osold. referred t see one,s D-298 Occasionally, traders move their livestock to the commission division end employ the services of a commission firm in making D-301 the salt This is known as "planting". In addition to selling livestock arrivin - the respondent commissi on firms sell s xw and others operating at the market. This by rail and by truck, livestock for traders is known as "planting". D-308 Traders who buy and sell in the stockyard for pr of it s me times place their livestock with the market agencies to be sold. This is called "planting" and such livestock is referred to as In such cases, the traders usually drive their livestock to the commission firms’ pens. D-311 "seconds" Occasionally, traders will move pens to the commission.division mission firm in making the sale "planting", their livestock from their traders ond enrolov the services of a com- .e v . This practice is known as D—o a 1 » 23 DEFIUITIOIJS PI cnting There is r, class >f business handled by the respondent conroission firms which is usually referred to as ’’the soiling of seconds”. "Seconds” or ’Slants", as they are* s one tines knorcn, arc livestock which have boon purchased on the market by a buyer who returns then later to a cornission firm to be sold. D-383 Dealers or traders and others who have purchased livestock in the stockyard sonotines place it with a commission non to be resold. Such livestock is said to be "planted” end sometines it is referred to as "seconds". D—±25 Mist of the livestock purchased by traders is resold by themselves but, occasionally, traders novo their livestock into the commission department end onolov the services of a commission firn in r.nkin;: the sale. This process is known as "planting". D—150 There are instances when dealers handling the butcher class of livestock make their ran sales. However, they generally place it vdth commission firms rnd that practice is corn.only referred to as "pi anting" • , D—153 Poultry Unloading Gang The procedure in unloading a c..r >f live poultry is as follows: A gan 0 of five men is used for the purpose. As soon as the inspoc- ti m is completed, and the receiver is ready to have the car un¬ load c ' the com: begins to wei di the coons, which have beer, nlaccd on the uni o ad in • ••■latforn. roo.dv for use. Each receiver owns end »_> a v operates scales on the unloading platform. The unloading gang places the empty coops on the scales, w-hcro they arc weighod by a vroiglinaster employed by the receiver, who records the taro weight on each coop. The unloading gang then removes the c'g,ty coo r s and places then in stacks, from which thov are later rcm.vo... when they arc to be filled with poultry. There are frm 80 to 110 coops required to hoi l a car of live 1 .oultry. D-537, 57b, 57-1, and 575- 24 DEFINITIONS I Prorate Sheet For a. plural ownership consignment, the commission firm usually makes out a master prorate sheet showing the facts v/ith rcsocct to the sole of the livestock for each owner, end the allocation of the various expenses. The commission firn nay be requested to furnish individual account sales in addition to the master prorate sheet. D- 0 O 8 In preparing accounts sale covorirq cooperative shipments, it is a general practice t) prepare a .master pr orate sheet covering a single c nisi on. lent. The expenses are prorated an mg the owners, and a separate account is then prepare: 1 , c overinq each vnor’s 1 i vc s t ock. P- 402 Pullers In unloading a. poultry car, two nonbers It is their duty to go into the ecu and conpartncnts of the car in which thov ha J- t/ of a gang act as pullers. O O -i. pull the birds out of the vc boon shipped. D-5o7, 575, 574, and 575 Purclia.sors * Temporary Holding Pons "Purchasers 1 temporary holding pens" arc pens hold in the custody of the stockyards company the p-acker or other purchaser takes delivery put of the stockyard. where livestock is until such tine as of it and drives it L—425 It is seldom practicablo or convenient for _ urchasers to receive their livestock direct from the vendors at the st.ckyards and to remove the animals fr om the yards im.ie7dr.tely after they arc driven off the scales. The stockyards c .-.ipcmy re—yards such livestock in v;h;.t is as purchasers’ ;ens. 'lain ; pens or catch P-450 25 . DEFINITIONS I Receivers Those to v/hon live poultry is shipped in New York arc commonly known as receivers. It has boon the practice in the post for then to receive live poultry for sale on a comission basis. Recently, however, they have chanpod their operations to sene extent, in that they do not now char pc a c omission based upon a percent ape of the value of the poultry, but usually handle it for a certain mount per car, or a certain uarpin over the Roy/ York price. In those instances, a settlement is nade upon the basis of the vroipht of the poultry when it is unloaded in Yew York, :nd upon the basis of the market price which is later determined. In sonc instances, receivers buy live poultry at country points, rood pay for it on the basis of weights at the shippdnp point, D-537, 573, 574, and 575 Resale Those v/ho have purchased livestock in a stockyard frequently sell it directly to another purchaser vdthout the intervalti >n of a comission nan, .whether livestock is sold directlv or throrh a c sm ns si on me n., s o u o m : is so o k on of • sal o' D-425 Rc-yardin l.J The services of driving livestock fron the "weighed to the point where it is to bo load the purchaser, nay be designated ”ro-yardin scales where it has been cd out, or delivered to p u . D-298j D-425 26 DEFINITIONS I Sales Pen ’’Sales pens” arc pens where livestock is warehoused by the stockyards company and exhibited for sale by the owner or his representative, D-298 Chute pons arc fenced enclosures into which chutes load end arc used to hold the livestock until it can be driven to pons called "sales pens" where it is warehoused by respondent and accepted for sale by the owner or his representative. • D-d25 Scale Crow The "scale crew”, which docs the weighing of livestock at the stockyards, consists of a woighnaster, a gate men at the entrincc to the scale wlatforu, and a counter-off neon at the exit gate. The wcighna.ster enters the nemos of the owners, the seller, me! purchaser of the livestock on the scale ticket on which the weight is registered. As the livestock is driven from the scales, ho enters on the scale ticket the number and kind of livestock. The counter-off keeps a. rccord of ea.ch '.raft vroiplied and directs the yarding operations. D-450 Seale Ticket When livestock is wei; : ;hcd, the wciglimaster issues a. scale ticket showing the weight of each draft. Each scale is equipped with a type registering been so that the woi ;ht can be impressed uoon the ticket. The weighuastor enters m the ticket the names of the seller end buyer, the kind and number of head of livestock, block cm. number, whore yarded after wei Tiing, docka :o, • -O 1 J. any, and sometimes the price. This ticket is made out in quadruplet. After livestock is weighed, it is taken from the scad.cs by employees of the stockyard company and yarded in pens until the yurchaser re¬ moves it or arranges for its disposition. v..' A D-445 27 DEFINITIONS I Scr.lo Ticket A sc do ticket is issue,! by tho wui glimustor on which is recorded the weight, the aciac of the buyer, end the nemo of the Remission fira* The salesmen or yar45 DEFINITIONS I Soiling Side of the Market The producers and others shipping livestock to market for rnd their agents, r.ru usually spoken of collectively as ” scllinr: side of the market” • S C.l O , the D-298 The producers and others shipping livestock to marketing agents arc usually spoken of collectively as "the selling side of the market”o D-425 Service ’’Service” as used in Section oO-i of the Act, as amended, includes the inspection and buying of chickens by a market a :cncv, end also i. t/ em t/ 9 includes the voluntary transmittal >f information received from a re iltry inspector together v/ith the poultry dealer’s own descrip¬ tion of the condition of the-"nultrv as it arrives• The lcgisla- i. t/ en tivc moanin': of the word ’’service” is also indicated by the language of Section 502 whore service is relating to the ’’receiving, buying. or selling on commission or otherwise" of live poultry, D-1090 Shippers’ Buy Hogs purchased for slaughter elsewhere than by the Kansas City packing plants arc known as ’’shippers’ buy”. D-l 29 DEFINITIONS I Solvency Solvency of a market agency is the ability to meet its financial obligations as they become due in the regular course of business. D-1117 Speculators In addition to the packer buyers and order buyers, the buying side of the market is also represented by dealers, who are commonly referred to as ’'traders" or "speculators". D-402 Soindle Basket it -hi Truck receipts of live poultry usually arrive in what are known as spindle baskets. •‘When a truck arrives at the market place, these baskets are handed from the truck by the driver end his assistants to the standmen who remove the poultry to coops regularly used for handling live poultry. Ordinarily, it takes about three spindle baskets of live poultry to area. ill a Iona: coop used in the N ow York O D-553, 554, and 055 Splits Occasionally, when commission firms arc unable to dispose of live¬ stock after making all possible effort to do so, the livestock may bo taken to another firm whose pens are located elsewhere in the yard. If the second firm succeeds in selling the livestock, the first firm gives it one-half of the regular commissions. Such sales are usually referred to as "splits". These arc rather unusual occurrences. D-402 30 DEFINITIONS I Spread The difference between the market price of the feed or bedding delivered at the stockyard end the price paid for it by the owner of the livestock is spoken of as the "spread". These "spreads" represent gross and not net profits, for handling costs, overheads, and other indirect costs have not been included. D-298 The difference between the market price paid by respondent for feed delivered at the stockyard and the price paid for it by the owner of the livestock is generally referred to as the "spread". D-301; D-344 The difference between (l) the market price of feed or bedding delivered at the stockyard and. (2) the price paid for it by the owner of the livestock is spoken of as the "spread". These spreads represent gross end not not profits. D-425 Stale Livestock Ordinarily, the buyers of the slaughter class of livestock prefer to buy their requirements from the fresh receipts on the market. Vihen it is known that certain livestock belongs to a dealer, buyers regard it as being "stale". D-453 It is not customary to hold livestock in the stockyards for long periods. There is no requirement that it be sold at any particular time. However, livestock hold for any period of time generally becomes more difficult to soli because buyers regard it as "stale". D-456 end 457 Standmen The truck receipts of live poultry are unloaded by men who arc known as "stand men". Usually the truck driver and his assistant place the baskets of poultry on the tail-board of the truck from which they are removed by stand men. The stand men transfer the poultry to the coops, place the coops on the scales, end, after weighing, stack the coops in convenient places• D-537, 573, 574, end 575 31 DEFINITIONS I Stockers end Foodors "Stockers and feeders” ore cattle that require further feeding to finish thorn for the market.. • The testimony indicates that approximately 50% of the cattle that pass through the Kansas City Stockyards in the course of the year are "stockers end feeders”, D-39 Stockyard t The Kansas City Public Stockyards, owned end operated by the Kan¬ sas City Stockyards Company, a corporation, is located in Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas, is conducted as a public market, and is open to the general producing, buying, and selling public for the purpose of marketing cattle, hogs, sheep, and goats, and has boon found by tho Sccrctanv to be id thin the definition of v stockyard a.s set forth in Title III, b-1 A stockyard is c. place where producers end others ship their live¬ stock by rail, or by truck, or drive tima in on foot, to be offered for sale to the* various classes of buyers who resort there to buy the grades and classes of livestock to meet their requirements, D-311 Through Shipments •j J. ’’Through shipments” are shipments of livestock, destined for other points, stopping at Denver for food, water, and rest, D-301 * 32 DEFINITIONS I Throwing Fits "Throv/ing fits” moans, in the poultry business, to loaror prices. X D-518 Throw-Outs "Throw-outs” include piggy sows, stags, boars, cripples, and other mutericily defective hogs. D-l Total Fresh Revenue-Producing Receipts By "total livestock missions, dealers. fresh revenue-producing receipts" is meant the total on which the respondent market agencies received corn- exclusive of livestock bought, livestock handled for livestock hiJidlod for other mc.rkot agencies. D-.311 (Seeond Rehearing ) end Total Public Buy ‘/hat is knov/n as the "total public buy" in the Kansas City Public Stockyards includes the "packer drove" or the "packer buy". D-l Track Buying The term "track buying" means tricing title and paying for the stock at point of shipment, D-269 i * 35 DEFINITIONS I "Track Buying" and "Soliciting", Difference Between The practiced difference between "track buying" end "soliciting" is that in the former the packer takes title at point of shipment end sustains the losses due to shrinkage, death, end crippling before arrival at plant, vrhilc in the latter, as title does not pass until arrival at the riant, the shipper sustains such losses, D-269 Tro.dcrs In addition to the packer buyers end order buyers, the buying jl kj y kj o side of the market is also represented by dealers, who are commonly Le of the market is also represented by dealers, X. 1/ J ns "traders" or "speculators”. referred to D-402 Traders' Division Pens "Traders’ division" pons arc pens designated at the stockyards for holding cattle purchased by dealers. The physical characteristics of this division arc substantially the same as these of the com¬ mission division and tho services rendered by respondent do not materially differ, do separate "traders’ division" exists in either the hog or sheep divisi D-301 It rn ± raders’ division" is a s ubdivisi on-vd thin the "division" wherein livestock is kept which has boon purchased by traders or dealers and is being hold for resale by them, D-425 34 DEFINITIONS I Train Runner A "train runner" is a representative of a commission firm who re¬ quests deli very from tho stockyard company of lives toe]: unloaded at the stockyards for the particular commission firm. After the livestock is counted out of the pen into the alloy, the train runner then goes ahead of it, leading the way to the pens assigned to his firm, D-311 (Second Rehearing) Trippers There arc those individuals about the stockyard who make them¬ selves available for driving livestock from pen to pen at a specified rate for each lot driven. They arc known as "trippers”, D-402 Try the Market To "try tho market" is meant to give tho camor of "through ship¬ ments" of livestock an opportunity to try to sell it at the Denver market before shipping it on to other points. D-301 'later' ■ Fills "Water-fill" hogs are hogs which arc given only water after arrival at the stockyards and before weighing for sale, D-l As a general rule, hogs slaughtered foil owing only a water fill dress a higher percent of neat in proportion to tho b r )ss weight of the animal then do hogs following both a corn and water fill, after arrival at the stockyards. Therefore, when the same price per pound is paid in both cases, the dressed meat from hogs having only a water fill costs loss per pound than dressed meat from hogs having both a corn end water fill, D-l 35 DEFINITIONS I Waybill Livestock arriving by rail is unloaded by employees of the stock¬ yard conpeny mid delivered to the pens of the commission firms. An employee of the company calls the WAYBILLS as soon as they are received, giving the names of the consignor raid consignee, state, and car number. Another employee makes out a waybill slip con¬ taining this information rnd adds oth^r information uith respect to the "crips" and "deads" raid the*. count, when the livestock is delivered to the pens of the commission firm, the pen number is entered on the slip. D-383 The stockyard company maintains representatives at the truck un¬ loading docks who make out waybills upon the arrival of livestock by truck, showing• the date, name of owner, address, none of con¬ signee, name of truck driver, license number, information as to the rci.iittr.uico of proceeds, trucking rate, chute, block raid pon nunbor, kind of raid number of livestock, end the number of cripples end deads. A "dope shoot" is then prepared to which is treoisc-ribod the information contemned on the waybill* This is nc.dc ave.ile.blc to the consignees. D-445 "Weigh" r.s Synonymous with "Sell" On tho stockvards, with tho word "sell told him not to wei cntly meent not to the word, "weigh" is often used e.s synonymous ", and Mr. Prey’s testimony that Mr. Scarlcs gh the ce.ttlo "until his partner came" appe.r- soll then. D-524 Wind-ups "Wind-ups" .aw poultry buyers the leftover poultry in the patent car after the have taken their purchases from the ecus. D-553, 554, end 555 DEFINITIONS I Within the Scope of Employment The tern "within the scope of enploynont” does not noon the • doing of those c.cts expressly or infcrcntioily authorized, but it has a broader meaning, It neons doing acts pertaining to the perform¬ ance of other acts for which the agent was employed, D-440 The tern "within the scope of employment" does not moan the doing of those acts expressly or inferentially authorized, but it has a broader nooning• It noons doing c.cts pertaining to the perform¬ ance of ->thcr acts for which the agent was employed. The branch house managers of the respondent packers had author!tv to make and determine the prices at which they would sell neats and meat food products, and this authority was not subject to directions from the principal plane of business. Acting, then, within that power of fixing and determining those prices, they sought the views of others and entered into agreements with others that the prices should be at not less than a. certain figure. The branch house managers, therefore, acted within the scope of their employment in fixing prices pursuant to the price list issued by officers of the respondent packers, particularly in view of the evidence that the respondent packers absorbed all of the losses occasioned from the activities of the branch house .managers and of the subsidiarv corporations, end acquired all of trie profits therefrom. D-440 67 DEFINITIONS I arciage The tor;:i ’’yardage 11 , as used in the respondent’s tariff, consists of the privilege of the market, the yarding of the livestock, the use of pens for an indefinite period, the use of -viaducts and alleys, water, weighing, driving from the scales after sale, use of pons awaiting final disposition, locking and unlocking gates, ana the assunction of responsibility for livestock. All these services arc provided for livestock shipped to the market to be sold, D-6 The term "yardage" as used in the tariff of the respondent stock- yards company consists of the privilege of tho market, the yarding of tho livestock, tho use of pens for an indefinite period, use of viaducts end alleys, water, weighing, driving from the sealos after sale, use of pens awaiting final disposition, locking and unlocking the gates and the assumption of responsibility for tho livestock. All these services are provided for livestock shipped to tho market to be sold. D-7 Yardage Charges "Yardage charges" core charges made by the stockyard company cover¬ ing the warehousing of the livestock throughout its stay in the stockyards, regardless of tho duration thereof, or the number of changes of ownership which occur, the exceptions being that on livestock resold in the commission division, one half of the above rate, additional, is charged. D-298 Yarding All hogs arriving by rail between 6 F.M. and 6 A.I'd. the holding pens on the lower dock of the hog house employees where they are delivered to the consignor ativc who later drives then to the sales pons. This designated "yarding". are yarded in by respondent’s or his ropresent- opercation is D-425 38 DBFIFITTORS I Yarding the Livestock The respondent stockyards company assumes responsibility for driving livestock from the chute pens to the srj.es pens of the respective consignees, end placing it therein. This operation is frequently designated ”yarding the livestock”, D-298 Yearlings Yearlings arc aninals the average weight of 800 e ounds, of the bovine species, weighed in drafts, the animals in which is from 401 pounds to D-311 (First and Second Rehearing) Yearlings are animals of the bovine species, rroighed in drafts, the average weight of the animals in vhich is over 400 pounds end not over 800 mounds, D-455 39 G c# PART FOUR Digests Under Title II jf the Act Puckers r AGENCY II Acts of Agent Acts of Principal The statute nek os the acts of the employee, c or mi t ted in the scope of his om.ployment, the nets "f the packer. D-440 The acts of branch house managers and of the respondent po.ckcrs, in issuing of subsidiary corporations instructions to not sell neat products below the mininun price lists sent out by the re¬ spondent packers, are acts permitted within the scope of their employment, end the respondent packers arc liable for such bets oven though the evidence indicated that the price lists were issued by officers and employees who attended the meetings for that ourooso without authority end under direct prohibition of X. A tf X. the packers. D-440 -.lien one acts through an agent, he is bound by such acts of the agent as are done end performed within the scope of the agent 1 s employment. The agent may err in judgment, but the acts remain the acts of its principal. D-928 A packer is bound by the acts of its agent order buyer while act¬ ing within the scope of his employment, end is obligated to pay to the seller the full amount of the purchase price of the livestock as agreed upon between the seller and the order buyer. D-948 Liability of Principal for nets of .apparent Agent The fact that an order buyer for a packer made purchases from tine to time and Grow drafts upon the packer, which were subsequently paid by the packer, did not establish a course of conduct which would make the packer liable for all purchases made bv the order buyer, irrespective of the orders received by the order buyer from the packer. D-549 The fact that the complainant shipper knew packer had made purchases through an order drafts on the packer, which were paid, did plainant in believing that the order buyer for the respondent packer end relyin 0 upon the sale in question to the order buyer. that the respondent buyer who had drawn not justify the con- was a. general agent that belief in making D-549 40 AGENCY II Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent The packer was found by the Secretary to be liable for payment of the full amount of the draft drawn upon the packer by its duly authorized order buyer agent, covering the purchase of a draft of hogs, the quostion of loss to the packer because of the poor grade of the hogs purchased being immaterial, since the respondent packer has withdrawn from its answer to the complaint any charge of bad faith on the part of the agent and since the record shows' that there is no recognized method of determining before slaughter whether the hogs are soft and oily, resulting in the loss com¬ plained of, or hard and prime, and since it was further shown that the agent made the proper and custona.ry inquiry concerning the quality of the hogs before having purchased them, D-581 Rights and Obligations of Agents A duly authorized agent is lia.blo to the principal only for wrong doing or for negligence. D-581 The packer was found by the Secretary to be liable for payment of the full amount of the draft drawn upon the packer by its duly authorized order buyer agent, covering the purchase of a draft of hogs, the question of loss to the packer because of the poor grade of the hogs purchased being immaterial, since the respondent packer has vdthdrawn from its answer to the complaint • any change of bad faith on the part of the agent and since the record shows that there is no recognized, method of determining before slaughter whether the hogs a.rc soft and oily, resulting in the loss complained of, or hard and prime, and since it was further shown that the agent made the proper and customary inquiry concerning the quality of the hogs before having purchased them. D-581 41 CCM.1ERCE II Acts in Restraint of The lav/ does not moke acre size on unexerted power on offense, but, in be declared unlawful, they nust be or commerce unreasonably .or unduly, power thereby acquired is being use the evil which the law was intended offense or the existence of order that conbinations nay sh-yv/n to have restrained trade or it nust bo shown that tho d for tho accoiiplishnent of to prevent. D-19 The aero lessening of competition through tho acquisition of one competitor by another docs not amount to an unlawful restraint of trade or commerce. D-19 Tho purchase by Arnour & Company of the physical properties, busi¬ ness, and good will of Morris & Company is not forbidden by the Act, unless it be manic for the purpose or with tho effect of manipulating or controlling prices in the buying of livestock in commerce or in tho sale and distribution of livestock products, or of creeling a. monopoly in the anquisiti m of, buying, selling, or dealing in such articles in commerce, or of restraining commerce. D-19 Evidence that the Department of Agriculture approved the so-called "Birmingham Plan" or "Institute Plan", whorcbv ea.ch of tho respond- ent a ackers should issue a. list sh owing his price of neat ore ducts i. m i x. and cxchajige this list with other packers, was not sufficient to justify the price-fixing agreements entered into by tho respondent packers, since tho records showed that tho Department officials by letter specifically warned the respondent packers against price¬ fixing agreements and that the approval of tho plan by tho Depart¬ ment was merely an approval of the plan as submitted and not an approval of tho method used of carrying it into execution. D-440 The defense interposed by the respondent packers, to a charge that they entered into a price—fixing agreement in restraint of trade, that it was no restraint because those participating in the meet¬ ings and who received price lists did not control all or practi¬ cally all jf the selling in tho .area affected, was unavailable, the evidence showing that those participating controlled practi¬ cally 50 % of the neat trade in one area and from 60 %> to 75 % of the meat trade in the other a.rea. D-440 42 COMMERCE II Acts in Restraint of The record leaves no doubt that there was a restraint of trade practiced by the respondent packers in the handling of neats in Connerce, the evidence showing that all the participants in the various meetings hold bv the- respondents to discuss nricos and price lists were acting under the solo direction of a single interpreter of their common purpose, .that is, prices and lists, D-440 The defense, that prices for neat products fixed by agreement among the respondent packers, if they werc so fixod, were not in restraint of trade because they were not unreasonable, must fail, because whether the prices agreed upon were reasonable or unreasonable is not material, since the statute moos not allow even reasonable restraints by agreement or combination. In this connection the Secretary quoted from U , S. v, Trenton Pottery Company, et nl., 275 U, S. 392, and American Column Company v. U. So, 257~U, S, 377. " D-440 Intorstate Moats and meat products shipped Toy packers are in interstate commerce until sold by the consignor’s agents and delivery to the retailors or other customers, even though such products one not in the original package when sold to the retailors or other similar purchasers. To hold otherwise would permit each respond¬ ent to contravene the statute by setting up a branch house in each state to nuke sales only in that state* This would nullify the statute, an.’ should not be countenanced. In support of this view, the Secretary quoted the following authorities: Swift & Co, v. U, So, 196 U. S. 375; Baldwin, Commissioners of Agriculture and Gr. A. R. StooiTf Mart .L* cts V, Rep, 497; Binderup v. S ,,, 55 Sup, Ct 291; end Local 167 International Rath e Lxchongo , 263 U. Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., ct nl, v, U. S,, 291 U. S 293, D-440 43 COMMISSIONS II t Packers Chardin/ The respondent packer’s notion to dismiss the complaint alleging that a branch house of the res eon-lent sold poultry for the con- piainant end charged a commission without authority thorofor, on the ground that the respondent has entirely discontinued the handling of live poultry at the branch house, has satisfied the claim, of the complainant and does not plan to resume such opera¬ tions, was granted by the Secretary, end the proceedings were dismissc-d, vrithout preju licc, D-1081 44 CONSPIRACY II It is clear froi.i the torus of Section 202 (g) of Title II of the Act that actions for conspiracy which of necessity require nore than one person, or in this cc.se no re than one packer, were contenplatecl, and it is elementary, when there are two or nore persons engaged in the connission of one action, that they nay be tried jointly. Particularly is this true if a charge of conspiracy is involved in an administrative hearing, D-440 45 DELIVERY II The Secretory issued a cease and desist order against the respond¬ ent packer, the Enpirc Veal end Hutton Company, Inc., for having ordered a carload of lonbs fron a shipper, refused to accept de¬ livery, of then upon arrival end then later purchased then through a market agency at a financial loss to the shipper, hut the Secre¬ tary withheld the order of suspension, it appearing that the packer later remitted the amount of the loss to the shipper upon demand* D-603 It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing, to deter¬ mine if the respondent packer had unfairly failed end refused to accept cattle purchased by an order buyer, that the cattle so pur¬ chased by the order buyer wore not of the type, quality, or price ordered by the packer, the Secrctarv found that the cattle dcliv- crod did not conform to the requirements of the contract between the parties and that, therefore, the packer was not obligated to accept delivery. D-1020; D-1021 Packer who refused to accept a carload of cattle purchased by an order buyer on the ground that the cattle were of such inferior quality, grade, type, and value that they could not be used by it in the conduct of its business, and v/ho promptly notified the order buyer of its refusal to accept the cattle, and unloaded, fed, and watered the cattle without expense to the order buyer end reshipped then to a place designated by the order buyer, was found by the Secretary to not have indulged in any unfair practice or device. D-1021 Packer violated Section 202, Title IT of the Act by falsely represent ing to an order buyer the grade and quality of livestock purchased by the order buyer for the packer for the purpose of inducing and coercing the order buyer to accept a lessor price than the price agreed upon by the packer and the order buyer, end by refusing to accept the cattle except on the basis of the reduced price. D-1022 Packer who agreed to take 157 cattle fron certain farmers at a price agreed upon by its order buyer, end accepted delivery of and paid for 97 of the cattle and then cancelled the order for the re¬ maining sixty head before the shipment could be made, was held by the Secretary to have engaged in the unfedr pra.ctice and device of entering into an aarcement for the purchase of livestock end then refusing to accept the livestock at the agreed price, end the Sec¬ retary issued o. cease end desist order. D-1105 46 DRAFTS II V'/hon tho rospondont packer left an order-with an order buyer for cattle to be purchased on a certain day, and the order buyer noti¬ fied the respondent that ho had not been able to purchase tho cattle on the particular day but would purchase then on the following Monday, end the respondent was silent with respect to tho. purchase to be made on the following Monday, leadiiy, the order buyer to believe that the order was a standing order, the respondent engaged in and used an unfair end deceptive prentice by refusinto accept the subsequent order end to honor tho draft drawn by the ordor buyer, end tho Secretary concluded that the packer was legally end morally bound to reimburse the, shipper for the difference between tho fe.ee amount of the draft, n.s drawn by the or dor buyer, and the' amount of tho proceeds from the sale of the cattle after their acceptance had been refused by the respondent. D-549 The packer was found by the Secretary to be liable for payment of the full amount of the draft, drawn upon the packer by its duly authorized order buyer agent, covering tho purchase of a draft of hogs, the question of loss to the packer because of the poor grade of tho hogs purchased being immaterial, since the respondent packer has withdrawn from its answer to the com,..leant any charge of bad faith on the part of the a-,ont and since the record shows that there J. o is no roco nized method of determining before slaughter whether the hogs are ‘ soft end oily, resulting in tho loss complained of, or hard and prime, end since it was further shown the.t the agent made tho proper end customary inquiry concerning the quality of the hogs before having, purchased them. D-581 Packer, who purchased on order at an agreed price two carloads of lambs end took delivery thereof and slaughtered the lambs but failed end refused to reimburse the order buyer for tho full amount of the draft drawn upon the packer by tho order buyer, violated tho Act by engaging in an unfair end deceptive practice or device of accepting and receiving livestock but fedlin._, end neglecting to pay or remit the full price paid by the agent therefor. D-708 47 DRAFTS Packer liable to the order buyer for the full amount of the draft draw upon the packer by the order buyer, the evidence having con¬ vincingly established that the packer knew the order buyer was act¬ ing as its agent and was not purchasing the ea.ttlo for himself, . that the order buyer had been authorized by the packer to draw the draft in question, and that the order buyer had been promised the usual buying agent’s commission for his services rendered in pur- chnsin ; the livestock for which he drew the draft in question. D-928 hfhen a .packer requests an order buyer to purchase livestock of a particular quantity, quality, and typo, end the order buyer, in response thereto, purchases livestock which substantiallv conforms to the order of the packer as to quantity, quality, and type, and issues a draft upon the packer for the payment thereof, the packer is morally and legally bound to honor the fane amount of the draft, and the pa.deor engages in and uses an unfair'practice and device when it fa.ils to honor the draft but, in lieu thereof, makes certain deductions for alleged inferior quality and remits the balance. D-948 The defendant packer he.vin : waived a he or in : and stated that the circumstances surroundin 0 the dishonoring of a. dr alt O ivon by its authorized agent for the purcha.se of livestock at public a.uction were the sane as the circumstances in a. previous ca.se against the defendant, in which a. cease and desist order was issued a.ftcr a hca.ring, the Secretary found that the fa.ee amount of the draft should be paid by the defendant, and the Sccrctc.ry ordered tha.t the defendant coa.se and desist from continuing the unfair and deceptive practice or device of purchasing livestock through its a.uthorizod a.gcnt at an agreed price and thereafter falling to pay the seller such agreed price. D-1019 48 EVIDENCE II Burden of Proof Testimony of a witness for the respondent packer that a map introduced into the evidence by the Government, to show the confines within which a price fixing proproa was allowed to have boon carried on by the respondents, was merely a map. showing the trade territory around monphis, would havo been more persuasive had some valid reasons been shown for prepar¬ ing such a map or for onlarjinp the map. If such facts ex¬ isted, they were within the knowledge of respondents and, beinp facts peculiarly within their knowledge, if relied upon by the respondents, they should have introduced testi¬ mony in support of those contentions. (2 C. J. 81, and cases cited.) D-440 49 EVIDENCE Conspiracy X V Evidence of illegal combinations may be and usually can be sus- tednod only by proof of circumstances« It is elementary that conspiracy is seldom capable of proof by direct testimony, and may be inferred from the things actually done. D-440 The evidence introduced having supported the charge in the complaint that the price-fixing agreements entered into by the respondents for the sale of meat products id.thin certain areas wore entered into jointly, ana that 'the actions in enforcing such agreements were done - jointly, the charge of conspiracy was nroven. D-440 The alio potions in the complaint charging that the respondents market a’one at- and anchor conspired with each other to make end use the unfair and deceptive- pra.cticos or devices complained of mth respect to rendering reports to or for common carriers for the purpose of influencing freight charges on shipments of live¬ stock were hold by the Secretary to have not been established by the evidence, D-1175 Incoupetent, Im.iaterial, end irrelovent Questi ons put to 'witnesses of the respondent packers, asking then if there was ray way of enforcin ’ the so-called a-rcement to keen the respondent packers on the price list a :reod upon, were incon- pot on t, it bein’ obvious that there could be no way of enforcing' an illegal agreement, rad that the a t cement to maintain minimum prices as testified to, if it existed, was certainly illegal. D-440 No findings of fact were made by the Secretary relative to the differences in the weight of the calves in question before ship¬ ment at Bristol, Virginia, rad their weight after arrival in Norfolk, Virginia, or relative to the respondent packer’s claim that he received 16b calves rather than 165, as alleged in the complaint, because proof of the respondent packer’s contentions with respect to such claims did not constitute a legal defense to the violati ons char ;cd in the complaint, to Alt: that the respondent packer had falsely represented the quality and -grade of the calves rad had used such misrepresentation as a pretext for his failure and refusal to pay the full price which ho had agreed to pay for them. D-1022 II 50 EVIDENCE II Of Monopoly The evidence does not sustain the charge that the operations of respondent packers have created or tended to create a monopoly in the purchase end slaughter of hops in the Kansas City market• D-l Ovcrwholninq woiqht of testimony in favor of the view that conpcti- tion has not been materially lessened by rens on of the acquisition of Morris & Company by Armour A Company, either in the buyinq of livestock or the sale of the moat or the meat products thereof. D-l 9 Evidence persuasive that purchase of business end pood will of Morris & Company by Armour & Company was to effect economies in the conduct of respondent’s business, rather then to create a monopoly or to manipulate or control prices, D-19 Order of Presentation of Before any witnesses were call parties end to the interveners complainant livestock oxchanqe testimony of the respondents, be allowed the interveners. od, the Examiner ennouneed to the that the testimony on bohe.lf of the would be hoard first, find then the end that, then, the same ripht would D-l Presumptions The purchase by Armour & Company of the physical properties, business, end pood will of Morris & Company, creates no loped presumption of a purchase to accomplish the ends forbidden by the Act, D-19 51 EVIDENCE II Proccodings ns Evidence in Private Litigation No testimony taken in a proceedings, had under Title II of the Packers and Stockyards net to determine the lawfulness of certain price-fixing agreements, nor Findings of Fact nor the ultinato order of the Secretary, can be properly offered or received evidence during the trial of cny private liti Ration; in D-440 Proceedings of Prior Hearing as Tho Secretary revoked the coasc and desist order theretofore made without prejudice, with the provision that if, in tho future, ho should have reasonable cause to believe that the respondent was still engaged in similar practices end should order a hearin tho testimony taken in the docket should be considered as a part of the testimony ted:on in the future hoarin 0 1 ana have the sane force and effect as if introduced in such future hearing. D-476 Stipulations and Agreements Stipulation that the motion to dismiss end the nnsvror of should apply to subsequent amendment of the complaint, in applicablc, al1 owed by Examiner• respondents so far as D-l 52 EVIDENCE II Stipulations and Agreements In or dor to expedite a hearing, and to avoid duplication of expense, time, and effort on the part of the Government and all parties involved, a respondent may agree to the Secretary’s adoption of the char pcs made by another complainant, end the char ;es of such complainant .may bo treated as a complaint no.de by the Secretary, subject to any right the respondent would otherYJiso have in respect to its form, subston.ee, or sufficiency. D-l The Secretary end the respondent. The Groat Atlontic end Pacific Tea Company, having stipulated that the practices and activities complained of in the Secretary’s complaint would be no longer con¬ tinued end that there is no longer any roe.son for questioning the validity of the cease and desist order issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Circuit Court of appeals. Third Circuit, ordered the appeal of the petitioner dismissed, without prejudice. D-476 / 53 EVIDENCE II Stipulations and Agreements Respondent having stipulated the facts in the case and having agreed to cease end desist forever from the practice and device of remitting or refunding to the Too. Company, through a fictitious broker on the pay roll of the Tea Company, amounts of money as brokerage fees, thereby subjecting other customers to an unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage in commerce by not allowing them the same arrange¬ ment, the Secretary ordered the hearing indefinitely postponed, subject to be sot down at a future date in the event of the failure of the respondent to comply with the stipulation* D-479; D—180; D-490; D-500j D-481; D-491; D-50S; D-482; D—J.-92; D-504; D-483; D-4915 j b-505j U-484; b-49e-j D-506 i D-485; D-487; D-488; D-495; D-e-96; D-497; D-507; D-508;-D-5Q9; D—189; D-499; D-510. Weight of Statements taken fr om the records of the respondent packers which showed the volume of sales made to a. particular customer, in order to confirm oral testimony of certain witnesses with respect there¬ to, when not supported by the introduction into evidence of the originai books and records of the respondents, from which the statements were prepared, and when the voracity of the statements was not testified to by the bookkeeper who made them up, had little vaiuo. D-440 The Secretary gave no particular weight to evidence received by the Examiner, without objection, as to transactions not alleged in the complaint, but based his findings on proof under the alle¬ gations ploc-dod. D-1175 Little credit was given by the Secretary to the testimony of a witness for the Government who. in a proceedings with respect to certain unfair practices alleged to ha.ve been practiced by the respondents market agency and packer, would not freely subject himself to cross examination, who several times during the course of his cross examination changed his story materially, who admitted having innumerable conferences with a competitor of the respondent market agency with respect to the adlegod unfair practices of the market agency, who admitted borrowing money from the competitor and of accepting clothing from the competitor, who had boon operating a strin•; of slot machines and who, without authority, removed certain records if the res;; indent panker frmi the office ->f the packer. The Secretary gave credit to only so much of the testimony of the witness as wa .s othorxd.se corroborated. D-1175 54 HEARINGS II Dismissal, Die continuance, one 1 . Terninotion of Proceedings dismissed upon stipulation by respondents to adhere to certain trading practices. D-133 The Secretary’s complaint and notice, alleging certain unfair prac¬ tices of Chicago Packing Company in obtaining dressed moats without competitive bidding, end at loss than the true arid kn nvn market value thereof, dismissed when it appeared that officials of the Packing Company had been indictee under the provisions of the Penal Code of the United States for the acts charged in the complaint raid had pleaded guilty and been sentenced therefor, the Packing Company being no longer engaged in the business of preparing meats raid meat food products for sale and shipment in interstate commerce. D-152 It appearing to the Secretary that one of the respondents, the Cudahy Packing Company, is not a necessary party to the matter alleged in the complaint, the Secretary ordered the complaint dismissed as against it. P-185 The Secretary dismissed the complaint against respondent packing companies, alleging an arrangement, agreement, or combination between the respondents to apportion territory for carrying on the business of nurchasin ; swine in commerce, the evidence showing that respondent Hormol Packing Company continued to purchase hogs in the territory alleged to be apportioned to respondent Rath Packing Com¬ pany and vice versa, the evidence further showing that if any agree¬ ment was made it was only that the Hormol Pan king Companv was not to do trank buvinn at designated points, and that if there wan an KJ O O JL J apportionment arrangement between the two respondents it was not carried out, D-269 It appearing throb the complaint and notice, dated npril 10, 1929, and the amended complaint and notice, dated January 7, 1932, alleging respondents’ violation of the provisions of Title II of the net bv ongaiin in devices in commerce for the purpose end with the effect of uonipulatin ; end contrailin : prices in commerce, hen boon sot down for hoarin 0 on sevora.l different occasions and finally on January 23, 1932, continued until further orderj and it appearing to th e Secretary throt there is no reason for continu¬ in'" the proceeding mcoding be dismissed , the Secretary ordered that the without nrcoudicc. The order was dated June 3, 1933, D-289 55 HEARINGS II Dismissal, Di s c on t i nu me o, and Termination of It appearing to the Secretary that the complaint against respond¬ ent packer, for alleged violations of Title II of the net by en- gagin in the deceptive practice tail device of hi 1 liny purchasers of sheepskins and lambskins u 4 . on a misrepresentation of the live woi ;ht of the sheep and lands fron which the skins were taken, should bo dismissed, the Secretary ordered the complaint end notico thereof dismissed• D-294 It appearin'; to the Secretary that, fron a consideration of the stipulation entered into between the Secretary and the respondent, the Great Atlantic and Pacific Conpany, a corporation, the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s appeal without preju¬ dice, the Secretary ordered that- his prior cease and desist order be revoked without prejudice; with the provision, however, that if the Secretary shall, in the future, have reasonable cause to believe that the respondent is still onpayed in similar practices end shall order a hoarin^, the testimony taken in the docket shell bo considered as a part of the testimony token in the future hcar- m o) me. navo the future hearing* mo force, end effect as if introduced in such D-476 The evidence being conflicting as to whether the price-cutting activities of respondent in the poultry business in end around 'Tiehita Falls, Texas, was due to a deliberate attempt to drive its competitors out of business or to the general end widespread depression during the years 1933, 1934, and 1935, end respondent having testified that whothor or not there had been violations of tho Act, as alleged in the complaint, ho would see that no such violations occurred in the future, and it having been agreed at the hearing that a Government accountant would have access to respondent’s records to make an investigation end a report with respect to respondent’s business, end the Government accountant having made his report coverin._, tho period from December 21, 1934, to 1/Iarch 21, 1935, end the report showin 0 that there was an aver- ago spread up to a pound on dressed poultry over live poultry soli by respondent at Wichita Falls, which tended to disprove witnesses ’ testimony that the res; ondent was cutting pric.cs in tho sale of poultry below the cost of the poultry in an attempt ' to drive its competitors out of business, the Secretary ordered tho ease dismissed, 1 D-518 66 HEARINGS II Dismissed, Discontinuance, and T or min at ion of Complaint for reparation dismissed in ease where the evidence showed that the respondent packer had a right to refuse to accept delivery of the cattle in question, the cattle tendered by the order buyer not conforming substantially to the requirements of the contract between the parties, D-1020; D-1021 The respondent packer’s notion to dismiss the complaint allowing that a branch house of the respondent sold poultry for the com¬ plainant and charged a commission without authority therefor, on the ground that the respondent has entirely discontinue-! tho han¬ dling of live poultry at the branch house, has satisfied the claim of the complainant and does not plan to resume such operations, was granted by the Secretary, end tho proceedings were dismissed, without prejudice, D-1081 Nature of •, 4 v Complaint by Kansas City Livestock Exchange, and proceedings instituted by Secretary under Title II of the Let, to deter¬ mine lawfulness of respondent packer's trade practices, D-l Proceeding instituted by the Secretary, under Title II of the Act, to determine the lawfulness of tho purchase of all the assets end good will of respondent Morris k Company by respondent Armour & Company, D-l 9 Complaint by the Secretary against Armour & Company of Illinois, Armour & Company of Delaware, North American Provision Company, and Swift & Company for their alleged refusal to do business with, or purchase hogs handled by, anv and all traders at the Union J- o 1 1 9 %j Stockyards of Chicago, Illinois, D-133 Complaint by the Secretary in the matter of respondent packing company’s violations of Title II of the Act, D-l52; D-294 HEARINGS II Nature of Complaint and notice directed by the Secretary to respondent packers alleging, upon the basis of a sworn statement on file with the Secre¬ tary and upon information and belief, that the Secretary has reason to believe that respondents are violating Title II of the Act by engaging in and using in commerce unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practices and devices attempting to injure and destroy the business of competitors, ' D-185 Complaint end notice to respondent Geo, A, Ilorrael and Company to determine the lawfulness of respondent’s trade practices under Title II of the Act. D-269 Complaint and notice alleging violation of Title II of the Act by engaging in a course of business and doing actions for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating and controlling prices in commerce. D-289 Inquiry instituted under Title II of the Act to determine if respondent packer is engaging in the unlawful practice of giving an unreasonable preference or advantage to a customer, D-418; D-419; D-420; D-477 Complaint and notice to determine if the respondent packers have violated and are violating Title II of the Act by agreeing, and entering into combinations and agreements, to fix prices of meat and moat products within certain localities. D-440 Complaint and notice of hearing to determine if the respondent « packer is using unfair or deceptive practices or devices in com¬ merce by substituting inferior grades of turkeys for selected grades. D-470 Complaint and notice to determine if respondent, the Groat Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, a corporation, is violating Section 202 (a) of Title II of the Act. D-476 58 HEARINGS II Nature of Notice of inquiry to determine if respondent packer is violating Title II of the Act by giving undue and unreasonable preferences to the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, D-479j D-480] D-481• D-482 ; D-483j D-484; D-485; D~487 ; D-488; D-489; D-490; D-491; D-492; D-493; D-494; D-495; D-49G; D-497; D.-499; D-500; D-503; D-504; D-505; D-506; D-507; D-508; D-509; D-510. Inquiry to determine if respondent, The Fort Worth Poultry and Egg Company, is violating Title II of the Act by the unfair practice and device of selling poultry and meat products in commerce at prices below cost in an attempt to injure- and drive competitors out of business, and monopolize, in whole or in part, the poultry business in and about Wichita Falls, Texas. D-518 Complaint end notice to determine if.respondent packer unlawfully refused to honor a draft drawn upon it by an order buyer for the payment of livestock. D-549; D-1019 Complaint end notice of hearing to determine if respondents Armour & Company, and Swift & Company, are engaging in unfair practices and devices in the sale of meat and meat products, in violation of Title II of the Act. D-580 Proceedings to determine if the respondent packer is unfairly and unjustly withholding the full payment of an order buyer’s draft. • ' ' D-581 % Complaint and notice alleging unfair practices and a combination or a conspiracy on the part of a packer and market agency against a shipper of livestock, D-603 Order of inquiry to determine the unlawful trade practices of respondent packer. D~708 II G-8 Complaint and notice charging the respondent packer with having failed to remit the full amount of the contract price for the purchase of cattle. D-798 Complaint for reparation for the alleged refusal of respondent packer to melee full payment for the purchase of livestock by its agent. D-928; D-948 59 HEARINGS II Nature of Complaint and notice of hearing for the alleged failure of the respondent packer to remit the full amount of the agreed purchase price of livestock. D-982 Complaint alleging the refusal of a packer to accept delivery of livestock purchased by an order buyer. D-1020; D~1021; D-1022 Complaint and notice of hearing for reparation for commissions alleged to be unjustly changed by the respondent packor. D-1081 Order of inquiry to determine , if the respondent pankor is engaging in the unfair practice of refusing to accopt delivery of livestock after having agreed to purchase same. D-1105 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of the prentice of the respondents market c.gcncy and packer in combining, conspiring, end agreeing to editor scale tickets and to engage in other unfair prentices. D-1175 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent pinker misgradod meat by the use of counterfeit stamps or otherwise. D-1223 Place of Holding Tho Packers and Stockyards Act makes no provision restricting the plane or places where hearings may be held, and the Secretary ma.y, by specific order, confer upon the examiner, the right to recess the hearing from time to time and resume it at planes designated by the examiner. D-440 60 HEARINGS II Postponement of Upon request of the complaining witness, in the case alleging unfair practices on the part of respondent packer, the hearing was postponed until further order of the Secretary. D-294 Ordered by the Secretary that the hearing to determine the law¬ fulness of respondent packing company’s trade practices be con¬ tinued until August 21, 1933. D-418j D-419j D-420 The hearing in the case against respondent packers for alleged ■violations of Title II of the Act was continued by the Secretary from April 9, 1934 to May 17, 1934. D-440 . Respondent having stipulated the facts in the case and having agreed to cease and desist forever from the practice and device of remitting or refunding to the Tea Company, through a. fictitious broker on the pay roll of the Tea Company, amounts of'money as brokerage foes, thereby subjecting other customers to an unreason¬ able prejudice and disadvantage in commerce by not allowing them the same arrangement, the Secretary ordered the hearing indefinitely postponed, subject to be set down at a future date in the event of -failure of the respondent to comply with the stipulation. D-479; D-480; D-481; D-482; D-483; D-484; D-485j D-487j D-488; B-489; D-490; D-491 ; D-492; D-493; D-494; D-495; D-496; D-497; D-499; D-500; D-503; D-504; D-505; D-506; D-507; D-508; D-509- D-510. Respondent Swift & Company was, upon request, allowed by the Secre¬ tary a second and third postponement of the hearing to determine if it was engaging in unfair and deceptive practices and devices in the sale of meat and moat products. D-580 Hearing to determine if respondents Armour & Company and Swift & Company arc engaging in unfair practices and devices in connection with the sale of moat and meat products was ordered continued by the Secretary, upon request of the respondents for additional time to prepare for the hearing, from September 30, 1936, to November 24, 1936. " D-580 61 HEARINGS II Postponement of The Secretary having found it impracticable to complete the necessary preparation of the case concerning the alleged unfair practice of respondent packer in refusing to honor the full amount of a draft . for the purchase of livestock, the Secretary ordered that the hearing bo continued from November 5, 1936 to November 12, 1936. D-.581 Upon request of one respondent, the Secretory ordered the hearing, to determine if respondents, a packer and market agency, were con¬ spiring against a shipper, continued for one clay. D-603 t JURISDICTION II The question of the jurisdiction-of the Secretary over the respond¬ ent, the Great Atlantic and Pacific Ton Company, having been rad sod by the respondent’s answer denying that it is a. packer as the torn is defined.under Title II of the Act, the Secretany concluded fron the evidence that the respondent was engaged continually from January 1, 1932, to the date of the service ,of the complaint, in a business of both manufacturing end preparing moats' and moat food product's for shipment in interstate commerce, and was, therefore, continually a. packer as defined in Section 201, Title II of the Act, the evidence showing, among other things, that the respondent oper¬ ated several thousand retail stores located in many cities and towns and states in which it sold - continually, from day to day, meats and meat food products at retail for local consumption, aggregating each year hundreds of millions of pounds, that the respondent did not slaughter any livestock but bought the products from other meat packers located in different cities and states, which products were delivered by the packers directly to the respondent's various retail stores, that during the first ten months in 1935, the respondent received more than thirty million pounds of moat and meat food prod¬ ucts at its warehouses located in various cities and states', that the meat and moat food products wore inspected under the U, S. Moat Inspection Law, that the respondent engaged in slicing, wrapping, labeling, packing, and shipping meat and meat food products to its various retail stores located in other states from the point of shipment, and that 20 % of the chop suey packed end shipped by respondent from a warehouse in Providence, Rhode Island,.consisted of fresh hog meat and that said*chop suoy and corn beef shipped by respondent are moat food products, as defined in Paragraph 3, Sec¬ tion 2, Title I of the Act. Dr.476 Title II of the Act is.general in its application and.is similar to the Federal Trade Commission Act, A packer may violate the Act not only in connection with the buying of livestock, but, in .handling moats, meat food products, dairy products, . poultry, poultry, products, or eggs. Such violations need not occur at a stockyard, -On the other hand, violations .on the part of a stockyard owner, market agency, or -dealer, covered under the provisions of Title III, must bo in connection with livestock at a "stockyard”. D-1175 63 JURISDICTION II Duties and Authority of Socrotary under the Act Under Title II of the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture is vested ■with full authority to require packers to cease and desist from en¬ gaging in or using any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in interstate commerce, either within or without the stockyards, with respect to the watering, weighing, handling, docking, feeding, or buying of hogs, or otherwise conducting their business, or with respect to any other course of conduct that nay be contrary to the Act, and, in order to safeguard the interests of producers and shippers of livestock, the Secretary may super¬ vise the operation of packers end stockyards, D-l The Act vests the Secretary of Agriculture with broad powers of inquiry which enable hin to properly hold a hearing to determine whether the contemplated action of respondents to merge companies constitutes a violation of Title II of the Act, D-19 It is not required that the Secretary attempt to forecast the future policy of a packing company in tho conduct of its business, when making an order under a specific proceeding, there being ample power and authority in tho Secrotary to take appropriate and -effective action when the violation cals os, D-19 Under tho provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the duty is imposed upon tho Socrotary to determine tho facts from tho record taken in tho hearing proscribed by the Act, D-440 In a. proceedings to determine if tho respondent packers are violat¬ ing or have violated Title II of the Act by entering into combina¬ tions or agreements to fix prices within certain territories, tho Secretary does not have lawful authority under the Act to make an award of damages, either punitive or compensatory, to any person who may have been injured by tho acts of tho respondents if such there be, Tho Secretary’s only authority is to issue a cease end dosist order, to take further testimony, to emend, or to dismiss, D-440' Power of Secretary to Hold Hearings Tho Act vests tho Socrotary of Agriculture with broad powers of inquiry 'which enable him to properly hold a hearing to determine whether the contemplated action of respondents to merge companies constituted a violation of Title II of the Act, D-19 JURISDICTION II To issue Cease and Desist Orders Under Title.II of the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture is vested with full authority to require packers to cease and desist from en¬ gaging in or using any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in interstate commerce, either within or without the stockyards, with respect to the watering, weighing, handling, docking, feeding, or buying of hogs, or otherwise conducting their business, or with respect to any other course of conduct that nay be contrary to the Act, and, in order to safeguard the interests of producers and shippers of livestock, the Secretary nay supervise tho operation of packers and stockyards• D-l A cease and desist order nay be issued by the Secretary against the charges complained of even though the ants as charged- vrcre dis¬ continued by the respondents prior to the tine of the filing of the complaints by the.Secretary, Section 203 (a) of the Act as amended providing in part that: ’’whenever tho Secretary has reason to believe tha.t any packer has violated or is violating ***” tho pro¬ visions of tho Act, ho may issue a. coa.se and desist order. D-440 It was proper for the Secretary to issue a cease and desist order ag al n s t a.l 1 e g e d price-fixing .agreements in restraint of trade, and other unfair practices, even though no evidence was introduced either by the respondents or by tho Government to the effect that such prentices wore being engaged in at the time tho complaint was issued by the Secretary, the evidence further shoving that no offer or stipulation had been made by the respondents to discontinue the practices complained of and tha.t tho only assurance tha.t such pren¬ tices would not bo resumed after the proceedings had terminated would be by the issuance of a cease and desist order. To substan¬ tiate this position, the Secretary quoted from: Guarantee Vet. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 285 Federal 853; Scarp v. Federal Trade Commissi ni, 12 F, ("2d) 22, 27; Trade Commission, 296 Federal 353. Roebuck & Cc Trade Commission, 258 Federal 307, 310; Moir v. Federal and Fox .Film Cn. v. Federal — D->440 65 JURISDICTION II To Issue Cor.se nnd Desist Orders The groat weight of authority is to the effect that the discontin¬ uance of irregular practices prior to the issuance of a complaint does not preclude the issuon.ee ■jf a ccc.sc and desist order. D-1175 Under Title II of the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture is vested with.'full authority to require packers to cease end desist from en¬ gaging in or using any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in interstate commerce, either within or without the stocky ends, with respect to the watering. wei :hin handling, docking, business feeding, or buying of hogs, or otherwise conducting their or with respect to any other course of conduct that nay be contrary to the Act. and, in order to safeguard the interests of producers end shippers of livestock, the Secretary nay super¬ vise the operation of packers and stockyards. D-l -i. — V 66 1 LACHES IN FILING COMPLAINT A delay of noro than three years by an order buyer in filing a complaint v/ith the Secretary against a packer for alleged unfair practices, and for refusing to accept delivery of livestock pur¬ chased by the order buyer for the packer, indicated that the >rc1er buyer acquiesced in the packer’s judgment that the cattle purchased were inferior to and not the kind of cattle the packer ordered. D-1021 /-■ n b / II LIVESTOCK SALES AHD TRANSACTIONS II Conspiracy in A packer CUT d C. market agency were found by the Secretary to have entered into on agreement, combination, or conspiracy between themselves in that after the packer had refused to accept deliv¬ ery of toi order of livestock from the shipper and the shipper had thereafter consigned thv, livestock to the market rmonev for sale, the market agency, vdth knowledge of the facts, then sold the livestock to the packer but reported to the shipper that the livestock had boen sold to a third r>c.rtv, resulting in loss to the shippero D-603 60 i MONOPOLY II Combinations Thoro is nothing in the Act itself which specifically prohibits or condemns the purchase by one packer of the physical assets of an¬ other, but the question which arises therefrom, is whether out of such a transaction would flow conditions or conduct which would ' come within the prohibitions of the net. D-19 The low does not make-more size an offense or the existence of uncxertod power an offense, but in order that combinations may bo declared unlawful, thev must bo shown to have restrained trade or < u* commerce unroas on ably or unduly, or it must be shown that the power thereby acquired is being used for the .accomplishment of the evil which the law was intended to prevent* D-19 oacker’ While the evidence with respect to respondent r meat and neat food products to the Croat Atlantic Company through a fictitious broker and paying --.. a and Tea selling Pacific brokerage commissions on such sales to.the broker, which amounted in reality to a rebate to the Greevt Atlantic and Pacific Tea. Company, wan sufficient for the Secretary to hold that such a. practice was in violation of Title II of the Act, in that it discriminated against and subjected other customers not given the same advantage to an .unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, the Secretary hold that such evidence was not sufficient to prove the .allegation of a. conspiracy, con- bination, or agreement between respondent and the Tea Company to subject competitors of the Toa Company to unreasonable prejudice o r di s ad van t ag c * D-418: D-419: D-420 Evidence of illegal conbina.tions may be and usually can be sustained only by proof of circumstances. It is elementary that conspiracy is seldom capa.blo of proof by direct testimony and nc.y bo inferred from the things actually done, D-440 Evidence of an express agreement is not necessary to prove a con- bination to fix end maintain prices, a mere tacit understanding between the various parties to act so as to achieve a common un¬ lawful purpose, followed by auction in furtherance thereof, being sufficient to establish an illegal combination. So it was hold in the cc.sc of Farmers Livestock Commission Company v, U, S., 54 F (2d) 375. . ~ " 5 L 440 69 MONOPOLY II C« Combinations Evidence that the Department of n 0 riculture approved the so-called "Birmingham. Plan” or "Institute Plan", whereby each of the respond¬ ent packers should issue a list showing his price of moat products and exchange this list with other packers, was not sufficient to justify the price-fixing agreements entered into by the respondent packers, since the records showed that the Department officials by letter specifically warned the respondent packers against price- fixing agreements and that tho approval of the plan by the Depart¬ ment was merely an approval of the plan as submitted and not an approval of tho method used of carrying it into execution. D-440 Mergers o There is nothing in tho ^ot itself which specifically prohibits or condemns the purchase by one packer of the physical assets of another, but tho .question which arises therefrom is whether out of such a transaction would flow conditions or conduct which would cone within the prohibitions of the Let. D-19 It would have boon very easy for Congress, when legislating to u O 3 vo O prevent evils in the packing industry, to have incorporated in its legislation prohibition of the acquisition of the properties, business, end good will of one packer by another. Tho fact that it did not do so argues that It did not intend to do so, but left open a field for tho lawful and normal disposition of the proper¬ ties by competitors subject to the ^ct, This conclusion is strengthened by the. fact that in the Clayton net the acquisition of the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of c. competitor, with the effect of substantially lessoning coupe- < * tition, is forbidden in oxer ess -ceras. D-19 MONOPOLY II ■What Constitutes The purchase by ^raour & Company of the physical properties, busi¬ ness, and go 3 d will of Morris & Coupany is not forbidden by the Act, unless it be made for the purpose or idth the effect of nonipul eating or controlling prices in the buying of livestock in connorcc or in the sale one! distribution of livestock products, or of creating a nonopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in such articles in commerce, or of restraining connorcc. D-19 Since the undisputed evidence indicates that competition on the whole in the sale of moats and moat food products in interstate • commerce has not been diminished by the acquisition of Morris & Company by armour & Company,.such acquisition has not the effect of creating a monopoly. D-19 71 ORDERS II Arn.iur & Company end Fowl or Peeking Company ordered to oor.se end desist frin continuing the violation of Title II, Section 202, of the Act by protecting ir causing to be protected the shippers of the Fowl or Packing Company r.t their respective shipping points; to cease end desist from continuing the violation of Title II, Section 202, of the Act by representing or announcing to shippers of the Food or Packing Company that thev mil not feed corn in the Mistletoe Stocky ends, while, at the sane time, furnishing a corn-fill to Its shipper Josso G. Hawkins, or by withholding or attempting to withhold a corn-fill in said yards to the hogs of my of its shippers while furnishin such fill to hogs of other shippers under like conditions end circumstances; to file, within 30 ,ys after the service of this order, a report with th Sccro* tary in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which this order has been complied with, D-l The evidence being insufficient to sustain the charges made in the complaint, the proceeding was dismissed, without rroju&ico. D-l 9 Upon stipulation by rospondonts that the discrimination and advantages complained of by traders and others would bo dis¬ continued, and that respondents ’would make purchases of hogs in the usual manner, the Secretary ordered the proceedings. subject to such agreement. dismissed. D-153 Ordered by the Secretary that the proceedings be dismissed, with out prejudice. D-l52 Proceedings ordered dismis-sod, without prejudice, D-l 85 Complaint and notice, alleging an agreement, arrangement, or combination between the respondent packers to apportion territory in viole.tion of Title II of the Act, dismissed. D-269 It appearing that the complaint end notice, dated April 10, 1929, and the amended complaint and notice, da.tcd January 7, 1932, ad1aging respondents' violation of the provisions of Title II of the let by ongaging in devices in commerce for the purpose and with the effect of manipulating, end controlling prices in commerce, has boon sot down for hearing on severed different occasi ns and finally on January 23, 1932, continue' 1 , until further order; ,rd it appearing ti the Secretary that there is no roa.s.»n for c ntinuir.g the the frocoedin. , the Secret- 1 .ry ordered the proceedin'-; be clisoiissod without prejudice. The order was dated June 3, 1933 D-289 72 ORDERS II Complaint against packer for a cli sni s s od vi thaut projudi cing institute any future prococdin llegcd unlawful trade practice the right of the conpl aincuit to gs that it sees fit, D-294, Packer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, end deceptive prentice or device of cither directly or indirectly refunding or remitting brokerage foes to ony buyer of neat or meat food products while at the sane time paying brokerage fees on salos to other buyers without directly or indirectly returning such fees to them; further ordered that the allegation char ;in conspiracy, combination, and agreement to on ;ajo in and use an unfair, unjustly dis¬ criminatory, and deceptive practice or device in commerce be dismissed; further ordered that the order shall take effect within ten days from the date thereof, and that a. copy thereof be transmitted to packer by rc 'istorod nail, D-418; D-419; D-420 73 ORDERS n Ordered that the respondent packers, vdth the exception of the St. Louis Independent Packing Company, cease end -desist from the followin ; acts: (l) enpapinp in end usin - the unfair practice or device in commorce of aprccinp with competitors upon prices at which neats shall be sold end furnishing information relative thereto to competitors, (2) plvinp an undue end unreasonable preference end advantages to a particular person or persons or to a locality or localities in the sale of neats in commerce, it not bcin •; intended that this part of the order shall be interpreted ir construed as prohibitin': differ¬ ences in prices to persons and to localities based upon differ¬ ence in distributive costs and )thcr differences which, in the exercise of sound owners ’ business judgment, may be deemed warranted, but it bcinp intended only to prohibit discrimination between persons and localities based upon price-fixing aprec- nents, (3) aprecin - as to the prices at which sales of meats and neat food products will be made in commerce, circulating price information reached as 0 . result of such an agreement whore such acts arc done for the purpose or with the effect of nipulatin ; or controllin ; prices in commerce or creatin', a monopoly in the soilin’ of meat or meat food products in commerce, or restraining co.mcrcc in the hcndlinj or sale of meat and moat food products, (•!-) conspiring, combinin'', aprco¬ in *, and arran.'in ; -amen themselves end anon a others to do and to aid and abet the doin •: or enpapin * in and usin': the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice end device in commerce, to wit* furnisliinp information as to aprood prices; from makinp or ;ivin.p in corniereo an undue end unreasonable preference or adventape to a penticular person or locality, or enpapin ; in such course of business or doinp acts for the purpose or with the effect of nanipulatinp or controlling prices in commerce and of restrainin' commerce; further ordered that each of the follovdnp named respondents to wit: Armour & Company, Swift & Company, The Cudahy Packinp Company, Wilson & Company, Coo. a. Hormol A Company, Birmingham Packinp Company, shall cease end desist from conspirinp, conbininp, arreoina, and arrannin ’ with other worsens or between thorn- selves to apportion sales of ;.icats and meat fo -d products in commerce; further ordered that all char-os apainst -the St. Louis Independent Paokin.p Comprny be dismissed; further ordorc that the order shall become effective in forty- days from the t/ %s date of the order, and that copies thereof shall be served by repistored mail upon each respondent company. D-14:0 7 J ORDERS II Packer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practices and dovices of: (l) representing that neat food products, poultry v roducts, or e^_,s sold or offered by it for sale had been jrndod and stomped by cn official inspector or prador "when the same had not, in fact, been so radod end stomped, ( 2 ) substituting inferior, un. rae.od products for superior, jraded products, (3) tiakinp any unauthorized or any other unlawful use of, or the alter in j of any officially . 'radod stamp of the Department of Agriculture, and (4) from any other practice or device of the character set forth in the enrolaint; further ordered that the order shr.ll bccono effective on and after thirty days by receipt of respondent of a copy thereof, which shall bo transmitted by registered nail. D—±70 The respondent. The Great Atlantic end Pacific Tot. C m^.rny, a corporation, was ordered by the Secretary to cease end desist from on pa in in and usin • in commerce, as defined in the Act, the deceptive practice of concealing or attempting to conceal the true relationship exist in between it an.' 1 , rny officer, employee, or aponcy under its control when and while such officer, employee, or a 'onev is authorized to ourcha.sc noa.t end moat food products from any noa.t food packer f or it or its account 5 further ordered to cease end desist from onpapinp in end usinp in commerce the deceptive practice and device of makinp or permittinp its officer, employee, or any person under its control to nalco any false or misleading misropr 0 sontati-on that such officer, employee, or person is .onmagod in the brokerage lousiness when, in fact, ho is purchc.sinp neat supplies from neat packers for it or its account; further ordered to cease end desist from the unfair practice and device of im osinp upon and collecting from any neat packer a foe, charpo, or compensation for any sollinp service it or its officer, employee, or my a.pont under its control renders to any neat packer or for any officer or facility maintained end operated by it nor el v provides a. contact or a medium through which such neat pa.ckor offers for sale or soils products to it, which foe exceeds tho actual and personal expense incurred by respondent in providing the service or furnishinp tho office or fa.cility for such purposes; further ordered that the order shall become effective thirty-five days from the date thereof, and that a copy thereof shall be served upon tho respondent by re pistored nail. D-476 75 ORDERS Ordorod by the Secretary that his prior cor.sc and desist order be revoked and that a cony of the order should be served upon the counsel of record for the respondent by registered nail or in person. D-476 Packer ordered to cease end desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, raid deceptive practice and device of either directly or indirectly refunding or permitting hrokora go fees to any buyer of noat or neat food products 'while the respondent is, at the sane tine, pp.ying brokera u o' fees on selos to other buyers without directly or indirectly returning such fees to then, thus discriminating against and subjecting the latter buyers to an unreasonable prejudice -and disad van tape; further ordered that the order bee one effective twenty days f r on the date of signature and that a copy thereof be served by regis¬ tered nail to the counsel of records bv the resnondent. D-477 Or dor o-’ by the Secretary that the provi .ms cease and desist order in the ease dated, .aril 15, 1938, be set aside without prejudice for a period of sixty days from the date of the present order so that the Secretary might consider and dispose of respondent’s proposed application for a rehearing. <• D-477 An investigation by the representatives of the Department having disclosed that the res-pen dent is no Ion or on.-: a od in the practice Complained ■>£ in the original complaint, and-that, duo to a change in the policy of respondent’s customer, the Great Atlantic end Pacific Tea Company,- it will be no longer necessary for the respondent to eng. a go in such unfair practices in order to do business with the Tea Company, the Secretary ordered that the previous cease and desist order, dated April 15, 1938, be revoked without prejudice* D-477 Ordered that the hearing in this docket bo postponed indefinitely, subject to being set down at a future date in the event of the failure of the respondent to comply with its stimulation; further ordered that a copy of the order postponing the hoarixibe served upon respondent by registered mail. D-479; D-480; D-481; D-x8£; D-483; D—184, U-489 j> 'jJ-491; D-49k; D-49 o; D-^9 *±: D-499; D-500; D~503; D-504; D-505; D-506 D-510. .u -485; D-487; D - 4- 8 D—495; jo~496; D-497; D-507; I)-508; D-509; XI 70 ORDERS II Proceedings instituted against Fort Worth Poultry and Egg Company for alleged price-cutting, to injure and drive its competitors out of business, dismissed, and a copy of the order ordered served upon respondent by registered mail, D-518 Packer ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair and deceptive practice and device of refusing to accept livestock and to pay drafts dravm on it by buyers whom it has authorized to buy livestock for shipment to it, and whom it has authorized to draw drafts on it in payment therefor; further ordered that the order shall be in effect thirty days from and after the date of receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be served by registered mail, D-549 Respondent Swift & Company ordered by the Secretary to cease and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practices and devices of (l) denying to any purchaser any dis¬ count which, at or o.bout the same time, it granted to any other purchaser of packer products of like kind, quality, and quantity, under similar conditions, (2) requiring one purchaser of its wrapped and packaged packer 'products to pay for thorn on the ba.sis of their weight at the time they wore wrapped end packaged by respondent and allowing another purchaser to pay for such products on the ba.sis of the actual weight thereof at the time of their physical delivery to the purchaser, and (3) denying to any buyer of packer products the same terms of credit that are extended to any other buyer of substantially the some credit rating, purchasing packer products of like kind, quality, and quantity under substantially the same circumstances, D-580 / The proceedings a.ga.inst Armour 1 Company for alleged unfair pra.cticcs and devices in the sole of meat products was ordered dismissed, D-580-A Paickcr ordered by the bccrutary to coa.se and desist from the unfair, unjustly dis criminatory, and deceptive practice Land device, in interstate commerce, of refusing, after receipt, acceptance, and slaughter .of livestock purchased on order, to pay the a.grcod purchase price for such livestock; further ordered that a copy of the order ho served on respondent by registered mail, and that the order shall take effect in five days from its receipt, D-581 77 ORDERS II Respondent packer ordered to coaco and desist from engaging in and using the unfair, unjust].y discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of agreeing to purchase livestock end thereafter refusing to consummate the sale without legal cause thereof; further ordered that respondent packer cease end desist from conspiring, combining, agreeing, end arranging to engage in and use the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice end device in commerce of concealing from a shipper the facts pertaining to a sale; further ordered that respondent market agency cease end desist from engaging in end using the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, end deceptive practice and device of selling livestock in commerce end there¬ after failing to render e. correct account sale; further ordered that respondent market agency cease end desist from conspiring, □.gracing, end arranging to engage in said unfair practice; further ordered that the order shall take effect in thirty days from date of receipt thereof by respondent. D-603 Respondent packer ordered to cease 'end desist from the unfair and unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice or device of purchasing livestock directly or indirectly through its lawfully authorized agent at an agreed price end thereafter failing end refusing to pay said agent- such agreed price; further ordered that a cony of the order be served upon the,respondent by •C J- W ft/ re gis t o r e d nai 1 , D-708 Respondent packers ordered to coaso raid desist from the unfair end deceptive practice and device of knowingly making any mis¬ representation to the seller relative to the quality, quantity, or condition of livestock purchased by thorn in commerce, as defined by the Act, end which they received end slaughtered, for the purpose of coercing the seller to accept less then the contract price for such livestock, or as a pretext for deducting any amount from the agreed purchase price thereof; further ordered that the respondents cease and desist from the unfair practice end device of failing or refusing without just cause to pay the contract price for livestock purchased by them in commerce and on the seller's description thereof, when the livestock delivered to thorn, pursuant to such purchase agreement substantially conformed to such dcscrintion and were accented V 4- J» end slaughtered by them, further ordered that a cony of the order bo served upon the attorney of record for respondents by registered mail, end that the order shall become effective thirty days from end after such completed service. D-798 70 ORDERS II Packer ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair raid deceptive practice of placing orders mu buy ins. livestock in interstate commerce for subsequent slaughter, end, there¬ after, failing and refusing to accept and fulfill the legal obligations assumed as principal acting through its buying agents; further ordered that service of a copy of the order bo made upon the defendant by registered mail, and bo effective ton days from tho receipt thereof* D-928 Packer ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using tho unfair and deceptive practice of purchasing livestock in interstate commerce through a buying agent, and, thereafter, failing and refusing to recognize, accept, end be bound by tho , acts done end performed by its buying agent while acting within the scope of his employment; further ordered that a copy of tho order bo served upon tho defendant by registered mail, and shall trice effect ton days after such service. P-948 Packer ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair practice or device of purchasing livestock from a shipper and thereafter making arbitrary deductions from tho purchase price for its cam benefit, and deductions from the purchase price for the benefit of third parties, without first obtaining authority from or the consent of the shipper; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served upon tho respondent by registered mail, and that the order shall toko effect in thirty days from the date of receipt thereof by respondent* D-982 Ordered that tho defendant packer oea.se mu desist from the unfair and unjustly discriminatory and deceptive practice or device in purchasing livestock directly or indirectly through' its lawfully authorized agent at and for an a, rood price and thereafter failing end refusing to Pav the seller such agreed price; further ordered that c. copy of tho order be served upon tho defendant by registered mail* D-1019 Ordered that tho complaint, alleging an unfair practice by a packer in refusing to accept end pay-for ccattle purchased by an ordor buyer, be dismissed, and that a copy of tho order bo served upon the respondent packer by registered nail. D-1020; D-1021 79 ORDERS II Packer ordered to coaso and desist from. the unfair and deceptive practice and dcvi.ce of knowingly making any misrepresentations to the seller relative to the quantity, quality, and condition of livestock purchased by the respondent in interstate commerce for the purpose of inducing or coercing the seller to accept less than the contract price for such livestock, or as a pretext for deducting any amount from the price which the respondent, agreed to pay for such livestock; further ordered that said respondent cease and. desist from the. unfair practice and device of failing and refusing to pay the contract price for livestock purchased by him in interstate commerce on the seller's or broker's description thereof ■when the livestock delivered to him pursuant to such purchase, agreement substantially conforms to such description; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent bv -L •i’J ■±stored mail. D-1022 Ordered that, the complaint for reparation, for the alleged unfair commission charges of the respondent packer for the sale of poultry, ho dismissed, -without prejudice, and. that a copy of the order be served unon the respondent by registered mail. D-1081 Packer ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair practice and device of entering into any agreement for the purchase of livestock and then refusing to accept the livestock at the agreed price; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mail and take effect fifteen days from service thereof. D-1105 Ordered that the respondents market agenev and packer cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of reporting false or incorrect weights of livestock or making false reports of crippled animals to carriers or others; further ordered that the order shall take effect twenty days from the date thereof, and that a copy of the order shall be served by registered nail on counsel of record for each of the respondents. D-1175 80 ORDERS II Ordered that tho respondent packer cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice of (l) representing any beef carcass or other meat food product as having been graded by a representative of the United States Department of Agriculture, by the using of a stamp customarily used by such grader for that purpose, when, in fact, such neat food product has not been so graded, and (2) delivering to a purchaser any beef carcass or other meat food product so stamped, knowin^ that the purchaser thereof requires that such carcass or meat food product shall have been graded by an official 0 m:er of tho United States Department of Agriculture; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent packer by registered mail, and that tho order shall become effective ton days after such complctc-d service. D-1223 Joint Orders Even though the respondents nay bo joint respondents in a proceeding, tho order of tho Secretary is made in such manner that, if the Secretary were to decide end hold that the respond¬ ent packers had violated the statute, each individual would be ordered to coaso and desist from further violations of the statute. It is not, therefore,-a joint judgment. D-440 81 PACKERS II As Public Utilities Tho Packers and Stockyards Act has not inprossed the packing business with a public use, and conbinations of packers are to be treated as industrial combinations• D-19 Vtfho Are The question of tho jurisdiction of tho Secretary over the respondent. The Groat Atlantic end Pacific Tea Conpany, having been raised by the respondent’s answer Ponying that it is a packer as the .term is defined under Title II of the Act, the Secretary concluded from the evidence that the respondent was engaged continuallv from January 1, 1932 to the date of tho sorvico of the complaint in a business of both manufacturing and preparing moats and meat food products for shipment in interstate commerce end was, therefore, continually a packer as defined in Section 201, Title II of tho Act, tho evidence showing, among other things, that tho respondent operated several thousand retail stores located in many cities and teens and states in which it soli 1 , continuallyj from day to day, meats and moat food products at retail for local consumption, aggregating each year hundreds of millions of pounds, that the respondent did not slaughter any live animals but bought tho products from other moat packers locate 1 in different cities and states, which products were delivered by the packers directly to the respondent’s various retail stores, that during tho first ton months in 1935, the respondent received more then, thirty million mounds of neat and neat food products at its warehouses located in various cities and states, that the neat and meat food products were inspected under the U. S„ Meat Inspection Law, that the respondent engaged in slicing, wra-opina, labeling, packin' 5 *, and shipping moat and neat food products to its various retail stores located in other states from the point of shipment, and that 20, o of bhe chop suey packed and shipped by respondent from a warehouse in Providence, Rhode- Island, consisted of fresh hog meat and that said chop suoy and corn beef shipped by respondent are moat food products, as defined in Paragraph b. Section 2, Title 1 of the Act, D-476 PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT II Conti tit uti jnality of An adninistrative officer should not hold a statute enacted by Congress to bo unconstitutional and refrain from acting there¬ under, this being a matter an.thin the province of the courts. D-440 The defendant packers’ "Green Motion" to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the Act is unconstitutional because the right of appeal is practically denied, due to the fact that the respond¬ ents’ principal places of business are located within different circuit court jurisdictions, v:as denied by the Secretary, who held that any one respondent might appeal to the circuit court of appeals of the district in which its principal place of busi¬ ness is located and prosecute the case upon appeal, after having notified the other respondents to join in the appeal, oven though the other respondents so notified should fail or refuse to join in the appeal• D-440 Purpose of It is not the purpose of the Act to destroy business, but to require the observance of the public’s interests in the conduct of business by conforming to standards laid down in the law. The law contemplates that if, in case of the operation of an otherwise lawful business, the standards of conduct proscribed by the law are violated in any respect, an order shall bo made to cease and desist from the continuance of the specific viola¬ tions and not that the business itself shall be discontinued/. D-l 83 PRACTICES A1TD DEVICES Advmt ago s Packer who sold neat and neat food products to the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company through the company’s provision broker, and paid the provision broker a brokerage foe for obtaining orders from, the company well knowing, or having knowledge of facts and circumstances which were sufficient to charge respondent with notice, that the salary end expenses of the provision broker wore being paid by the company and his commissions from the packer wore being turned back to the company, but did not make, similar sales of its meat and meat food products to other companies under similar conditions, violated Title II of the Act by giving an undue end unreasonable preference or advantage to the Tea Company, D-418;~D-419; D-420; D-477 App o r t i oilment Evidence in the ease did not sustain the allegations of on agree¬ ment, arrangement, or combination between respondents to apportion territory while engaging in the business of purchasing swine in commerce, or that there was apportionment of territory between respondents for the purchase or sale of swine in commerce, and the ease was dismissed. D-269 The Secretary dismissed the complaint against respondent racking companies alleging an arrangement, agreement, or combination between the respondents to aorortion territory for carrying on the business of purchasing swine in c ommcrco, the evidence show¬ ing that respondent Homol Packing Company continued to purchase hogs in the territory alleged to be apportioned to respondent Rath Racking Company and vice versa, the evidence further showing that if any agreement was made it was only tho.t tho Hormol Ranking Company was not to do track buying at designated points, .and that if there wen an.apportionment arrangement between tho two respond¬ ents it was not carried out. D-269 II 84 PRACTICES AND DEVICES II Apportionmont A plan entered into by the respondent packers, whereby sal os to a particular customer would bo rotated among the packers for certain periods of time during the year, constitutes an appor¬ tionment of sales in •violation of the Act, evidence introduced by the respondents in the nature of prepared statements from the original books raid records of the respondents, which were neither supported by testimony of their correctness or accuracy nor by the introduction into evidence of the original books or records being not persuasive that such a scheme of rotation was not in existence. D-440 Credit Extension The denying to some buyers of packer products of the same terms of credit extended to other buyers of substantially the same- credit rating, of packer products of like kind, quality, and quantity, under substantially the some circumstances, is an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device, in violation of Section 202(b) :>f Title II of the Act. D-580 Discounts Tho granting by a packer of discounts on the purchase of. moat and moat products to some customers and his refusal of discounts to other customers of products of like kind, quality, and quantity, under similar circumstances, is an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and. deceptive practice and device in violation of Section 202(b) of Title II of the Act. D-580 85 PRACTICES AllD DEVICES II False Reports Packer who knowingly reported, to a market agency, incorrect and lesser weights of hogs, knowing that such weights would be reported to co*men carriers for the purpose of assessing freight charges, violated Title II of the net* D-1175 A packer which reported to a market agency that there wore crippled hogs in shipments, when there wore actually no crippled animals, and in other cases reported a greater number of crippled animals than wore actually in the shipments, knowing that such reports would be forwarded to the common carrier, violated Title II of the Act. D-1175 A packer which weighed hogs arriving by common carrier, end sold through a market agency, and entered a true and correct weight to be executed, and thereafter caused the woighnastor of the packer to make out weight tickets showin ; a fed.so and lesser weight than that actually purchaser, by it, for -the purpose of influencing the amount of freight charges to be assessed by the . common carrier, violated Title II of the Ant. D-1175 The Secretary issued cease and desist orders against the respondents market a ;cncv and nackor for hovine reported either to or for common carriers, for the purpose of influencing freight charges, that some of the livestock weighed less than actually or that there were cripples in shipments when, in fact, there wore no cripples, or that there were more criproles than there actually wore, even though the evidence showed that such unfair 'practices had boon discontinued prior to the filing, of the complaint against the respondents by the Secretary, the evidence showing that the unfair practices wore not voluntarily discontinued by the respondents, but wor e not sto^pod until they were discovered. D-1175 8G PRACTICES AND DEVICES II Maintenance of Own Stockyards by Packers The establishment and maintenance by a packing company of its own stockyards is .not, in itself, unlawful. D-l misgrading Respondent packer violated Title II of the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice end device of substituting and delivering to the Veterans Administration Hospital at Knoxville, Tennessee, (l) inferior gr axled turkeys for milk- fed, fancy turkeys which had been officially graded and stamped by roprosentativos of the Department of Agriculture, (2) an inferior u rado of loins for an equal number of graded, choice steer loins, (3) a quantity of inferior livers for an equal number of O ood livers which had been previously graded and stamped, (4) by shipping in interstate commerce neat food products enclosed in containers purported to have boon officially stamped and graded bv the Department of A :riculture, when, in fact, the products ha-1 not been so graded and-stamped, and (5) by shipping in interstate commerce food products which ho.d been stamped by an authorized moat :rcxlor of the Denartnent "good" J- *J O x. y but upon which the word "choice” ha.d boon superimposed by the respondent, thereby representing the products to have a .grade superior in quality to and different from the designation given to then by the Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary issued a cease and desist order for mis radin , and substitutin inferior products for* superior products D-470 A packer who of tho Unite fifteen care by an offici they had not grade to tho of tho Act, desist from used the official stamp of an official meal grader d States Department of Agriculture, in stamping asses, to make it appear that they had boon graded o,l of tho Department of Agriculture, while, in fact, been so gradod, and some of then were of inferior grade falsely stamped upon thorn, violated Title II and was required by the Secretary to cease and such unfair and deceptive practice. D-1225 87 PRACTICES AND DEVICES Policies Contrary to Custom. Tho practice of a packing company having hogs which it purchases weijhod, sorted, graded, docked, fed and h ravin; tho ascertain¬ ment and application of prices for sane done solely hy its employees without the presence of representatives of absent shippers, and without provision for reconciliation in case of later complaint bv shippers, creates a situation affording an opportunity to prejudice tho absent shipper, but is not a violation of Section 202 of the Act when in accord with an announced policy known to end accepted by shippers. D-l Preferences The practice of a packing company to deny some shippers privi¬ leges it extends to others is unfair, deceptive, and unjustly discriminatory practioo, end in violation of Section 202 of the Act. D-l Packer who sold meat end neat food products to the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company through tho company’s provision broker, and paid the provision broker a brokerage fee for obtain¬ ing orders from the company woll knowing, or having knowledge of facts and circumstances which wore sufficient to charge respondent with notice, that the salary and expenses of tho provision'broker were being paid by tho company and his commissions from the packer were being turned back to. the company, but did not make similar sales of its meat and meat food products to other Companies under similar conditions, violated Title II of the Act by Ivin ; an undue and unreasonable preference or advanta. > to the Tea. Company, D—118; D-419; D-420; D-47?" Packer violated Ti-tlo II of the Act by using tho unfair and deceptive practice or device of either directly or indirectly • refunding or remitting brokerage fees to a buyer of meat and moat food products while at the some tine paying brokerage foes on sales to other buyers without directly or indirectly returning such foes to them, thereby discriminating against and subjecting them to an unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, and tho Secretary ordered packer to cease and desist from continuing such violations. D-4-18; D-419j D-420 II 88 PRACTICES .AID DEVICES Preferoneos / The discrimination by packers, based an agreement between then- selves, a-ainst retailers within a certain area, bv char ’inr: such retailors a higher price for neat and neat food products than the price charpcd retailers for the sane products without the pi von area, or by char pi np such retailors,, a- hipher price for such products than other retailers within the sane area., is unreasonable and unjust. D-440 The Grce,t Atlantic and Pacific Tea. Conpany, a. corporation, throuph its anranponent with a. fictitious broker, who wan ir¬ reality on its pa.y roll end turned ba.ck a.ll his commissions to it, made for itself an undue and unreasonable preference and adventape in the purcha.se of its neat supplies fron packers in inter stale commerce, the evidence showinp that, a.ftor coup 1 cants had been filed with the conpany -bv various '-ackers and by the Institute of Anorican lent Pa.ckors, protestinp that any payment of a. fee directly to the buyer or his employer for his benefit by the packor constitutes an unfair trade prentice, the company permitted the employee to conceal his .identity by chanpinp the name of his business to melee it ap'pear that he was a. broker in neat food products for the public, while, in fa.ct, he was merely its cnployee. D-476 The requiring, by a. packer, of one purchaser to pay for wrapped and packaged packer products on the basis of their woipht a.t the time they wer^ wronged end. packed by the packer, end a.t the sane tine cllowin 0 other purchasers to pa.y for such products on the basis of the actual woi.dit thereof at the tine of the physical delivery to the other purchasers, is an unfair, unjustly dis¬ criminatory, and deceptive practice 'and device, and violates Section 202(h) of Title II of the Act. D-580 II 89 PRACTICES ixdD DEVICES Price Control me Dlnnip.ulation -.Give that ; urche.ee *>f business md ;ood vill of yas to effect ocone:.lies Evidence persu Morris « Cany my by Amour• & C capaiy _ v, —--—— in the conduct of respondent T s business rather than to create a'monopoly or to arx-ijulato or control prices* D-19 The -.'urche.se by Armour & Coon,nay of the physical r oyer tics. i, O Jl u a. J, 9 business, and pood tall of the i.et, unless it bv •rris w Comp my is not f >rbidden by ale for thu purpose ;>r aith the effect of :.:ai 'ulc.tin ■ or con troll in..: ..rices in the buyiri of livestock in conarco ;r in the srlo end distribution of livestock products, >r a' ere .tin • r. -monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, soiling, or leal in p in such articles in e'.amorce, >r of restraining commerce D-19 The evidence bcinj colifl'ictin ’ 'as to v/hether the price cutting activities of resp on '.cat in the poultry business in aid around Vichita Falls, Texas, eras duo to a deliberate attempt to drive its competitors out of business or to the .ponorcxl and vddespread depression duriiv; the years 1933, 1S34, and 1935, and respondent havinp testified that -whether or nit there had been violations '>f the met, as alloyed in the complaint, he v-.o ul-d s^o that no such violations occurred in the future, an., it h:.nn j been aprecd at the hearing that a Government c.cc ountmt would have access to res indent’s records to mice' on investi -c.ti m and a report with respect t :> res. ndont’s business, and the Government accountant bavin p nt.de his report covering the period from Docoubor 21, 193-1 to March 21, 1935, xid the r : irt showiny that there was m averap s"rcrd uo to n •• :;und on dressed • oultry ovor live -.•■valtrv s ll V res - -ondent at Michita Falls, which tended to disarovo vdtncsscs ’ testimony that the respondent vras cutting prices in the sc.-lc of poultry below" the cost of the poultry in an atto v t to drive its co. metitors out of business. the Secretary ordered the case dismissed* D-518 II 90 PRACTICES UVD DEVICES II Price Control and llrnipulation Tcstinony of c. witness for tlio rosy on dent packers, to tho offoct that he had hoped that minimum price lists which were caused to be sent to brcnch house non a ;crs would cause the Drench house monomers to issue instructions to stop the losses they wore O X XJ tcdd.no on tho sale of neat and neat food products, was held by the Secretary, in view of tho eocision in the case of Earners Live Stock Connissi on Coa r ■ cny v* S^_, 54 F (2d) 575, 580, to be indicative, in view of all circumstances, of the intent of the res' ondent "ackers that instructions should he issued by JL — O all branch house managers to conform. to such minimum price lists which were issued to then as a result of neetinqs of officers end employees of tho respondent packers. D-440 Substituting Inferior Products for Superior Products Respondent packer violated Title II >f the the unfair end deceptive . racticc . nd uevice of substitutin -ct by on.jaqin v in and deliver in , to tho Voter ms ninistrati .ducts to Have a rr.de superior in quality to end different fron the dosijnati >yl :ivon to then by the Department jf njriculture. an.d desist order for mi s jr r.; 1 i n ; products for superior ’roducts. mi pin ■ the Secretary issued a cease s ub s ti tutir. ; ■ in f or i o r D-470 91 PRACTICES AND DEVICES II Substituting Inferior Products for Superior Products A packer who used the official stamp of an official meat grader of the United States Department of Agriculture, in stamping fifteen carcasses, to make it appear that they had been graded by an official of the Department of Agriculture, while, in fact, they had not been so graded, end some of them were of inferior grade to the grade falsely stamped upon them, violated Title II of the Act and was required by the Secretary to coase and desist from such unfair and deceptive practice. D-1223 Q‘ PROCEDURE II Adopting Complaint of Another In order to expedite a hearing, and to avoid duplication of expense, time, and effort on the part of tho Government and all parti.es involved, a respondent may agree to the Secretary’s adoption of the charges made by another complainant, and the charges of such complainant may be treated as a complaint made by tho Secretary, subject to any right the respondent would otherwise have with respect to its form, substance, or sufficiency, D-l Amended and Supplemental Answers Two days after the commencement of the hearing, the respondent, tho Groat Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, a corporation, filed a supplemental answer in which it alleged that, since the filing of the complaint in the proceeding, it has changed its method of purchasing meat and meat food products from packers end will hereafter make such purchases through a central agency to be operated in the manner and form sot forth, in a proposed written agreement between the respondent end the packer, a copy of which agreement was attached to and made a part of the supplemental answer, D-476 Amended end Supplemental Complaints, etc. , • Amendment by complainant, Kansas City Livestock Exchange, to paragraph 4 of the complaint allowed by the Examiner during the course of tho hearing, D-l The complaint in the proceedings, instituted against the respondent packers for alleged violations of Title II of the Act, was amended by the Secretary by adding additional respondents and by adding certain jurisdictional c.1 legations in Paragraph 2 thereof, D-440 O 93 PROCEDURE II Amended and' Supp omental Complaints t The Secretary amended the complaint, II of the Act, a second time by changing the names of the states in which certain of the .respondent corporations were incorporated* D-440 Tho Secretary amended the complaint for a third time by provid¬ ing that, if necessary or advisable, in the discretion of tho Examiner the hearing might be adjourned from time to time end at such places as the Examiner might designate, D-440 etc, alleging violation of Title The Secretary ordered, after the commencement that the complaint against tho Great Atlantic Company, a corporation, bo amended by making and changes therein, and that the hearing b.o of tho hearing, end Pacific Tea certain insertions resumed ton days after tho order of amondnent. D-476 In tho proceeding to determine if the respondent Swift & Company was engaging in unfair practices end devices in the sale of meat end moe.t products, tho Secretary filed a first and second emended c omplaint. D-58 0 Answer Respondents given 44 days in which to file cn answer to the complaint end to appear end show cause, why an order should not be made by the Secretary in accordance with the .allegations of the complaint, B-19 The respondent packing company allegations of tho inquiry. denied generally the material D-418; D-419 j D-420 94 PROCEDURE II Answer The respondent, tho Grant Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, having been given twenty days by tho Secretary to file an answer to the complaint end notice, filed-its answer within tho specified time in which it admitted the alleged practices set forth in the complaint but denied that they were unlawful and denied that it is a packer as defined in Section 201 of Title II of tho Act, and denied that it violc.tea any provision of tho Act as changed in the complaint* . D-476 Appeals The defendant packers’ "Green Motion" to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that tho Act is unconstitutional because tho right of appeal is practically denied, due to the fact that the respondents f principal places of business arc located within different circuit court jurisdictions, was denied by the Secre¬ tary, who held that any one respondent might appeal to the circuit court of appeals of the district in which its principal place of business is located uad prosecute the case upon appeal, after having notified the oth^r respondents to join in the appeal, even though the other respondents so notified should fail or refuse to join in tho appeal. P-440 Under tho authority of adjudicated cases, if an. adverse order by the Secretary be a. joint judgment, any respondent nay appeal, end, upon the record showing affirmatively that all other respondents had been notified to r.ppcal or join in the appeal, in cc.sc of their refusal .the appeal may be prosecuted by any one or more who do join, and the appeal to the circuit court will bo hold to be good, (3 C.J* 1009; 2 R.C.L. Pg. 66, See, 49; Harde e v, Wil son , 146 U.S. 179; lias ter son v, Herndon , 77 U.S. 416, 417; Babcock v, Norton, 5 F. (Ik 1 -) 1«>3 and cases cited therein; 16 Peters 521; Owings-v. Kincannon, 7 Peters 399») b-440 Todd v. Da 95 PROCEDURE II Appeals The Packers an: 1 Stockyards Act provisos far rn appeal by the packer to the circuit court of appeals for the circuit in which it has its principal place of business. D-440 An appeal fron the Secretary’s cce.se and desist order was trie on by the respondent, the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, a corporation, to the United States Circuit Court of appeals. Third Circuit. j-476 The Secretary mid the respondent, the- Groat Atlantic and p..cific Tea Company, having stipulated that the practices mid activities complained of in the bocrotary’s complaint would bo no longer continued, mid that there is no longer any reason for question- ir.g the validity of the cease and desist order issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, ordered the appeal of the petitioner dismissed, without prejudice. D-476 Briefs and Written Arguments At conclusion of hearing, counsel for all panties, including interveners, given ZO days to file written briefs, together ropose-J. findings )i fact. with mi abstract of the testimony mid Fifteen c..vs additional wore allowed t 0 file reply briefs. D-l The respondent stated at the hearing that the case could be submitted on the record without either oral or written argument before the Secretary. D-418| D-420 The respondent’s brief was not received by the Socrcta.ry until after tlio Examiner’s report had been issued. However, the Socrotarv considered the brief as well as the executions of tj j. respondent. D-477 96 PROCEDURE II Briefs end Written Arguments After the Examiner's report, findings of. fact* the proceedings, rnd proposed order v/^ro duly served upon thw respondent and the respondent vras allomod twontv days id thin Which to file oxcon- ti ms .and request for oral argument, but no exception mas filed said no request for argument mas rar.de, the case mas before the Secretary for appropriate action# D-708 Conplaint, Inquiry, Potition Under Title II, Section 203(a), whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that caiy packer has violates, or is violating any provision of Title II, he shall cause a complaint in •writing to bo served upon the packer, stating his charges in that respect and requiring at a hearing at a tine raid 30 days after the service the nacker to attend and x. place designated therein, of such complaint. testify at least D-l It appearing that the respondents have violated and arc violating Title II of the Act, raid that a proceeding under said Title II in respect thereto mould bo in the interest of the public, the Secretary issued a complaint and notice stating charges in that respect. D-1S Extension of Time to am suer Good cause- being shown therefor, in application of respondents for an extension of tine, th be granted additional tine t > Secretary ordered, that respondents -L file onsmers to the complaint. D-19 97 PROCEDURE II Findings of Fact, end Exceptions to Copies of the tentative findings of fact, prepared by Examiner, transmitted to all parties, inclu '.ing interveners or thoir counsel, end such parties given an opportunity to file excep¬ tions end proposed substitutes. D-l After the Examiner’s report, findings of fact, the proceeding, and proposed order were dulv served upon the respondent end the respondent was all owed, twenty days within which to file excep¬ tions end request for oral argument, but no exception was filed and no request for argument was made, the case was before the Secretary for appropriate action. D-708 Intervention Applications made to the Secretary by interested parties to intervene, for the purpose of assisting in securing a thorough end impartial investigation of the issues involved, granted by the Secretary. D-l At the opening of the hearing to determine the lawfulness of respondents’ trade practices, the .Secretary f >r the national Livestock Exchange filed a petition to intervene, which was granted by the Exmiiner. D-26S At the opening of the case, to determine if the respondent packers wore violating or had violated Title II of the Act by conspiring end combining to fix prices of moat and moat food products, a petition of the Valley Provision Company to intervene in the case was duly allowed. D-440 98 PROCEDURE II Joinder cmd Severance of Parties It is clear, from the toms of Section 202(g) of Title II of the Act, that actions for a conspiracy, which of necessity require more then one person, or in this ease more then one packer,.were contemplated, and it is elementary, when there arc two or more persons engaged in the commission of one action, that they nay be tried jointly. Particularly is this true if a charge of conspiracy is involved in an administrative hearing. P-440 Upon motion by respondent Armour & Com parties and for a separate hearing to the alleged unfair practices and ± ,j.iy for a severance of and proceeding with respect devices in selling neat end. moat products, on the ground that a joint hearing with Swift & Company would result in an unfair, vexatious, end expensive imposition on the rights of the respondent Armour c 3 Company, the Secretary ordered that the motion for severance be allowed without prejudice to the right of the Secretary to join the respondents again, upon 72 Iv ur s ’ notice, should the facts developed bo deemed sufficient to warrant such action. D- 08 O Motions and Objections A motion by respondent to dismiss the complaint for insuffi¬ ciency as to form and substance is, in effect, a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the co: plaint docs not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. D-l Motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency as to form end substance overruled by the Examiner, subject to review by tho Secretary. D-l 99 II PROCEDURE Motions and Objections To - the notions filed by various of the respondent packers to nclco the complaint norc definite end specific with respect to the alleged violations of Title II, end f >r a.d ".iti ona.1 tine to prepare an answer to the complaints, the Secretary gave careful consideration raid (l) overruled the nations to make co.nplf.ints more* definite and. specific; provided that, in the event during the hearing any testimony is introduced, into the recor 1 which vail warrant a clean that any rosy indent ha': been taken by surprise, careful considcration vail be given to the natter a.t that tine- end, if ’coned meritorious, sufficient tine mil be all need for the respondent to noct the testimony introduced on behalf of the coup leant and (2) granted the respondents an additional fifteen days to file their answers# P-440 Motion by the respondent Swift & Company to make the complaint norc definite end s: ccific was• denied bv the Secretary. D-580 Motions by the respondents ijaaour & Compenv an". Swift d Coapenv OX X %J X %J * to '.isi.iiss the proceedings upon various grounds, wore denied by the Socretany. D-580 & 580-id Or ad. Arguments before the Socrote.rv Oral argunent wa.s made before the Acting Socrcteny by counsel for both respondents and the intervener# D-269 The respondent stated at the hearing that the ease could be submitted on the record without either oral or written argunent before the Secretary# D-418; D-420 Oral argument, with respect to meter..lining the lawfulness of respondent packer's tra.de practices, was ma.de before the Secretary by counsel for respondent parties# D-419 100 PROCEDURE II Oral Arguments before the Secretary The oral alleging the Act, after it 7, 1935, argument before the Secretary, in the proceedings violations by the resojnd.ent packers of Title II of was recessed by the Secretary fro..i Seat enter 10, 1935, had been oponof. by Government c ; unsel, until October because of the illness of counsel for respondents, I)-440 After the Examiner ’ s report, fin'lings of fact, the proceedings, and propose' 1 , order were duly served upon the respondent and the respondent was allowed twenty days within which to file excep¬ tions and request for oral argument, but no exception was filed and no request for argument was re .do,' the case was before the Secretary for appropriate action. b-708 Service of Complaint,, Inquiry, etc. Complaint ordered to bo served upon respondent by registered modi. D-185 Ordered bv the Secretarv that a cony of the cor.nlaint and order v t/ e u i. postponing the hearing be served upon respondent, D-418; D-419j D-420 The complaint raid notice against respondent packers, for alleged violations of Title II of the ,.,ct by entering into combinations raid agreements to fix prices within certain localities, was served won the res,.undents by sending each of them a true copy thereof by roJLstoreu mail• D-440 The Secretary ordered the and notice if hearing be rcgistcre'. mail. .t a copy of servo' 1 , worn the emended complaint each respondent by D-440 PROCEDURE Service of Cfnplaint, Inquiry, etc. Or lore;'' by the Secretary that the complaint and notice of hoaring, with respect to respondent’s alleged trade practices in violation of Title II of the Ret, bo served by transmitting to the respond¬ ent a true copy thereof by registers 1 nail. D-470 The Secretary ordered that the complaint end notice, alleging unfair end unlawful trade practices mth respect to the ogerati mis of the business of the respondent, the Great Atlantic and Pacific The Socrotai combination by re.gist ore 1 nail. . c orporc.ti m , be serve d U ) ;.) i t a. copy there of by :r acre d. that the c oupl aint c onsp: iracy. an d also ■ unfa: or raid. a mar hot a money O t/ f nd ents by tr ansmi 4-+-? i- ~r r/t: . ,1 star ^ -i— . D-476 D-S03 The notice of the tine and. place for the hearing entitled cause was served upon the respondent by nail, in the above registered. D-708 Technical Defects in Pleading The courts have repeatedly hold that the sane nicety and precision is not required in olladings before aministrative tribunals as is necessary in groccodings before the courts. It is sufficient if it can be sad" that the respondents are fairly well informed of the charges which they have to meet. It is sufficient if the constituent elements of the ploadind, as a whole, arc enough to give to the scheme, which is alleged to be in violation of the Ret, a body, administrative bodies are not to be narrowly constrained by common la.w rules of pleading. Swift & Company v. U. S. , 1S6 U.S. 375, 595; IL S. ex rel. Delaware & Hudson River Corporation v. Interstate Cmu^rco Commissi on , 51 F. (2d) 429; Interstate Cmmiarce u.;_dssi on v. Bond, 194 U. S. 25. D-440 II 102 REMITTEES II Refusal to Make in Full Packer, who purchaser! on or£or at an c. ;raa' rice two carloads of lambs and took delivery thereof and slaughtered the lambs but failed and refused to reimburse. the or or buyer for the full amount of the draft bream • up on the acker by the or-cr buyer, violate ! the Act by engaging in an unfair and docop tive practice or device of accoptin : and receiving livestock but failing and neglecting to pay or renit the full price paid by the agent therefor. D-708 Packer violated the Packers end Stockyards Act by attempting to reduce the agreed purchase price of cattle, which he accepted and slaughtered, by misrepresentation to the seller that the cattle were not of tho description ordered or of the quality ordered when in fact such was not the case. D-798 A packer engaged in the businoss of buying livestock in inter¬ state commerce who entero.. into a contract with a shipper or order buyer to purchase cattle at a certain price per hundred weight, end thereafter took delivery of the cattle raid slaughtered then, but refused to remit the total amount :*f the contract price for tho cattle to the shipper or or !cr buyer engaged in unfair and doc or tive •••.rr.cticos and devices in •J vj j . violation of tho Packers and Stockyards Act. D-798 Tho evidence adduce.! at the hearing showing that the order buyer held itself out as a buying agont of livestock, that tho defend¬ ant packer had placed a prior order with the order buyer and paid a commission charge for such service, end that, from the evidence as a whole, it was convincingly shown that the order buyer acted as agont for the dofcadent packer in the ..urehasc of cattle and. substnivfcirJLly conforms, with the dof van.dnt 1 s instructions vlth respect to tho quantity, ty_ c, end quality of cattle specified by the defendant, tho fV r ' • ■ - .1 M/1 . - it’s refusal to pay the full purchase rice of tho livestock that it urchased through the order buyer amounted to unfair end. deceptive practice which justified the entry of tho coas order• dosist D-948 103 REMITTANCES II Refused to Make in Full It appearing fron the evidence that the respondent packer ordered its order buyer to purchase a shipment of lambs from, corip lain out, for til agreed purchase price of ^2,850.10, neeopto d, delivery of the lambs and si night, cred them for sale, hut remitted to the shipper only )2,705.88, making an. arbitrary, unexplained deduction of $34.22 and a deduction of $50 for the reimbursement of its agent for expense suffered in another transaction, the Secretary found that the packer was norally and legally bound to pay the difference between the agreed price and, the amount remitted to the coir lain ant, and the Secretary issued a cease and desist i- " t / order• D-982 104 REPARATION II For Breach of Contract 1 -Jhen the respondent packer left an order with an order buyer for cattle to be purchased on a certain day, and the order buyer notified the respondent that he had not been able to purchase the cattle on the particular day, but that ho -would purchase them on the following monday for the respondent, and the respond¬ ent was silent with respect to the purchase to be made on the following b'onday, leading the order buyer to believe that the order was a standing.order, the respondent packer engaged in and used an unfair and deceptive practice by refusing to accept the subsequent order and to honor the draft drawn by the order buyer, and the Secretary concluded that the packer was legally and morally bound to reimburse the shipper for the difference between the face amount of the draft as drawn by the order buyer and the proceeds from the sale of the cattle after their accept¬ ance had boon refused by the respondent. D-54S Measure of Damages Measure of damages for refusal of packer to accept cattle from order buyer is difference between the face amount of the draft drawn by the order buyer upon the packer and the amount the cattle sold for after refusal of packer to accept them, D-549 & 105 STATE STATUTES II Regulations contract to a represent of the State of Ohio require that beef delivered on institutions of that State be graded and stamped by .tivo of the United States Department of Agriculture. D-1223 106 STATUTES, COUSTRUCTIOil OF In the construction raid interpretation of a statute, it is a cardinal principal that all of the words must bo given meaning and effect, if possible. D-440 1 II 107 TRADE CUSTOMS II The practice of a packing company having hogs which it purchases weighed, sorted, graded, docked, fed, and having the ascertainment end application of prices for same done solely by its employees without the presence of representatives of absent shippers, and without provision for reconciliation in cuse of later complaint by shippers, creates a situation affording an opportunity to prejudice the absent shipper, but is not a. violation of Section 202 of the Act when in accord with an announced policy known to and accepted by shippers* D-l WITNESSES II Examination and Cross-Examination of The intervenors exercised the privilege of cross-examining wit¬ nesses introduced by both the complainant Livestock Exchange and the respondents. D-l Testimony of Interested Witness Although proof was adduced at the hearing to show that one of the Government’s witnesses had a financial interest in a civil law suit filed against some of the respondents and that ho had an assignment of part interest in a. civil case against some of the respondents, and that one had gone through bankruptcy proceedings, the Secretary held that such facts did not weaken the testimony presented by them for the Government, because any testimony offered in this proceed¬ ings could not be used in any private proceedings and the Secretary had no authority under the Act to award damages to trie witnesses in this proceedings. D-440 The Secretary held that the testimony of the employees of the respondent packers, 'which wo.s given for the respondent packers, was undoubtedly influenced in favor of the respondents because of the self-interest of the employees induced by fear of losing their employment, and because the employees actually or construc¬ tively knew that, if they testified they had actually entered into an agreement to fix prices, they were subject to, and might be subjected to, criminal indictment. D-440 109 \ \ / PMT FOUR Digests Under Title III of the Act Dealers and Traders Market Agencies and Stockyards ACCOUNTS SALE III Failing to Render before live- the Act, usual purchaser, end the actual price received therefor, constitutes a violation of the Act by a market agency. D-287 Failing to transmit or deliver to the owner or consignor the close of the next business day following the sale of stock, as required by the Secretary of Agriculture under a true written account of such sale showing, among other end necessary details, the date of the sale, the name of 110 AGENCY III Tho employment of one person by another the receipt by the person employed of c nnd its absence is stron• evidence of n o r di n or i 1 y c on tempi at e s capons nti on in some form onomulo vment . D-1266 »/ 111 AGENCY III Acts of Agent Acts of Principal Under Section 403 of Title IV of the Act, a market association in its corporate capacity 'violates tho Act and becomes anicnablo to its penalties and disabilities when its officers or employees violate the Act, Section 403 providing that "when construing and enforcing the provisions of this Act, tho act, omission, or fail¬ ure of any agent, officer, or other person acting for or employed by any packer, stockyard, market agency, or dealer, within tho scope of his employment or office, sho.ll in every co.se also be deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such packer, stock- yard, market agency, or dealer, as well an that of such agent, officer, or other person". D-142 Dealer hold liable for tho acts of his bookkeeper in making unlawful refunds to the bookkeeper of respondent’s purchaser. D-273 The Secretary cannot overlook the provision of tho Packers end Stockyards Act which makes the acts of the agent the acts of the principal, D-273 When a market agency permits a country buyer as an actual or ostensible agent to purchase livestock in the country for it, it will not be permitted to later repudiate the agency to the detriment of the livestock shippers. D-475 A market agency which instructs a stockyards company to deliver all cattle consigned to it raid received by the stockyards company to another agency for handling is responsible to the shipper of tho livestock for the remittance of the full amount of the proceeds from tho sale of the livestock by such other agency, oven though the other a.goncy fails to remit to tho market agency, D-767 The Act provides that an-employee of a market agency, anting with¬ in the scope of his or her authority, binds tho principal oven though tho error or act complained of might have been obviated had the principal been present, D-1041 The Union Stockyard & Transit Company of Chicago was found by the Secretary to bo responsible for tho ants of its employee in incor¬ rectly weighing livestock in certain instances. D-1232 112 AGENCY III Clearing Agents, Obligations to Respondent market agency violated IN tie IV of the Act by having failed to keep the proper accounts, roe irtle, and memoranda nec¬ essary to fully and completely report on all of his business transactions to another market agency clearing his business for him# D-1162 Interest of agent lea agent cannot lawfully have my interest adverse to his prin¬ cipal in property consigned to the agent for sale# Y/hon a market agency charged a shipper of livestock the usual.commission for selling the livestock, it was the duty of the market agency to sell the livestock for the highest price obtainable, end he violated the Act, as amended, .by selling it to a dealer under an agreement to divide the losses or split the profits of the resale, even though tho shipper had no .-objection to such ah Arrangement after he was told about it, the arrangement, having been made in the first instance without the knowledge of the shipper# D-1041 Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent The respondent market regency, having furnished country buyers with draft books which enabled then to oporate and represent to ranchmen that they were buying for the respondent, and having agreed to finance the country buyers in tho purcho.se of live¬ stock, was hold responsible for tho ants of the country buyers, particularly in view of the presumption that tho respondent know the general attitude of livestock producers toward market agencies at public markets and that he must have anticipated that arrange¬ ments which ho made with tho country buyers would result in the sale of livestock by tho ranchmen to the country buyers for con¬ signment to the respondent. D-464 113 AGENCY III Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent The respondent’s defense that he relied upon the custom of the trade when- permitting the country buyer to. use the draft of his commission agency in the purchase of livestock is not available in the case where the undisputed evidence shows that the respond¬ ent failed to completely follow the custom of the trade, in that he failed cither to require the country buyer to put some of his own money into the business or to assure himself through bank references, or financial statements, or otherwise, of tho country buyer’s financial responsibility. D-464 ■When tho respondent market agency furnished country livestock buyers with books of blank drafts, upon the fronts of which wore spaces providing for tho entry of detailed information with respect to the kind of livestock purchased, purchase date, number of head, weight, price and total amount paid, and respondent’s printed name as drawee, together with other pertinent provisions and spaces relating to tho transactions, the respondent must have expected the buyers to use the drafts in making payments for the purchase of livestock from ranchmen or others, and this apparent authority given by the respondent to the country buyers, together with full knowledge of tho respondent that tho country buyers-were using the drafts in the payment of cattle and were having tho shippers, or others, make the bills of sale for tho cattle directly to tho respondent, constituted sufficient evidence for the Secretary to find the respondent market agency to bo the principal of tho country buyers and, hence, responsible for tho acts of the country buyers, oven though tho respondent had entered into no special con¬ tract of agency with tho country buyers, particularly in view of the fact that it was a matter of common knowledge in the communi¬ ties where the country buyers worked that the respondent had honored other such drafts of the same country buyers in tho purchase of livestock. D-464 The respondent market agency’s receipt end sale of tho livestock consigned by the country buyers to him, with notice that the owners had made the bills of sale to him, constituted a ratification of the transactions of tho country buyor and estopped respondent from denying liability for tho transactions of the country buyers. D-464 AGENCY III Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent Market agency's defense that ho supposed the country buyer to be a nan of some financial standing and hence able to .moot the obligations incurred in buying country livestock, because he was a jeweler in Columbus, Montana, lost its weight in the light of the fact that the country buyer told respondent he had no money, and of the additional testimony of respondent that he had been to Columbus, Montana, and knew it was a small ranch town. He must have known that a jeweler r s business in such a town was not of such character as would qualify a nan either financially or otherwise to engage in the buying of livestock on the scale which respondent undertook to assist him in doing. D-464 The respondent market agency was held liable for the payment of livestock purchased by a country buyer when the testimony and circumstances indicated that it was through the acts and cooper¬ ation of respondent that the country buyer was able to carry on operations, and it lay within respondent's power to prevent the liability incurred by the country buyer which tho respondent now seeks to disavow* D-464 ( 115 AGENCY III Liability of Principal for Acta of Apparent Agent The respondent’s defense of no liability, with respect to trans¬ actions of country buyers, on account of- conditions stated in • small print on the back of drafts furnished the country buyers for their use to the effect that ’’The Fulton Commission Company (respondent) is not interested in the within transaction" is not available, there being no evidence that such statement was brought to. the attention of the drawers at the time the drafts x'Jcrc deliv¬ ered, and there being evidence from-at least one ranchman to the effect that if he had read the fine print on the back of the draft at the time he would not have• accepted it* D-.464 The relationship of respondent market agency to the country buyer, in so far as the shippers of livestock wore concerned, was hold to have created an agency by estoppel, even though the members of the respondent firm testified that the country buyer was neither an. agent nor an employee of the firm, and even though a card from the Omaha Livestock-'Exchange, which was issued subsequent to the trans¬ action in question, advising the public generally that the members of the Exchange, of which respondent was one, would'riot bo respon¬ sible for the payment of sight drafts drawn on thorn unless written authority was given, was introduced into evidence, it appearing cleanly from the evidence that a. member of the firm was present when the country buyer purchased the cattle in question and the firm member know that the country buyer was paying for the cattle by drafts drawn on the respondent firm and that the cattle wore being consigned to the respondent, and that the respondent firm had, prior to that time, honored previous drafts of the country buyer given under like circumstances; and the respondent firm was held by the Secretary to be liable for the face amount of the drafts drawn upon it by the country buyer* For similar decisions upon the question see Munford v* Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 228 Pac. 206 and Moans v. Bunk of Randall, 148 U. S. 620. D-465 Respondent market agency hold liable by the Secretary for the pay¬ ment of the face amount of a draft drawn upon it by a country buyer for the payment of a consignment of cattle to the country buyer, the evidence indicating that the country buyer had obtained the request of the respondent to buy livestock in tho country and draw drafts upon respondent in payment therefor, end that, at tho time of the particular transaction in question, the country buyer had an employee of the respondent with him who made no objection at any tine to tho country buyer telling the owner that the respondent would honor tho drafts, the first evidence of the respondent’s refusal to honor the draft having cone to the attention of tho shipper by a letter from the respondent four days after the cattle had been consigned to tho country buyer. 116 D-474 AGENCY III Liability of Principal for Acts of apparent Agent It. appearing fron the..ovidoneo that the respondent market agency entered into an ..agreement whereby the country buyer agent of another market agency would purchase cattle end pay for sane by .the use of drafts drawn upon the respondent market agency by the country buyer, that there wore no limits upon the amount.of money for which the country buyer could draw the drafts end no limits upon the number of drafts which ho could drew, that the authority of tho country buyer to purchase only one carload of cattle was not brought to the attention in any manner of tho shippers or sellers, that tho drafts furnished to tho country buyer were tho blank drafts of'tho respondent market agency upon which its nano was printed, that tho respondent heal, theretofore, always paid drafts drawn upon it by the other market agency and that the respondent market agency did not dishonor the drafts until after the livestock had boon shipped, the Secretary hold that the respond- ont market agency was obligated to pay the face •amounts of the drafts so drawn upon it by the agent country buyer of the second market agency, and ordered the. respondent market agency to make reparation for the difference between the fr.ee amount of tho drafts end tho amount of the shippers’ proceeds theretofore sent to the shippers or sellers, D-475 Respondent market agency found by the Secretary to be violating the Act by .refusing to remit for livestock purchased in its name by c. field salesman, the evidence showing that respondent know that tho sa.losmew, was traveling-through the country end drawing drafts for the purchase price of cattle on respondent, that all prior drafts, \r ith the exception of one, wore honored by respond¬ ent, that an arrangement had been entered into between respondent and the salesman- whereby the salesman was permitted to drew drafts on respondent for the payment of cattle purchased in the country, and also drafts for tho personal expenses of tho sc.le.sxien, end that tho books of respondent showed that, with the exception of one day, tho salesman had credit on tho respondent’s books* D-516 Respondent market agency held liable for the acts of a country salesman in purchasing livestock for respondent, tho Government having made out a prime facie case of e.geney, end the respondent X eJ Kf * x having foiled to disprove it. D-523 » 117 AGENCY III Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent Respondent market agency who held out an individual to be its law¬ ful agent to purchase cattle for it, end permitted the individual to draw drafts upon the respondent for the payment of csettle, was held to bo liable for the payment of the face amount of the drafts, and the Secretary ordered reparation to bo paid to the shippers of livestock purchased by the agent under color of authority from the respondent, in the amount of the difference between the face amount of the drafts drawn by the a^ent upon the respondent end the. actual amount of the shippers’ proceeds remitted to the shippers by the respondent. D-570 A market books to agency 'which carried rn account which was credited the proceeds of a country buver on its •J u from the salo of livestock purchased by the country buyer and against which were charged the drafts drawn by the country buyer in payment for such livestock together with other items of expense, end who permitted the country buyer to operate in a particular community for several years and lot it be generally known that the drafts were drawn upon the market agency by the country buyer and were paid, is liable to a shipper of livestock for the price agreed upon between the shipper end the country buyer, the shipper having relied upon the common knowledge in the community that the country buyer was the agent of the market agency. D-1109 Tfhilc it is true that proof of agency, to extend the liabilities of the agent’s acts to the' principal, cannot be made by the acts and statements of the agent alone, such acts and statements of the agent nay be considered in connection with the acts and declarations of the principal. For instance, the statenont of a country buyer tha.t he was ’’buying sheep for Mr. Humphrey & Conley” ancl. that ho was ’’acting as agent for Conley & Humphrey”, together with evidence that drafts given by the country buyer in other transactions in the sane locality ha.d theretofore been honored by Conley m Humphrey (the respondent market agency), and that the local bunk had told the complainant thaab such dr alts hcid theretofore boon honored by the respondent through said bank, together with other similar* evidence, was sufficient for the Secretary to find that the country buyer was the ament of the respondent market agency in the purchasing of the sheep in question, D-1131 118 Ill AGENCY Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent A market agency which enters into an agreement with a country buyer whereby the country buyer shall purchase livestock with his personal check but the market agency shall regularly cover the personal chock before it is presented for payment, by de¬ positing funds for that pureesc , said it is understood that the livestock so purchased shall be shipped to the market agency for sale on commission, end the market agency knows that the country buyer is purchasing livestock upon assurances to the sellers that the protection of the market agency is behind the checks Grown by the country buyer, and the market agency accepts the fruits of the country buyer’s operations, is liable to the shipper for the purchase nr ice of the c .attic as agreed uoon between the country buyer and the owner or shipper, and. the. owner or shipper may bo awarded reparation for such amount. D-1159 Yfnen the issue was whether or not the market agency was liable for the payment of a check given by a country buyer for the pur¬ chase of livestock, as the principal of the country buyer, part payment by the market agency on account of the amount stated in the' check Ivon bv the country buver but returned .for insufficient funds, end the retention of the bc.len.co of the proceeds of the sale of the livestock in question, after the full knowledge of all the facts, operated as a ratification by the market agency of the acts of tho country buyer. 2 C.J.S. Agency, Par. 49 and Authorities there cited. D-1159 119 AGENCY III Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent • Tho respondent market agency was held by the Secretary to be the principal of a country buyer, even though no evidence was intro¬ duced from any of the livestock producers who shipped cattle to the respondent end to whou the respondent owed noney from the sale of such livestock and even though the respondent published, in a livestock paper, cm advertisement stating, among other things, that it did not give anyone permission to draw drafts on it, and even though the respondent had sent a postal card to 2500 stock¬ men stating, in part, that if anyone accepted drafts or checks upon the respondent,' written by another, it was done at tho ship¬ per’s own risk, since other evidonee introduced at the hearing showed that, with respect to the particular country buyer in question, the respondent had informed, by word of mouth, two potential shippers that the agent was buying livestock for tho respondent, that a stenographer of tho respondent had transmitted blank drafts to tho country buyer for use end had advised the country buyer to handle the drafts in rotation so that they could be properly checked as they come in, that' statements appeared on the back of the drafts as to their invalidity unless accompanied by a bill of sale of the cattle, end the bills of sale of the cattle in question showing that sales had boon made to the respond¬ ent market agency, was sufficient to establish the agency# In addition, the lack of cone of the respondent market agency in permitting a rubber stamp showing tho name ”Great Western Live¬ stock Commission Company” to be left around where it could bo used with or without the authority of tho respondent, and tho knowledge on the part of the respondent that drafts had been issued by the country buyer with tho stomp notation on them would, in any event, constitute an ostensible agency. D-1181 Tho Secretary held that the order buyer of certain livestock was tho duly authorized agent of the respondent market agency to pur¬ chase the cattle in question, the evidence introduced on tho part of tho complainant showing that the tronsaction was conducted in the some manner that six other transactions of recent date wore conducted, that tho respondent market agency had honored tho drafts drawn by the complainant in all six other transactions, that, in tho transaction in question, the respondent market agency accepted tho cattle for sale but refused to honor tho draft, that tho re¬ spondent had never notified the complainant that the order buyer did not have authority to purchase livestock for the account of the defendant, and tho respondent having failed to appear at the hearing and to introduce any evidence whatsoever to sustain his defense that ho was a broker for tho order buyer# D-1200 120 I AGENCY III Liability of Principal for Acts of Apparent Agent A market agency cannot bo required to accept livestock purchased by a country buyer not its agent, whore the evidence shows that the complainant did not rely upon, any representations from the market agency that the country buyer was the agent of the market agency, but that, on the contrary, before tho shipment of the cattle to tho defendant, tho complainant wired the bank upon which the draft was drawn by tho country buyer to determine if tho draft would be honored by tho market agency, the bank referred the wire to tho defendant, and tho defendant informed the complainant by telegraph that it would not pay tho draft* D-1212 I 121 BONDS OR. SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III The filing of bonds constitute approval ■with the Secretary of Apriculture of the bond's by the Secretary* u docs not D-39 Prior to Soptonbor 1, 1903, the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Act did not require market agencies to oxocuto bonds, but on sold, date a regulation became effective requiring then to execute bonds conditioned to secure to tho owner or consignor tho faithful and prompt accounting for and payment of tho proceeds of sales of livestock received for sale by such market agencies, for or on account of such owner or consignor. D-39 It appearing that respondent Fort Worth Stockyards Company, at tho suggestion of the Examiner, modified Section 9, subdivision (l) of its regulations of Tariff No. 3, on file rath the Secre¬ tary of Agriculture, which required that any person, firm, or corporation doing business at the stockyards be bonded in an amount not less than 15*000, to the extent that the amount of tho bond required by respondent should boar relation to tho normal obligations of tho dealers and market agencies to tho respondent, and it appearing that such modified requirements and such bond is consistent with the regulations promulgated by tho Secretary, and in accordance with tho amendment to the Act, effective July 1, 1924, and it appearing that no exceptions to such amendment were filed by any dealer or market agency, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-106 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from doing business as a market agency end dealer without executing, maintaining, and filing with the Packers and Stockyards Administration at Washington, D„ Co a fully executed copy of a reasonable performance bond, evon though the testimony indicated that the respondent had. filod such a bond, effective August 13, 1926, a copy of which was received by tho Administration August 16, 1926, tho Secretary having also found from the evidence that the respondent operated as a market agency and dealer without such a bond, in violation of the ^ict, through¬ out tho period beginning February 2, 1926, 1926. ana ending nugus t 16, D-165 Under the Act, as amended, a dealer clearing his transactions through a local clearing agency is not required to execute and maintain c. performance bond to cover his transactions, as tho local clearing agency has given ample bond to cover tho trans¬ actions of its dealers, D-167 122 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Market agency and dealer who executed a performance bond effective January 30, 1925, end filed a copy thereof with the Packers and Stockyards Administration at Washington, D. C„, on August 9, 192G, violated the Act, as emended, and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary in pursuance thereof, by having engaged in business as a market agency and dealer throughout the period beginning September 23, 1924 and ending august 9, 1926, without having filed with the Administration a fully executed duplicate of such bond in accordance with the terms of the Act, as amended. D-169 Market agency and dealer violated the Act, as amended, and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary in pursuance thereof, by failing, until August 7, 1926, to execute and maintain a reasonable performance bond covering his transactions, and by having engaged in business as a. market agency and dealer throughout the period beginning November 30, 1925 and ending August 18, 1926, without having filed such bond with tho Administration at Washington, D.C. D-171 Respondent market agency and dealer violated the ^ct, a.s amended, and regulations promulgated in pursuance thereof by tho Secretary, by failing to execute and maintain a reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as such market agency and dealer, and by failing throughout tho period beginning August 14, 1925 and ending July 2o, 1926, to file a. fully executed duplicate of such bond with the Administration at Washington, D„ C„ D-172 Market agency and dealer who engaged in the business of financing traders, and as a market regency and dealer, without having executed a reasonable performance bond to secure his obligations, and with¬ out heaving filod a fully executed duplicate of such bond with the Packers and Stockyards Administration in Washington, D.C., violated the Act, as amended, and tho regulations promulgated by the Secre¬ tary of Agriculture, in pursuance of said Act, as amended, D-178 123 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Market agency violated the Act, as emended, raid the regulations promulgated by the Secretary in pursuance of said Act, as amended, by engaging in business as a market agency without having executed a reasonable performance bond to secure his obligations and by having failed, neglected, or refused to file a fully-executed duplicate of such bond with the Packers end Stockyards Administration. D-179 ; D-181 Bond not required from a market agency and dealer when it appeared from a letter that its transactions were being cleared by another duly registered end duly bonded market agency responsible for the financial transactions of the formerj and the proceedings were dismissed* D-199 Market a.gency violated the Act, as amended, and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary in pursuance of said net, as amended, by having failed to execute a reasonable performance bond to secure his obligations incurred as such market agency, and by having failed to file a fully-executed duplicate of such bond with the Bureau of animal Industry at Washington, Do C. D-170; D-200; D-233; D-237; D-243; D-277 Market agency and dealer violated the,Act, as amended, and the i amended Regulation 17 promulgated pursuant thereto, by failing to cxocuto and maintain a roan enable norfomancc bond covering his x cm obligations incurred as a dealer, and by failing; to file a fully- executed duplicate of such bond with tho Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., in compliance with the Regulations* D-202 ; D-205; D* , 9 O Q 1 C Q D-230j D-236; D-239; D-251 Dealer violated tho Act, as amended, and emended Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regulations for the enforcement thereof, by failing and neglecting to execute and maintain a performance bond covering his obligations incurred as a deal or until at the time of the hcan¬ ing, when the respondent presented tho Examiner with a*, good and sufficient bond, and by failing end neglecting to file or cause to bo filed with the Bureau of Animal Industry a.t Washington, D, C a fully-executed duplicrato thereof* D-160; D-209; D-212; D--376 Dealer violated the Act, as amended, and amended Regulation 17 promulgated pursuant thereto, by failing to execute and maintain a. reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as a dealer, end by failing to file an executed duplicate thereof with the Bureon of Animal Industry at Washington, D. 0. D-201; D-203; D-204-j D-203; D-211; P-219j D-221j D-223; D-224; D-225; D-227] D-229; D-231$ D-232: -, D-233 j D-254; D-238 124 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Dealer who failed, neglected, and refused to execute end maintain a reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as a dealer, and who failed to file with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., a fully-executed duplicate of such bond, vio- dated Title III of the Act, as amended, and amended Regulation 17 promulgated for the enforcement thereof* D-176j • D-210; D-213; D-214; D-217; D-218; D-220; D-222 Dealer violated the Act, as amended, and the amended regulations thereunder, by having failod to execute and maintain a reasonable performance bond covering his obligations as a dealer through the period beginning May 3, 1927, and ending October 4, 1927, and by having failed to file a fully-executed copy thereof with the Packers and Stockyards Administration at Washington, D.C., or with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D, C., until October 5, 1927. " D-215 The records of tho department showing that respondent dealer has had a good and sufficient bond for tho past year, and has recently complied with the Regulations of the Department by having filed a copy of said bond with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., the bond proceeding was dismissed. D-216 Dealer suspended from registration as a dealor for ninety days for having failod, neglected, or refused to execute and maintain a per¬ formance bond covering his obligations as a dealer, and to file a fully-executed duplicate thereof with tho Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C. D-221 November 1, 1924 was tho effective date of the amendment to Regu¬ lation 17 of tho General Rules and Regulations promulgated undor the Act which required bonds of dealers to covor their obligations incurred as such dealers. D-226 Market agency and dealer suspended from registration as a market agency and dealor until he executes and maintains a reasonable bond to suitable trustees to secure the performance of his obli¬ gations incurred as market agency raid dealer, and files a copy thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry, as required by the Act and Regulations• D-228; D-230; £>-239 125 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Dealer violated the Act by having failed, neglected, or refused to execute and maintain a performance bond covering his obligations as a dealer, and by having failed, neglected, or refused to file a fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., until after the initiation of the order of inquiry by the Secretary. 'D-1S8; D-173; D-174; D-241; D-234; D-257; D-323; D-324; D-462; D-467; D-247 . D- •279 D-282; D-295j Market agency and dealer violated the Act, as amended, by engaging in the business of’buying livestock on commission, and buying and selling livestock in commerce, without having executed a reasonable performance bond to cover its obligations incurred as a market agency and dealer, and without having filed a fully-executed dupli¬ cate thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., until after the initiation by the Secretary of the order of inquiry, D-242j D-244; D-281; D-284; D-392; D-403; D-404j D~4-16j D-430- D-438 D-452j D-460; D»463j D-486; D-512; D-538; D-1082; b-1084; D-346. It appearing to the Secretary that respondent has not operated as a registered dealer since October 1, 1927, but has become a member of a firm and that such firm has filed the bond required by the Act and the Regulations thereunder, the Secretary ordered the proceed¬ ings against respondent dismissed without prejudice. D-249 It appearing from the testimony at the hearing that respondent dealer, although in the process of making arrangements to obtain a bond, had at the time thereof failed to execute and maintain a performance bond to cover his obligations incurred as a dealer end to file with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., a fully-executed duplicate thereof, tho Secretary found that re¬ spondent was violating tho Act, and ordered him to cease and desist. D-250 Dealer violated the Act, as amended, end the regulations thereunder, by not having executed and filed a bond until after tho date of tho order of inquiry, .oven though, he was under tho mistaken belief that it was not necessary for him to execute raid file one. D-252; D-260; D-262 It appearing from the testimony adduced at tho hearing that respond¬ ent dealer had maintained a bond for throe or four years but had, through an oversight on the part of the insurance company, failed to file a fully-exocuted duplicate thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., tho Secretary found that respondent violated the Act through its failure to so file said duplicate. D-253 126 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Tho testimony adduced at the hearing showing that respondent dealer had not arranged to clear his obligations as a dealer through an¬ other company, thus affording a satisfactory plan of guaranty, until after the date of tho order of inquiry, the Secretary found that respondent had violated the Act, as amended, end amended Regulation 17 thereunder, and ordered respondent to cca.se and desist from con¬ tinuing such violation. D-255; D-256j D-258; D-263 Market agency who engaged in business under the Act, as amended, without executing and maintaining and filing a bond covering its obligations incurred as such, until after the institution of tho order of inquiry, violated the Act, as amended, and caused a cea.sc and desist order to bo issued against him. D-259j D-261j D-296j D-325; D-391; D-422; D-426; D-466; b-498; D-349 j D-406j D-515j D-541j D-1065. Dealer suspended from registration as a dealer until he executes and maintains and files a duplicate of a reasonable bond to suitable trustees to secure tho performance of his obligations incurred as such, in accordance with the Act, as amended, and the regulations promulated thereunder, D-264 It appearing from the testimony at tho hearing that the respond¬ ents buy and sell all livestock received at tho Springfield Union Stockyards and do not permit any other agency to deal with the public at the yards, and it appearing further that the Springfield Union Stockyards is not a public market end, therefore, is not a stockyards as defined in the Act, the Secreta.ry ordered the bond proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-267 It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing that tho respondent market agency was engaged only in buying livestock for four panic or s or wholesale meat dealers, all of which livestock was weighed directly to its principals, leaving respondent no obliga¬ tions for which a bond would bo required, and it appearing further that tho respondent has, since this hearing was held, changed his registration to show that he is buying only for said four principals, the Secretary determined that a performance bond would not bo necessary, and dismissed tho proceedings. D-293 127 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Market agency which failed, neglected, or refused to file a perform¬ ance bond covering its obligations incurred as a market agency in accordance with the Act, as amended, end with amended Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regulations providing for the enforcement thereof, until December 18, 1929, and failed, neglected, or refused to file a fully-executed copy thereof until January 13, 1930, violated the Act, and amended Regulation 17 thereunder, by engaging in business as a market agency* D-302 Market agency violated the Act, as amended, and amended Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regulations providing for the enforcement thereof, by having failed, neglected, or refused, until on or about February 18, 1930, to execute and maintain a performance bond covering its obligations incurred in business, and to file a fully-executed copy thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry, successor to the Packers and Stockyards Administration, at Washington, D. C. D-303 Amended Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regulations providing for the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended, was duly made and promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture on September 23, 1924. ‘ " D-303 The records of the Department showing that on July 28, 1930, respond¬ ent Charles Clayton submitted a good and sufficient bond dated July 22, 1930, covering the performance of his obligations incurrod as a dealer and market agency, thereby complying with the regulations, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-312 Each market agency is required by the Secretary of Agriculture, under regulations promulgated under the Packers raid Stockyards Act, to execute and maintain a bond covering its obligations as a market agency. These bonds are conditioned upon a faithful and prompt remittance of tho proceeds of sale of livestock and the prompt payment for livestock bought upon order, D-308 Each market agency is requirod by the Sioux City Stockyards Company to give a bond guaranteeing the payment of all stockyards charges and freight charges. D-308 The Kansas City Stockyard Company requires each market agency to which livestock is shipped to furnish a bond covering tho payment of freight charges, yardage charges, feed charges, and any other extra charges. These charges are deducted from the proceeds of sale of livestock before remittances are made to the shippers. The bills for these items are presented to tho respondents through the clearing house. D-511 128 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Each market agency at tho Kansas City Stockyards furnishes a bond conditioned upon the faithful end prompt remittance of tho proceeds of tho sale of livestock and the prompt execution of orders and the payment for livestock bought on order. Such a bond is required by tho rules of the Kansas Citv Livestock Exchange of its members, and such a bond is required of all market agencies under the provisions of tho Packers end Stockyards Act and tho regulations promulgated thereunder. . D-311 Market agency and dealer suspended from registration as such for six months for having violated Title III of the- Act, and amended Regulation 17 thereunder, by engaging in business without having executed, maintained, end filed with the Administration at Wash¬ ington, D.C., a reasonable performance bond. D-515j D-381; D-522 Market agency which did not arrange for another market agency to clear its transactions, until after the initiation of the bond proceedings by the Secretary, violated Title III of tho Act, and tho regulations thereunder. - D-317 Dealer violated the Act, as amended, by engaging in business with¬ out having executed and maintained end filed a bond, oven though ho had ccased doing business as a dealer prior to the initiation of tho bond proceedings and oven though ho promised to take out the required bond if he should start business again. D-321 Dealer testified at the hearing that in the future he would work for another registered dealer rather than for himself. Neverthe¬ less, he violated tho Act, as amended, and the regulations there¬ under, by having failed to execute and maintain end file a fully- executed duplicate of a performance bond covering his -obligations as -a dealer up until the date he commenced work for another regis¬ tered dealer, and tho Secretary ordered him to cease end desist from engaging in business as a dealer without complying with the Act. • D-322 Market agency suspended from registration as such for six months for having violated tho Act, as amended, and amended Regulcation 17 thereunder, by having engaged in business without executing, main¬ taining, end filing an executed duplicate of a. reasonable perform¬ ance bond, D-ol'6; D-o20^ D-540j D-556 Dealer suspended from registration as such for six months for having failed to execute, maintain, anti file a fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond. D-329j D-359j D-535; D-539; D-565; P-579; D-959 129 BONDS Oft SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III 0 It appearing thr.t respondents market agency end dealers have ceased to operate at the various stockyards mentioned in the order of inquiry, and do not expect to renew their operations, either as a market agency or as dealers, at any posted stockyards, the Secretary ordered the bond proceedings dismissed without prejudice, D-355; D-1201 Deader not engaged in business of buying and selling livestock in commerce at a stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, raid, therefore, not a-dealer as defined by the Let, not required to execute an I maintain and file a performance bond, D-356 Registered dealer not engaged in business of buying end selling livestock at a stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary docs not have to execute and maintain end file a performance bond, end his registration is regarded .as inactive until ho docs com¬ mence in business as aforesaid. D-358 A statement having boon received from respondent market agency and dealer, after the order of suspension dated March 17, 1932, which showed, to the satisfaction of tho Secretary, that tho respondent incurred no obligations as a market agency on the Baltimore and Lancaster markets for which a bond was necessary, and the Secretary also having found that the respondent executed a reasonable bond after the date of the order of suspension to secure the perform¬ ance of his dealer obligations, and filed a. copy thereof in com¬ pliance with the act, the Secretary ordered tho proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-381 Tho stockyard company requires a bond of those engaging in business on the market covering, among other things, the payment of tho freight, feed, and yardage charges, in addition to tho formal requirements of registration, and tho filing of a. tariff. Tho Packers and Stockyards Act, 19 21, as amended, requires each market agoncy to givo a. bond covering the faithful and prompt remittance of proceeds of the sale of livestock end tho prompt and faithful execution of orders for the purchase of livestock and the payment for livestock so purchased. D-383 (*- 130 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Bond proceedings dismissed when the Secretory was advised officially thq.t the market agency was rendered insolvent because an employee bookkeeper had embezzled its funds, that all claims wore settled or in process of settlement, end that the market agency was no longer in business as a market agency or dealer but was now employed by •another registrant* D-390 Commission firms are required to give a bond conditioned upon the faithful and prompt remittance of the proceeds of the sale of livestock. Their bond, and that of the order buyers, is also conditioned upon tho safekeeping of funds coning into their hands for tho purchase of livestock end tho payment for all livestock purchased, D-402 Trust fund agreement accepted by tho Chief of the Bureau of inimal Industry, in lieu of a. performance bond, and bond proceedings against market agency dismissed without prejudice, D-412 Tho Department having bov a officially advised that tho respondent market agency had, prior to tho date of tho order of inquiry, furnished an acceptable bond to the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., the Secretary ordered tho bond proceedings D-421 dismissed Tho Secretary having found tha.t respondent market cogency has voluntarily retired from business, ho ordered the bond proceed¬ ings dismissed without prejudice, D-432 Tho record disclosing tha.t respondent market agency did not receive any consignments of livestock between October 24 and November 7, 1933, the bond phase of the inquiry was dismissed, D-433 Commission men at the Denver Union Stock Yards are required to main¬ tain bonds, or other suitable form of indemnity, to guarantee tho prompt end faithful remittance of tho proceeds of the sale of live¬ stock and the faithful disbursement of funds permitted to then for their use in making purchases of livestock. In addition, they give bonds to the stockyard company •guaranteeing the payment of charges owing to that company for food, yardage, end other services, D-4-35 It having been determined on investigation that respondents market agencies had not violated the Act as alleged but had furnished on acceptable performance bond, tho Secretary ordered the proceeding dismis s cd. D-43 7 151 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III Tho Packers aid Stockyards met, 1921, contains certain provisions governing tho conduct of market agencies engaged in buying and soiling livestock on a commission basis at public markets. Under this 1 aw, the Secretary of A;riculture has pr 0 .nul 3 r.tod certain reg¬ ulations, one of which makes a provision requiring respondents to file bon Is to secure tho faithful performance of their obligations a s nar k e t • agoncio s• D—44 5 One rule of tho Fort Worth Stock Yards Company requires that each person, firm, or corporation engaging in the livestock commission business at tho stockyard furnish a bond, conditioned upon the per¬ formance of tho terns of its avrcorient with tho stockyards company, to abide by all of its rules and regulations♦ D-445 ' Respondent market agency and dealer found by the Secretary to have violated tho net, and regulations thereunder, by doing business as a market agency and dealer without executing and maintaining and filin : with tho Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, P.C., a fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond cover¬ ing its obligations, incurred as a market agency and dealer, or other form of satisfactory indemnity, and ordered to cer.se end desist from continuing such violations* D-447 It is generally known among livestock are familiar with public markets that producers and others who market agendas are bonded. D-475 It appcaning from the evidence that the respondent is not operating at a stockyard's with an area not operating at a stockyard tho Secretary of A riculture. Act, the Secret any dismissed of 20,000 square feet aid, hence, is which is under tho jurisdiction of as defined in Section 502(a) of tho the bond proceedings. D-501 It having boon ascertained tha.t tho performance bond of ^9,000, on file with the Bureau of Animal Industry before tho da.tc of the order of inquiry, is sufficient to cover the business of respondent as a market agency, tho Secrotary ordered the proceeding dismissed without prejudice* D-502 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III It appearing from the evidence that respondent market agency and dealer was not, at the tine of the hearing, engaged in business at the Union Stockyards, Chicago, Illinois, and that it mil not engage in business in the future at such stockyards, nevertheless, the Secretary found that it violated the Act, as amended, by having previously engaged in business without having executed and main¬ tained and filed with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., a fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond covering its obligations incurred as a market a 0 ency and dealer, and the Secretary ordered respondent to cease end desist from continuing the violation of-the Act,'as amended. D-517 The market agencies at the New Orleans Stock Yards furnish bonds under the Packers end Stockyards Act insuring the faithful and prompt remittances of the proceeds of sa.les or tho prompt execu¬ tion of orders to buy or the payment of livestock bought. D-534 Insurance and bond premiums were considered by the Secretary, in the proceeding to fix reasonable commission rates and changes at the Nov/ Orleans Stock Yards, as insurable risk expenses, all other risk expenses were considered as uninsurable risk expenses. D-534 It 'appearing from the record that, alter the institution of tho order of inquiry, tho dealer increased his bond to an amount sufficient to cover the volume of his business, which was satis¬ factory to tho Department, the Secretary ordered the bond proceeding dismissed, D-568; D-569 It appearing from the record that, prior to tho dale of tho hearing, the respondent furnished a sr.tisfactory bond and filed a duly executed copy thereof with tho Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., the Secretary ordered tho bond proceeding dismissed. D-576; D-577 It appearing from tho record that the respondent market agency filed a satisfactory performance bond with the Bureau of imimcl Industry prior to tho tine a date was set for the hearing, tho Secretory ordered the bond proceeding dismissed. b-578 133 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III The fr.ct that tho commissi on non at the spoil dent dealer carri od on his "business stockyards idlerc the rc- knew that the respondent was not bonded, in conplian.ee rath the Act, as anonded, did not excuse hin fron violation of tho Act, since bonds are required for the ultinate protection of the livestock shipper end producer, and the result of tho respondent operating without a bond night occasion loss to a commission firm which night, in turn, occasion loss to the shipper or producer. D-655 It appearing that the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., received satisfactory proof, after the institution of the order of inquiry, that tho respondents had furnished a satisfactory bond cover in ’ their obli ;ati ons incurred as a market agency, the •bond to be effective fr on a date prior to tho date of tho order of inquiry, the Secretary ordered tie .rocoedin di sens see. I)-669 It .appearing fron the record that the respondent market agency filed with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., a satisfactory performance bond before the date of the hearing j- O fixed in the order of inquiry, the Secretary ordered that the bond proceedings bo dismissed D-670 The Bureau of ihiiraal Industry having been reliably informed that the respondents in tho case have dissolved partnership and neither of thorn is now engaged in business as a dealer, the Secretary ordered the bond proceedings dismissed. D-671 Respondent dealer having admitted in writing the truth of the allegations that he engaged in business without having executed, maintained, and filed a reasonable performance bond while, at the same time, loading others to believe that ho had done so, and waived a hearing, tho Socretarv ordered j ? *j him to cca.se end desist from doing business as a. dealer without having corn lied with the •—J ao ~ Act as aforesail, even though tho respondent executed a satis¬ factory bond in compliance with the regulations prior to tho date of th O and desist ordor. Tv : j * ■739 Although the respondent dealer submitted a sufficient surety bond, covering his obligations incurred as a dealer, at the time of his appearance at tho hoaxing, and admitted the truth of the allegations of the inquiry and waived a hearing, tho yocrotary found that ho had violated the net, as amended, by hi.vino up to that time engaged in business without having executed, maintained, end filed a. bond, and tho Secretary ordered that ho cease and desist tho continuation of such violation. B-930 134 BONDS OR SECURITY IN LIEU THEREOF III It appear inf, from. the record that the respondent dealer furnished a reasonable bond as required by the Act, as onendod, end supple¬ mented, end by the rules end regulations for the enforcement thereof, after the date of the order of inquiry, the Secretary ordered that the proceedings be dismissed. L-9 58 The respondent dealer having failed to execute, maintain, end file with the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable'performance bond, covering its obliga¬ tions incurred as a• dealer, until after 4 the date of the order of inquiry, the Secretary found, the respondent had violated the Act, amended, and issued a cease end . 1 ra V uV o ist order D-1040 It appearing from the files of the Department that the stockyards at which the respondent market agency is doing business no longer comes within the definition of a stockyard as that term is defined in the Act, rmd that notice to that effect has been pivon, the Secretary ordered the • roccedinp, to determine if the respondent executed D-1107 market agency is tradinp at such stockyard v/ithout having a performance bond as required by the Act, be dismissed, Endorsement of the respondent market aponcy end dealer’s notes payable by very close friends who had advanced money on previous occasions is not the proper kin c.dvancoc money on l j, of security acceptable by the Secretary in lieu of a bond to secure the performance of the respondent's obligations incurred as a market aponcy end dealer, since there is no lcqal obligation which compels the friends to furnish financial add. D-1199 The respondent market aponcy havinp admitted that it haul refused, between January 1, 1938 end March 14, 1939, to file a. performance bond, as required by the net and regulations thereunder, in an amount required by the Department, the Secretary found that it had violated the Act, as amended, supplements theroto, end reputations promulgated thereunder, since January 1, 1938, and issued a cease end desist order. D-1203 The respondent market aponev having admitted that it filed a. bond in the sum of g2,000 but has failed to file a. bond in the sun of ?5,000, notwithstanding that it was duly informed that the Act and v reputations require eonci in the sum of ;45.000, the Secretary •• * * v issued a. cease and desist order a -ainst a continued vi.ola.tion of the Act. P-1241 Dealer violated the Act, as amended, supplements thereto, and reputations -promulgated thereunder, by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice and device of carrying on the businoss of a. dealer at a. stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary without oxocutinq an I maintaining a. bond or other satisfactory form of indemnity to cover his financial obligations as such deader. pg 5 D-1250; D-1145 COMMERCE III Lets in Restraint of It is essential for c.11 stockyards under the jurisdiction of tho Secretary to nnintnin and preserve a. free, open, and competitive market at said stockyards* Any interference or obstruction of the free flow of corner cg in connection vd th the handling, purchase, or sale of livestock by market agencies or dealers depresses the prices of livestock to tho prejudice and disadvantage of the sellers of said livestock at said stockyards and ha.s the effect of restraining trade in interstale commerce. D-135 Any combination or concert of action which obstructs or has tho effect to obstruct or interfere in the freedom of commerce, handling, buyin_,, or soiling of livestock in public stockyards, under the jurisdiction of tho Secretary of Agriculture, is a restraint of trade in commerce and is prejudicial to tho owners and producers of livestock, end this is one of tho chief evils which the Act sought to prevent and remedy* D-136 136 ' COMMISSION RATES iJSTD CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Dotornininp In a proceeding to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of commission rates end charges, no attempt is nado by the Secretary to decide, what business-pettinr; methods market apencies should employ or.v/hat-proportion -of their expenditure for this purpose .they should devote to any method. The question is approached with tho viow of determining what is a reasonable amount to expend for business-pottinp. The Secretary allowed 10 % press commissions received as a reasonable expenditure for business-jettinp, D-143 In determining the cost of operation of market a 0 encies in the selling of livestock at the Union Stockyard, Oma.ha, Nebraska, the Secretary allowed, as reasonable items of expense, reasonable pc-r car unit per species amounts as follows: (l) yar'’.men’s salary, (2) all other salaries, (3) travel, entertainment, advertising, .etc,, (4) overhead, including increased rental, ( 5 ) exchange assessments and dues, (6) salesmanship, and (?) interest on capital assets, . D-143 Under tho item of risks, the Secretary determined, in arriving at a. ra.to base for a roo.sonablc commission char pc, that tho following items wore properly included: expenses for fidelity bonds, nortpa.po and theft insurance, wortenon’s compensation insurance, fire insur¬ ance, bonds puarcntooinp the prompt end faithful remittance of proceeds of sale of livestock, and uninsura.blo risks, such as tho possibility of loss due to the sale and shippinp )f livestock on order before pavmcnt is received, the possibility of loss arisinp from bank failures, and such other minor items as errors in conpu- tr.tioh of freight charges and calculation of account sa.lcs, D-308 Tho Socreta.ry determined, in the Sioux City Stockyards market apency commission ra.to case, that the followinp items mipht bo properly considered a.s proper items in determinin' a rcasona.ble a.hninistrn- tivc and ponora.l expense in ca.rryinp on a commission business: Lcpa.l and auditinr, directors’ fees and expenses, errors and adjustments, meals of employees, telephone an.1 tolepraph, donations, ta.xos, bond premiums, oxchanpo assessments and dues, insurance, miscellaneous• D-308 137 COMMISSION RATES A1TD CiLJIGES III Rate Base, Factors in bctornining In the Sioux City livestock sto.ckyo.ru market a;oney rate ease, the Secretary determined that- the following items wore re as viable costs to he considered In fixin a commission ratu base: Cost of yarcling livestock; office salaries raid expenses; adninictrativo and general expenses, potting' and maintaining business; a 7jr% interest rate of return for the use of money employed in the business, and invest¬ ments in exchange memberships, and operating expense; cost of ser¬ vices of salesmen and buyers; reasonable compensation for owner management; risks, D-308 In the Sioux City Livestock Commission rate ease, the Secretary determined that the following item is not allowable as reasonable cost in detorminin a rate base: expense of on- a 'in ’ in collateral activitcs, such as makin ; livestock loans, tradin ', and clearing, y a.) J " o w P—308 v gW .... JJB . jP In properation for the dotonninati n of costs of operation, as a factor in determining the reasonableness of commission rates and changes in the Kansas City livestock market, the.Secretary caused to be made an audit of the business done by each respective respondent market agoncy during the; year 1929, and,- when a. rehear¬ ing had been granted, he caused to bo made similar audits covering the year 1931, each of which years was the next preceding year to the year in which the hearing'was held, p-311 atos and charges, found to consist of a personnel in D-311 In determining the reasonableness of commission r the cost-occasionin^ factors vd.ll, as a rulo, be of those activities which require the. employment the handlin 0 of a JLvon number of animals • / 138 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Doterninim 111 Since the first rehearin rate ease, was granted bv the economic con '.itions since tlio the KJ :.s City Stackyards commission V ©ocrotary ug m tho ori Inal tost vour, S n lv ;rouud that changed 19 29, had r endero d tho experiences of that year insufficient as a basis for tho deter¬ mination of reasonable rates, it bccauc necessary, under the doctrine laid down in the case of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fo Ry. Co. v, United States, 284 IT. S. 248, to note t to jy factors in determinin' reasonable commission rates and charges, end charges shown of record; namely: (l) General changes affecting the country as a whole, (2) .general changes affecting the livestock industry, and (3) particularly changes affecting the respondent market a •encies’ businesses end revenues• D-311 hhil'.e tho normal unit in which livestock is handled at the Kansas City market is the carload unit, .variations in the carloads duo to number of species, number of owners,. 'end number of number of hoad. classes and grades of livestock, and variations 'ue to arrivals of livestock by truck, are factors which must be considered in deter¬ mining tho reasonableness of any schedule of commission rates end charges, in so far as it is practicable to consider them. D-311 Tho cost-occasioning factors of tho operation of a market agency will, as a rule, bo found to consist of those activities which require the employment of personnel in the handling of a given number of animals. io-311 (Second rehoc'.ring) In deterninin. the reasonableness of commission rates end charges at tho Kansas City Stockyards, the Secretary allowed the follow¬ ing items as proper costs of operation* (l) yar’irr;, (2) office salaries, (3) office expenses, (4) a hiinistrativo and general, (5) business getting - and maintainin'" , (s) salesmanship, (7) in¬ terest on capital assets, (8) urn a -or nd risk. ■311 In determining the proper items to be covered into the cost of capital requirements of the respondent market agencies, in a proceedings to determine the reasonableness of commission rates end charges, tho Secretary allowed tho following items: (1) fur¬ niture and fixtures owned and used, (2) material and supplies, (3) working capital to finance sales and purchases, (4) one half the meorkot value of the Kansas City Livestock bxchan % o memberships actively used, as shown by the record., and (5) working capital for tho prepayment of such items of expense a.s are paid in advance. D-311 139 COiiMISSIQN RATES idND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining The appraisal of the value of the services of market agency owners, in a rate proceedin', is not a subject for expert opinion* The usual procedure is to determine what such services can be purchased for in the market in the locality where the services arc performed* j-311 Reasonable rates do not contemplate the inclusion among operating expenses of an amount sufficient to afford•a A .brpotual indemnity against a decline in the volume of the market agency’s business. Reasonable opportunity to guard against such an event is afforded in the allowance made by the Secretary for business getting and maintaining. Further safeguard against that t contingency is the character of service which the market agency itself renders. D-311 The more quotation of a price for public liability end damage to livestock, as on item to bo-allowed in the cost of operation in a commission rate proceedings, is no measure of the reasonableness of the price when there one no buyers at that price. D-311 To include in operating expenses of market agencies, in a rate proceedings, end pass on to the patron in rates, the cost of insurance against less cue to h.ndlin and to transfer resnon- sibility for such loss to the insurance companies, would relieve the respondents of the consequences of any failure to exercise reasonable care. Unless they do exercise reasonable care, they, and not their patrons, should bear the resulting loss. D-311 An allowance was made by the Secretary, as on item in the cost of operation of market agencies in a commission rate case, for expenses coverin'* mortgage and theft insurance, workmen's compensation insurance, and fire insurance. 311 The value of a market methods and practices capital, a return on agency’s office methods end customs and yard should not bo included/in the market agency’s which is covcrablc into reasonable commission rates. e-oll (Second rehearing) 140 GOx.uaSSION RiGTJS idib CE/JIGES III Ra.to Base, Factors in Determining In determining the reasonableness of cor.ii.iis si on rates end charges at the Kansas City market, the Secretary refused to all 01 / the fol- lomm items as nropor costs of operation of market a cncios: (1) an allowance in working capital for the cost of establishing methods end practices, since such cost is paid for currently end the out¬ lays incident thereto arc operating expenses end not capital charges (2) costs for activities such as making livestock loans, tracing. end cleaning Those activities aru not included evJ.u JJ.1 tin • s which reasonable commission char ;es are being determined o for P-311 In view, of the fact that ship;.:in;; livestock by truck is on the increase, as compared with ra.il shipments, it is necessary to provide a separate rate structure for truck shipments, because of the differences arising between truck shipments and real shipments. One difference is that truck consignments arc loss uniform as to the number of head in a consignment than are ra.il consignments. A second difference is that a rail consignment containing live¬ stock of more than one owner is usually handled as one consignment, except for sorting and selling for ownership, whereas, in such a truck consignment, each owner’s livestock is handled’as c. separate consignment, n third cliff or mice is that rail consignments are delivered to commission pons, while truck consignments are deliv¬ ered. to the commission pens at the expense of the commission non. P-383 I 11 arriving at a commission rate base, the Secretary allowed a reasonable profit to cover services of management and a reason¬ able amount to cover unreasonable risks. D-583 An amount was ad. lowed bv the Secretary as an expense charge, in determining a ra.te ba.se for commission ra.tcs, to cover interest on the value of the physical property necessary in the conduct of the commission business, and an amount of cash world.capital sufficiently largo to .enable the commission men to moot promptly all the obligations arisin 0 in the duo course of the conduct of thoir business. D-583 Insurance premiums paid by commission firms to cover insurable risks wore included, as a. proper item of expense in determining a cominis si on ra.te base. Such amounts were included even though some of the respondent firms preferred to bear the risk themselves. All insurable risks were covered into the item of expense, except the public liability insurance premiums. D-383 141 C! omission RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In figuring reasonable expenses for the determination of a rate base for commission rates and charges, the Secretary made an allowance for business getting and maintaining of approximately 10$ of the gross revenue produced by the tariff schedule. D-383 In determining reasonable r.dministrati vg end general expenses to be included in the determination of a rate base, such as those expenses incurred on account of telephone, telegraph, legal, auditing, taxes, cleaning, rent of exchange memberships, exchange duos, and goneral and miscellaneous activities, the Secretary allocated such expenses to species, on the be.sis of drafts, owners, and account sales. The amount allocated to each method of arrival • was distributed on the ban is -of volume expressed in cars and car- equivalents* • D-383 Although some benefits flow to shippers of livestock from livestock exchanges for which they are not charged a specific rate, the chief value of the exchange is to its individual members • It is not pos¬ sible to apportion accurately these benefitsj however, it is found that the interest on one half of the value of the exchange member¬ ships is a reasonable allowance to be covered into the rates• D-383 There should be carried into reasonable unit costs an allowance for interest on capital invested in furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and on the necossary cash working capital. D-383 Commission firms are entitled to have included, in the reasonable rates prescribed by the Secretary, a. sufficiently lax go unit cost to cover depreciation on their physical property. D-383 In addition to the classes of expenses found on the books of the respondent commission firms, it is conceded that, for the purpose of determining a. rate ba.se, there shoul .! be added interest on capital invested, and on amount as reasonable compensation for management end the carrying of uninsured;!c risks. D-383 As a basis for determining reasonable and normal unit costs to bo covered into a. reasonable schedule of rates, the Government made an audit of the respondent's books covering the operations from the year 1931. " D-383 A O COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining Livestock exchange assessments upon the member cost of litigation growing out of a boycott pr practically all of the respondent nonib or s wore not be covered into rates for the reason that and that, if allowed, provision would bo made annually and shippers would thus be compelled expenses incurred because respondents saw fit tices contrary to law and in contravention to of the market and of the shippers. ship to cover the acceding, of which found guilty, should they are not recurring for such litigation to defray legal to engage in prno¬ th e best interests D-383 It is a recognized principle' of law, supported by the United States Supreme Court, that public utilities nay not expend funds in oppo¬ sition to the policy of the Government and in contravention of the statute. It is not proper, therefore, for market agencies to , include in expenses for the determination of a rate ba.se the cost of litigation growing out of an illegal boycott. D-383 '-W v_j o i/ Expenses coverin'" interest on bank loans reloaned to producers, interest on cash working cc.pital for pa,yment of current expenses, and collection charges, cannot bo included as an item of expense in determining a commission rate base, nor cam the related off¬ setting income items with respect thereto bo considered, D-383 Patrons of the livestock market should not be required to pay, in the form of rates, expenses for commission merchants 1 public lia¬ bility due to their neglect, even if it could be shown that such hazards become actualities. D-383 The value of card records or other customer records of commission firms should not be included in the cc.pital allowance for the reason throb the maintenance- of the records is a part of the daily routine office work, end rn allowance is ma.de for those items in the operating expenses of the firm, D-583 General expenses incurred by commission firms fall into two classes: (l) Expenses which the conditions of the business tend to hold down, and (2) expenses in which the factor of control of business tends to increase the expenses of doing business, D-402 COMMISSION KATUS -IIP CIL-HGLS III Rato Base, Factors in Determining In naJeira clctornination as to vrhr.t items should enter into the •oncios, the Secretary refused to cost of j noration of market allow: (l) interest on the value of exchange memberships, since such memberships arc not a part of the respondents ’ capital necess¬ ary in rendering the services for which rates are being determined, ( 2 ) the amount of loans to producers and feeders of livestock, such looms being doomed unnecessary in the conduct of the commission business, (3) interest on investment in securities, real estate, and other similar property, sinco the income and expenses incident to the ownership of such cossets are sopa.ro.to from the income real¬ ized end the expenses incurred in the rendition by respondents of services for which rates arc boin ; determined. D-402 In a commission rate ease, the Secretary allowed the following costs of operation and items of pro-fit, in determining the reason¬ ableness and lawfulness of the rates and changes: (l) salesmanship, (2 ) y an di n .3 salaries, (3 ) yen din r expenses, (4) office salaries, (5) office expenses, ( 6 ) business getting and maintaining not to exceed 9% of the total reasonable cost, (7) administrative and general expenses, ( 8 ) insurance, (9) interest on capital invest¬ ments, (lO) profit to cover management, and (ll) profit to cover uninsura.blc risks. n— 1-02 From the facts adduced, in a commission rate ca.se, with respect to the salaries paid to employed salesmen, an allowance for salesman¬ ship is determined a.s reasonable for the performance of that ser¬ vice regardless of whether the service is performed Lv owners or ompl oyo 0 s . ])- 402 { l The allowance for the unit cost of salesmanship should be suffi¬ cient to compensate adequately those salesmen who handle and sell such a. volume of business a.s will utilize their tine efficiently on the market, giving duo consideration to the fluctuations in the business from day to day, from month to month, and from season to so a.s on* P-402 144 COi.il iloSIOM RATES AMD CHARGES IT I Rate Base, Factors in Determining The rate payer should not be expected to pay in the form of rates an amount for the services of a livestock salesman, in selling his livestock, greater than is necessary to employ a salesman, of first- class ability handling a volume of business which will utilize his time with a reasonable decree of efficiency. The volume of business which a salesman can efficiently handle is an important factor in the detcrr.iine.tion of a reasonable all jwancc to be made for salesman¬ ship* D-402 In arrivin' at a rate base for reasonable commission rates end charges, the Secretary refused to allow as an expense of operation an amount for the risk involved in market agencies making live¬ stock loens to their customers. It was presumed that the interest charged on the loon was sufficient to pay for the use of tho money loaned and to cover the risks involved in making the loens. Such an allowance was denied on the further ground that tho Inning of money is not a part of the business of buying and selling live- stock on a commission basis at the market, .end that the hazards involved therein arc not incident to the commission business as such, D-402 T/hon determining what arc reasonable commission rates, the Secre¬ tary provides a substantial margin between reasonable costs plus reasonable profits end the revenues which wall be produced by tho rates prescribed, for tho purpose of providing a surplus which will enable market agencies to meet.unforeseen contingencies and the fluctuations in business which may affect their operations* p-435 The schedule of commission rates prescribed by the Secretary recog¬ nizes certain general classifications within each species of live¬ stock, and gives weight to the cost to the market agency of render¬ ing the service and to the value of tho service to the patrons. This is done by graduating the charges within the species either according to the number of head in tho consignment or to weight of the animals or both, D-435 In establishing, a schedule of commission rates and charges in conformity with the principle that tho rates charged by market agencies should produce gross revenues sufficient to pay all the reasonable expenses plus a reasonable profit, it becomes necessary to determine the reasonable cost to the' commission non of handling each species of livestock. D-435 145 COMMISSION RATES ANN CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In general, the expenses incurred by commission men which must be considered as factors in determining reasonable rates and charp.es fall into two classes: (l) those which the conditions of the busi¬ ness tend to keep down within certain limits such as theso incurred on account of yarding and office -work, and (2) those vrhich the char¬ acter of the business tends to increase beyond reasonable bounds, such as salesmanship and business getting and maintaining. Expenses of the latter type, if actually incurred by any firm or by all the firms, do not furnish adequate guide to reasonableness, and in arriv¬ ing at a reasonable unit cost on account of such lattor functions, sojnc additional procedure must be adopted. R-435 In arriving at a rate base for commission rates and charges, the Secretary determined the per head cost of the sale of each species of livestock with respect to the following items: (l) Yarding salaries and expenses (2 ) balesnonship (3 ) Office salaries (i) Office expenses (5) Business-getting and maintainin'; oxpcnsoj (s) administrative and general expenses. (?) Insurance costs for insurable risks (8) Interest on working capital (9) I.fan aperient and uninsurable risks D-435 The amount of premiums necessary to procure insurance for tho protection of insurable risks should be considered as a factor in determining a commission rato base, even though the market agency docides to carry its own risks. D-435 The followin costs of commission men wore not included by the Sec¬ retary as proper factors in determining a rate base for commission rates and charges* (1) Cost of memberships in tho Denver Livestock Exchange, since such memberships are not necessary to the rendition of tho service for which are charged rates, the reasonableness of which is being deter- minod in the pro coodings• (2) Interest on money loaned to livestock owners or shippers, since that activity is outside the activities necessary in the rendering of reason¬ able stockyard services. J—±35 146 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining. The basic infornation from which the is derived consists of testimony of affecting cost of operation, aria'lysi respondents, unci an inventory of the to respondents. unit cost of rendering service witnesses conc..jrnin p the ’factors s of the books and records of physical , no per by • >ol onrd nr D-445 It is not possible to set out in mathematical formula all tho factors which reflect the variations in the cost of commission non. ■ ’ D-456 and D-457 Respondents arc entitled to have covered into the rates a reason¬ able amount for tho purpose of enabling thorn to make contacts and keep their names before the public, D-456 and D-457 In finding a reasonable unit cost for administrative and general expenses, thoro arc included tho bank service charges end tele- phone and' telopran expenses, D-456 and D-457 It was found that 65^ per car and car loud c.quiv l nt was a rea¬ sonable allowance to cover into tho rates on account of insurance, even though- soma of tho- commission men might determine to carry tho insurable, risks themselves, D-456 end D-457 Ten percent of the total reasonable costs was found to bo reason¬ able as on. allowance for the item of business getting and mainte¬ nances, D-456 and D-457 General charges arising, among other causes, from tho necessity of drawing drafts against purchases and also sales made to buyers at romoto points, constitute an item of expense to be included under administrative and enernl expense, when calculating for commission rate base. 456 and D-457 The following items woro -allowed by the Secretary as reasonable costs in determining a rate bases Salesmanship raid yarding. Service, office salaries, office expenses, administrative and general expenses, business-getting and maintaining.expenses, insurance, interest, profit to cover managenont, and rislf,' , • D-456 and D-457 147 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining It was found. by the Secretary that 50 d per car a nd car load equiv¬ alent was a reasonable amount to cover into rates on account of interest. , D-456 raid D-457 The respondent commission man were entitled to have covered into their rates a reasonable amount for interest on the capital neces¬ sary in the conducting of the commission business, excluding the loaning of money and the'financing of country buyers, which arc activities not constituting an integral part of the commission business* D-456 and D-457 The value of exchange memberships should not be included in the capital upon which a. return should bo allowed and covered into the ra.tcs, the investment in an exchange membership in no way enhanc¬ ing the service of the commission non to the patrons of the market* D-456 and D-457 The commission rates and charges prescribed by the Secretary in the New Orleans Stock Yards case a,re ba.sod upon close consider a.- tion of all facts of record, and additional foots which the respondents submitted at the time of oral argument, and on the exercise of informed judgment. The functional unit costs set forth in the order arc derived from an analysis of the business of each year of the respondents for the yeans 1934 and 1935. These aro the years next preceding the yean in which the heaning was hold. Consideration has also been given to the volume of receipts in 1936, b-534 In general, the expenses incurred by commission firms at the New Orleans Stock Yards fall into two classes: (l) those which con¬ ditions of business tend to keep down within certain limits. In this class are those expenses incurred for the performance of functions such as yarding and office working and general overhead expenses. These expenses are incurred and employees retained for the performance of particular functions and only incidentally for future expectations. (2) The second class of expense is that in which the factor of control of business tends to increase* Such ex-penscs aro salesmanship, business getting and maintaining, and long periods of unrestricted credit extension*. Expenses, if actually incurred in this second classification by any or all the firms, do not furnish an a.dequate guide to the reasonab 1 oness of such costs* D-534 COMMISSION RATES AND CH/JRGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining The Secretary included the following reasonable costs as necessary in the livestock commission business at the New Orleans Stock Yards: (l) Salesmanship, (2) yarding salaries, (3) yarding expenses, (i) office salaries, (5) office expenses, (6) business getting and main¬ taining, (7) administrative and general, (8) insurable risks, (9) interest on capital requirements, (10) reasonable allowance to cover management, and (ll) reasonable allowance to cover uninsur- able risks e D-534 As a general rule and in the absence of long-established custom, the Secretary does not deem it fair to the shipper to cover into the commission rates and charges of the commission men amounts of money sufficient to pay interest on the capital required for the extension of credit, but it was allowed at the Now Orleans Stock Yards only because of the long-established custom, and on the basis of testimony that the market could not function successfully without a credit system, D-534 The buying costs at the New Orleans Stock Yards, it is clear upon the facts in the record, are not greater than the costs of soiling, 0-534 149 C01 LASS ION RATES AND C Hi AGES III » V RcasoneJbl ones s of Commission chorees of 96 .00 per single deck and.^>10.00 per double deck, on hop buying, and the requirement that all exchange on drafts shall be paid by the purchaser is, under the conditions shown, a just and reasonable charge for services. D-3 hihen commission rates, fixed arbitrarily end without the usual attendant cconoay of minimizing expenditures for business getting of market ajoncies, which have been subjected to public regulations, yield the percentages of profit which the record shows rates of the commission fi r. t the Union Stockyards in Omaha, Nebraska, yield, that is, of from 30.1% to 50.6%’, the rates arc unreasonable per so. D-143 Connission rates yielding a reasonable profit above the normal cost of rendering the service are reasonable because, under normal con- petitivo conditions, the commission price or rate tends to become that price or rate which represents the normal cost of producing the article or rendering the service, plus a reasonable profit thereon. u-143 One of the primary objects of public rate regulation is to bring about within the industry, or division, rate conditions as nearly approximating those which would obtain under conditions of normal reasonable competition as is possible, D-143 The most nearly just and reasonable commission rates or prices for the buying, and selling of livestock arc those fixed by the play of normal and reasonable competition. D-143 A schedule of commission rates and charges is unreasonable when its application is unreasonably inequitable. D-143 Upon the basis of the entire record, the Secretary found end . determined certain just and reasonable commission rates and charges for selling livestock, and also tho rates and charges for buying livestock. D-143 150 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Reasonableness of In view of all of the evidence of the entire record, and giving duo consideration to the risk of procuring business, general supervision of the business, and unusual incidental expenses, the Secretary of Agriculture was of the opinion and found that the proposed new schedule of rates and charges filed with the Secretary was unjust, unreasonable, end discriminatory. D-1.43 In order to determine the reasonableness of rates and charges for market agencies, it becomes necessary to determine a. normal and rea¬ sonable cost per car as to each Species of livestock with respect to each end all costs reasonably incurred by the market agencies in the handling of such livestock. The total amount of all such items of cost, as determined, will reflect the reasonable rate or change for selling commissions and buying commissions. D-308 Under ordinary conditions, a schedule of reasonable commission rates should produce sufficient revenue to pay all reasonable costs and a reasonable compensation to the owners of those firms which receive enough business to enable them to handle it in a reason¬ ably efficient manner. D-308 Upon the basis of the reasonable costs as determined bv the Secre- tary in the case, the Secretary found that respondents’ schedules of rates and charges under investigation contained rates and charges which wore unreasonable, and, on the basis of his investigation, he prescribed just and reasonable rates and charges therefor. D-308 Upon the basis of the reasonable costs of operation, the Secretary found that the schedules of commission rates and charges under investigation contained raafces and charges which were unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory• D-311 151 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Roc. sonabloness of Tho Secretary dotornincd that caiami ssi on rates not in excess of the rates contained in the schedule proscribed by him, in his order at the second rehearing in tho case, .were, just and reasonable rates for stockyard services rendered by the respondent market agencies during tho period from July 23, 1933, to November 1, 1957, said determination being necessary to furnish a proper basis for the distribution or other disposition of the funds impounded in tho Registry of the United States District Caurt for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, in the case of Mor gan, ot al, v. United Sta tes o f Ameri ca and the Secretary of Apriculture, in Equity, No, 2328, D-311 (Second rehearing) Tho rates charpod for buyinp livestock on the Kansas City market should ndt exceed the rates charpod.for sellinp livestock. .j-511 (Second rohearinp) Upon tho basis of the record, tho Secretory found that the re¬ spondent commission men’s oxistinp schedule of rates and char pcs contained certain items which were unreasonable and, upon tho basis of the record, the Secretary found and set forth a. schedule of just and reasonable rates for such items. D-383 From all the evidence in tho record, it is found that a tariff of commission rates and charpos constructed upon tho consignment as the unit, modified by appropriate re pul actions and changes according to tho number of head and accordinp to tho weight of the animals in a consignment, will most nearly conform to tho desired standards of equity and simplicity. Those principles up, ly equally to tho tariff structure for buyinp, as well as for sellinp. D-402 Upon the basis of tho reas enable costs determined from the rocord. and upon a consideration of tho entire record, tho Secretary found that the schedules of rates and charpos of tho market agencies doing business at the Chicago Union Stockyards contained rates and charges which wore unreasonable end unjustly discriminatory, the Secretary fixed certain just and reasonable rates, D-402 and The Secretary found, upon a consideration of all the evidence in tho rocord, that certain of tho respondents’ schedules of com¬ mission rates and charges under investigation wore unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, and tho Secretary fixed a schedule of reasonable rates and charges for the respondents. j-445 152 c CLoavii s s i on ratios tiro charges iii Reasonableness of On the basis of all the evidence in the record, it was found by the Secretary that the existing schedule of respondents contained rates and charges which were unjust and unreasonable, and ho found and set forth a schedule of just, reasonable, and non-discrimino.tory rates and charges for the buying and selling of livestock on a commission basis at the Ogden and'North Salt Lake markets, D-456 and J-457 A fair end reasonable commission rate of necessity relates to the future, and an increase in volume of business docs not necessarily neon a proportionate increase in expense* The margin of revenue over the total reasenable costs end reasonable profit should bo, theref ore, not only sufficient to cover any minor error that 'nay have occurred in the calculations but, in addition, should be ample to cover any additional expense commission merchants have to incur as the result of taxes under Social Security or other legislation, and also to cover increases in salaries or wages to employees of respondent commission merchants if such should become necessary. o-534 Upon tho basis of roc.sona.ble costs, as determined by the-Secretary, and upon a close consideration of tho entire record, tho Secretary found that tho market agencies 1 rates and charges in effect at the New Orleans Stock Yards contained rates and charges which were unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, and the Secretary fixed a schedule of just and reasonable rates. 0-534 153 COMMISSION RATES JJTR CHARGES III Rules for Re termini no Reasonableness of In order to detornine whet arc reasonable commission rates or charges, it boconos necessary to select some representative'period over which to study the operations of the particular livestock mar¬ ket involved, and of the respondents .thereon. The calendar year is recognized as the proper accounting period, .inasmuch as it includes all the,seasonable fluctuations in the livestock receipts* The calendar year 1925, which lay closest to the inquiry in this case, was the year chosen by the Secretary for this proceeding. ' A-1-13 • In order to determine the reasonableness of commission rates and charges, it becomes necessary to set up, as to each of the three species of lives tool-: sold, an account showing the normal and rca- senable cost per car of rendering the service. Such accounts arc drawn from the whole record but, in determining the various items, averages, as they are generally understood, arc not used. In each instance, the figure adopted is a normal of the. actual cost of the particular item to those firms whoso financial conditions exhibit ordinary efficient management of the business. b-143 Since tho cost accounts usee by the Secretary, in the commission rate proceedings, represent a normal of the whole, which includes tho expense of handlin'-: all cattlo, all ho’s, end all sheep which arrive at the Omaha market consigned to tho respondent market agencies, the use of them as tho basis for commission rates for strai "ht cars of single ownership, end then increasing those rates in case of nixed cars, plural ownership, end the like, results in tho establishment of all rates on a higher basis than strict justice requires. However, that method was pursued by the Secretary, since it was deemed advisablo to make tho schedules simple and clear and also equitable when applied to tho usual end ordinary course of marketing. D-143 In sotting up tho individual cost accounts to determine tho reason¬ ableness and lawfulness of commission rates and charges from which normals arc drawn, all expenses are allocated directly to the threo species of livestock sold, where possible. In instances such as overhead, advertising, etc., where it is not possible to allocate directly, allocation is made on tho basis of gross income-, 1,-143 154 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of In this proceeding, the Secretary calculated the basic commission rates on the character of receipts that constitute the backbone of the market, namely, straight cars, single ownership, single decks of cattle end ho.,s, end straight cars, single ovmorship end double docks of sheep, iui ideal rate schedule would be one which is sim¬ ple end clear and yet provides for every exceptional contin cncy which may arise in the marketing of livestock. However, attempts to provide for every continponey necessarily result in complexity and obscurity, one! fail of attainment because the contingencies are too varied accurately to be foreseen. b-1-1-3 In the computations relatin ’ to the ability of salesmen, in a pro¬ ceedings to determine the reasonableness of commission rates end charpcs, the volume used of sales made is found by adding to the number of cars of each species arrivin’ by real the number of car equivalents found by dividing truclc-in receipts, drive-in receipts, and yard sales of cattle, hops, and sheep by 27, 70, and 225, respectively. D-143 The adoption as a test of the reasonableness of the rate of the lowest cost incurred by the most successful commission firms would result in a schedule }f rates so low as to be manifestly unreason¬ able as to those firms of normal efficiency. Likewise, the adop¬ tion of the hiphest cost incurred by the less successful firms would result in a schedule so hiph as to be unfair to the shippers of livestock. The cane situation obtains with respect to any item of expense incurred by any one firm, x>-308 In order to determine the reasonableness of rates and char pcs for market agencies, it becomes necessary to determine a normal and reasonable cost per car as to each species of livestock with respect to each and all costs reasonably incurred by the market apcncios in the handling of such livestock. The total amount of all such items of cost, as determined, will reflect the reasonable rate or charge for selling commissions and buying, commissions. R-308 An average cost derived from an aggregate of all costs would furnish no basis for a conclusion' as to reasonableness, since all costs would include costs as incurred, regardless of thoir reason¬ ableness. D-308 155 COMMISSION RATES AND CA'AGES III Rules for Deternininp RQ'asonablcnoss of The oxpcrionce of no one oo^iission firm can be- adopted as a test as to the reasonableness of rates, for the reason that not all items of cost of any one firm are typical of the business of all D-308 the respondent market agencies. In the Si lux City Stockyards market apency comission rate ease, the Secretary arrived at the reasonable cost per item of expense per species of livestock per car by listing the cost thereof of each firm or proup of firms and striking an average cost from all of the costs so listed. D-308 The criterion of reasonableness of commission rates and charges to be followed is: under ordinary conditions a schedule of com¬ mission rates should produce revenues sufficient to pay all costs end a reasonable cOi.tpensc.tion for mono., ament and risk to the own- ers of all firms which receive enough business to enable then to handle it in a reasonably efficient manner. This criterion was approved by the Supreme Court in the so-called Omaha Commission Rate Case, Ta pp Bro s, and Moorhoad v. Unit od States , 280 U.S. 420. The rate-maker is more interested in substantial justice than he is in technically substantial evidence. D-311 (Second rohoarinp) To determine whether commission rates and char ;os, put into effect as a result of arbitration, conformed to the basis of jonerally • accepted standards of reasonableness would involve useless and protracted procedure, n more satisfactory method is to test the reasonableness of the rates in the lipht of existing conditions, and in the lipht of those conditions that may bo expected to prevail in the' immediate future. D-311 It is the duty of the Secretary of Apriculture to proscribe reo.son* able commission rates in accordance) with a reasonable standard. Such a standard involves efficiency in the hand!inp of livestock by a. market aponcy and economy in the conduct of the business of the market apency. It is the duty of the rate-maker to inform himself with respect to whether each respondent market aponcy is conductinp his business economically, to the end that the schedule proscribed may not pass on unnecessary expenses to those who pay the ro.tes, D-311 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of Inasmuch as the differentials in commission rates and charges as among different species of livestock end method of arrival arc in¬ volved in any method of allocating costs, the method to be adopted i.iust be given primary consideration. The existing differentials have grown u ; throu ;h years of experience, and, although time alone doos not establish conclusively the reasonableness of those differ¬ entials, yet there should be a substantial showing upon which to base radical readjustment of thorn* A showing ovor a two-weel: period is insufficient, D-311 Commission rate-making is a natter of tho exercise of well-informed judgment guided by mathematical calculation. The importance of statistics in tho cost of operation of each of tho respondent mar¬ ket agencies lies in the fact that thoy arc a guide to judgment* b-311 (First Rehearing) The experience of no one commission firm, in a commission rate case, can bo adopted by the Secretary as a tost of the reasonable¬ ness of tho rate for all firms, for the reason that not all items of cost of any one firm aro typical of the cost of those items as incurred in the business of all firms, D-311 Tho use of the mathematical average cost as a test of reasonable¬ ness of commission ratos would servo merely to perpetuate the con¬ ditions from which the marlcot agencies pray to bo relieved, in a commission rate case* Likewise, tho adoption as a tost of the reasonableness of ratos of the 1 owest costs incurred by tho most successful firms would result in a schedule of ratos so low as man¬ ifestly to be unreasonable as to those firms of normal efficiency. Tho adoption of tho highest costs incurred by tho least successful firms would result in a schedule so high as to bo unfair to tho shippers of livestock. Tho same situation obtains with respect to any individual item of expense incurred by :my one firm. tv ■311 To the extent that the respondent market agencies operating at tho Kansas-City livestock market are rendering any service in connection with the buying and selling of livestock on a commission basis for which no charges arc made, or for which the existing charges do not adequately compensate them, their ratos should bo modified accord¬ ingly, A reasonable schedule of rates should do as nearly exact justice as is consistent with simplicity of interpretation end ease of application, D-311 157 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of In order to determine the reasonableness of cor. mi s si on rates and chonjos, it becomes necessary to determine a normal end reason¬ able cost of handling each species of livestock« R-311 In the original hearing of the Kansas City Stockyard commission rate case, the Secretary fixed a roasonablo schedule of rates end charges upon the carload of livestock as the normal unit, while the commission re.tes proscribed by the Secretary as a result of the first rehearing of tho case were built upon tho consignment as the normal unit, since tho record upon the first rehearing showed that the consignment is tho unit of handling, that many items of cost attached to tho consignment arc substantially the seme amount, regardless of whether it contains many or few ani¬ mals, and that a departure from tho carload as a normal unit upon which to build a tariff structure by the respondent market agen¬ cies themselves, in tho filing of their Tariff No. 3, since the date of the original order of the Secretary, indicated that tho carload unit was no longer the best base for a tariff structure, but that, duo to changed conditions, tho consignment unit fitted bettor into the present day livestock business. R-311 Tho rato-nakor’s problem is to find a tariff structure which, when applied to the particular businesses under consideration, will avoid, as far as possible, unwieldy complexity on the one hand and, on the other, a simplicity which brings about too many arbitrary distinctions and too much inequity. _j- 311 (Second Rehearing) To base tho reasonable value of the services of an owner of a market agency, in determining cost factors in commission rate cases, upon the record of his past performances and, upon such record, to place an amount above which it is unreasonable, for the owner to earn regardless of his future accomplishments and below which it is unreasonable to expect him to servo, regardless of tho small amount of service ho renders, would seem to bo a clcar-cut example of the wage-fixing contained in Wolff Packing Co. v. Industrial Court, 262 U.S. 522. Tho tost generally regarded as tho proper one for determining the value of owner scrvicos is that price at which such services arc being bought and sold for on an open competitive market. D-311 (First Rehearing) 158 COMiJIGSION KATES iiKE CHARGES III Rules for Determining Ro as on ab 1 one s s of In applying the standard of reasonableness, to determine the reason¬ ableness of connission rentes and charges, in a rate proceeding, it is necessary for the ratc-nakor to inform hinsolf with respect to whether ea.ch of the respondent market agencies, is conducting its business economically, to the end that the schedule of rates pre¬ scribed may not pass unnecessary expenses on to those who pay the rates. D-311 (First Rchcr.ring) In considering the reasonable per-head expense on account of more expensive functions of a market agency, in *a commission rate case, the experience of each commission firm is gone into, end tho nor¬ mal is arrived at on. the basis of such experience, but, in the case of expenses in which tho amounts involved are small, the consideration of tho market as a whole or the consideration of tho experience of each market.agency would lead substantially to the same result, 'In the case of small expenses, therefore, the con¬ sideration of cither the experience of each market agency, or of the market as a whole, may be indulged in to arrive at reasonable per-head costs, D-311 (Second Rehearing) In making a determination as to the unit cost to be allowed for livestock salesmen, in commission rate causes, the average perform¬ ance per salesman in a commission firm becomes merely the last outpost of mathematical computation, usable as a guide in the experience of reasonable•judgment. In the instant case, even if tho actual performance of each, individual salesman were precisely known, it would still bo necessary, in arriving at a reasonable annual performance to be associated with a reasonable salary, to give weight to the fact that tho commission market is overmanned, and that some salesmen, consequently, do not have an opportunity, during a year, to do a full year’s work, D-311 (Second Rehearing) The evidence in tho case establishes tho fact that tho straight car of livestock is" tho normal unit upon which to allocate individ¬ ual items of cost entering into the operations of the business of each of the respondent market agencies, A rate structure which is built upon the straight car rate, as the basis, will be just and equitable, D-311 In fixing a reasonable first rehearing of tho the Secretary used the schedule of rates and char ;os, uwon the Kansas City Stockyards commission rate case, consignment as the unit of cost, D-311 (First Rehearing) 159 COMMISSION RATRS aNj CHmyGRS III Rules for Aetormining no as on abl one s s of The aver a'in.; and the relating of a_reasonable year’s sales performance of commission - firn salesmen with a reasonable year's compensation for the soiling done by then results in a unit cost on account of selling which it is reasonable to cover into comission rates on account of. this function. D-311 (First Rehearing) Tho por-car cost of salesmanship to bo carried into the rates as an expense should represent tho pcr-car cost of the service of a salesmen handling in a reasonably efficient manner a volume of livestock reasonably.to be expected of him. In making a deter¬ mination of what constitutes a reasonable:year 1 s work for a pood salesman, consideration is given to tho actual number of cars being sold on tho market under the conditions which prevail, end also to the number of cars which witnesses stated'they thought could have been sold if tho business had been available. '‘-'-311 Tho information on which judgment nay rest, with respect ‘to the number of head of a given species of livestock which it is rea¬ sonable to use in association with a reasonable salary of com¬ mission snlosmon, in arriving at the reasonable per-head cost of salesmanship, isj (l) the opinion of competent witnesses as to tho number of animals of a species which a good end experienced sales¬ men of that species can sell on the particular livestock market in question, under.conditions as they prevail from day to day, from week to week, and .from month to month, end (2) the average perform¬ ance per salesman end buyer actually doing, selling end buying on the market. Both types of 'information servo as guides to judgment. b-oll (Second Rehearing) At the conclusion, of the.second rehearing in tho Kansas City Stock- yard rate case, tho Secretary used as a tariff structure, for com¬ mission rates, the consignment as the unit of cost, since the record showed that the const -nmont.was the unit of handling. A-oll In the application of tho .standard of reasonableness, it is neces¬ sary to examine into tho efficiency and economy of each respondent firm in handling tho 'livestock consigned to it. No attempt is made to pass upon the relative quality of the service rendered by tho different respondent firms. It is necessary, however, to inquire into tho reasonableness of tho cost of tho items necessary in the conduct of tho business of each firm. D-383 160 COiLmlbSION ij.TLS iJ'D CHARGES III Rules for jctormininj Leasonab 1 ones s of In arriving at a schedule of reasonable maximum rates, it is neces¬ sary to adopt a standard of reasonableness. That followed hero is that, under ordinary conditions, as they will prevail at the market, a schedule of naxinun rates should be such as to produce sufficient revenue to pay all reasonable costs and a reasonable compensation for nanapenent and risk; that is, a reasonable profit to tho owner of any firn which receives onoujh livestock to enable it to handle its business in a reasonably efficient and econonical manner, Thi method, of maximum rate dotermination was followed in socket No, li¬ the so-called Omaha Commission hate Case, end was Supreme Court of the United States in the ease of I'ioorhead v. United States, 280 U, S, 12.0, approved by the Tapp Bros, and ~ 7—383 On account of tho value.tions in the business of some of tho firms runnin" larpor to cattle arrivin.p by rail, end that of others to hops arrivinp by truck, some rcccivinp tho bulk of their business from nearby territory, while others receive it from more distant territory, the rates proscribed by the Secretary in tho order in this ease arc naxinun rates below which any firm may char.pc, if it secs fit, but above which no firm may char pc, ..—583 In arrivin' at reasonable end normal unit costs to be covered into commission rates, it is necessary to examine into tho circumstances under which expenses are incurred, - 0-383 In determinin’ a schedule of naxinun rates designed to produce onou ;h revenues to nay all reasonable expenses and a reasonable profit to any firn which receives a reasonable volume of business and handles it in a reasonably efficient and economical manner, it is necessary to determine what exponsc-oc c asioninp items arc to be provided for end tho reasonable amounts to be provided therefor, 7-383 It is found that tho reasonable unit cost wi.th respect to any particular item of expense is a reasonable and normal cost as determined by pivin^ such relative weight as it deserves to the experience of all firms in incurring that particular item of expense. This method preserves the adventapes of other methods, end in addition, permits, the exorcise of an informed judgment, based upon all tho facts in the record, D-383 161 a co C 01 ills SION RATES LIT ) CHARGES III Rules for Re term nine I-oas onabl ones s of The prices at which services rendered by the owners of commission firns are fixed are those prices at which such services arc being bought end sold in cm opon, competitive market• Such prices arc the tost generally regarded as the groper measure to be allowed for services of owners, 'R-383 In arriving covered into on the basis constitutes quatc yearly at a reasonable per unit cost a reasonable coma s si on rate, of all the facts and evidence a reasonable and nor rial year’s of salesmanship to bo determination was nado in the rocor ■ .1 CVS to what work for which on adc- salary should bo drawn* R-383 The ncthod for the allocation of yarding salaries and expenses in connection therewith, which was adopted by the Secretary in deter¬ mining reasonable connission rates end charges, involved the use of drafts in allocation to species end time relationship in allo¬ cation to modes of arrival, R-383 The method of determination of expenditures by commission firms, on account of office work, in the payment of salaries end office end incidental expenses, used by the Secretary was that of ay ly¬ ing time relationships shown as to soiling end as to yarding live¬ stock, according to the different methods of arrival. R-383 A reasonable schedule of buying routes should not exceed that applicable to the selling of livestock, R-383 In determining whether the cxistinq schedule of commission rates and charqes is unroasonablo, it boconos necessary to apply some reasonable and fair method of testing those rates and charges* A ncthod has been adopted in other commission-rate determinations by tho Secretary, pursuant to the terms of the Act, and that method was approved by the Supreme-Court of the United States in tho case of Taq , Bros, os i-loorhead, ct al * v. United States, 280 120. In that case, which is known as the Omaha Commission U. S decide ' 1 that tho rates charged by a group of 11 • ' 1 Rate Case, it was market a-encics at a market for sol lino and/or buvin g livestock on a commission basis should produce press revenues sufficient to pay all reasonable costs end a reasonable compensation for management and risk; that is, a reasonable profit to the owner or owners of all firms which receive enough livestock to enable then to handle it in a reasonable efficient and economic manner. That principle is adopted as a guide in this proceeding, end it becomes necessary, therefore,- to determine the reasonable costs to the respondent of handling each s; ccies of livestock, J-402 162 C012LESS ION RATES AND CH/JiGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of Tho average cost to all cor.ir.iis si on firns operatin’ at a stockyard cannot be accepted as tho proper criterion for determining reason¬ able costs, for tho reason that an averape has in it the inherent defect of incorporating extravagant expenditures, if any, and expenditures arising from unecono:.iical methods of operation* D-402 The test to bo applied in tho deternination of the reasonableness and lawfulness of commission rcites end charges is ’ahother the nar- lcct agencies ’ rates and charges arc in excess of the roa.sona.blc costs of doing business, plus a. reasonable allowance to cavur nano.poi-K.-nt end risk. m-402 The commission rates prescribed by tho Secretary, in the proceed¬ ing to determine tho re as onabl ones s and. lawfulness of commission rates and char _,os at tho Chicago Union Stockyards, were based, upon a general considerati on of a.ll facts of record. The functional unit costs set forth in the order were derived from an analysis of the business of each of the respondents for tho year 1932. The yean 1932 was used for this - urpose bece.usc it was that next preceding tho one for which the hearing was hold. Tho receipts for that yocn wore lower than for during tho year 1931, or a nunber of yeans previous to 1931. A schedule of rates a.dcquato to produce reasonable costs and reasonable profits in a low- volune yean should not prove to be too low in those yeans in which an increase in volume occurs. b—1-02 One of tho primary considerations in tho formulation of a tariff X V structure is the element of simplicity. From tho standpoint of the commission firm, it is desirable that a tariff be easy to apply. The shipper also should be able to deter:lino from tho tariff at least approximately what the commission charges will be on a. consignment of livestock, and ho should bo able to deter¬ mine from the trniff whether the changes have been properly asses¬ sed. Simplicity in tariff structure, therefore, is advantageous to the commission firns and to tho shippers. b-402 163 CORAL SSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of The proper test to be applied in determining a proper allowance for the services of owners of market agencies to be covered into reasonable costs, in a proceedings to determine the reasonable¬ ness of commission rates and charges, is the price which the owners could obtain in tho employment market if they were to offer their services on a bargained basis to other firms, that is, the price at which their services could bo bought and sold in the employment market. D-402 In determining tho reasonableness, of the cost of operation of mar¬ ket agencies, in a commission rate case, it would be unfair to the market agencies to adopt tho unit cost of that firm which has the lowest unit cost of performing any given function. On the other hand, it would be unfair to the shipper to charge him rates vhich would cover the cost of doing business as incurred by the firm having the highest unit cost for performing a given function. Under those circumstances, the method pursued by the Secretary is to determine a normal cost, by the exorcise of judgment upon all tho facts of record, including tho unit costs incurred by each firm in its performance of the several functions. Under this method, all the advantageous features of the methods proposed by tho respondent market agencies, which proposed methods were (l) of adhering closely to actual experience in arriving at reason¬ able unit costs, or (2) of adopting tho median unit cost, or (3) of adopting the bulk line cost, or (4) of adopting an average unit cost with a percentage deviation, are preserved, and, at the same time, the opportunity for tho exercise of judgment with respect to tho details of the business of each individual firm is reto.incd. D-402 In order that the Secretary may determine whether the rates in ef¬ fect arc reasonable or non-discriminatory and in order to prescribe just and reasonable rates if he finds those in effect not to be so, some standard of reasonableness must bo adopted. The standard adopted in this case is that approved by tho supreme Court of the United States in Tagg Bros, and moorhead ct al. v. United States, 280 U.s. 420. In that case, which is known as the Omaha Commission Rato Case, it was decided that the rates charged by a group of market agencies at a market for soiling and/or buying livestock on a commission basis should produce gross revenues sufficient to pay all tho reasonable expenses and a reasonable compensation for management and risks, that is, a reasonable profit, to the owner or owners of all those firms which receive enough business to enable them to handle it in a reasonably efficient raid economical manner• This principle assumes that the rates resulting from its application arc within tho value of the service to those who patronize commission men. D-435 164 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of A prime essential of a tariff is a structure which does substantial justice to all patrons and which, at the same time, is easy of application* D-435 In proscribing a reasonable end practicable schedule of commission rates, attention should bo directed toward those conditions which prevo.il with respect'to the bulk of receipts rather then toward those which surround only a small portion of receipts* D-435 In the determination of reasonable rates, tho Secretary docs not deem it to be within his powors to fix rates which will insure all ' respondents against loss* The patrons of the market could not be expected to pay rates .to sustain on a profitable basis more com¬ mission firms than arc necessary to the efficient and economical conduct of tho business* If the volume of receipts increases at the market.and more firms are necessary to the conduct of tho busi¬ ness, it is natural to presume that‘additional firms will bo organ¬ ized. If tho volume of business decreases, as respondents allege, it is natural to expect that certain firms will retire from busi¬ ness or that consolidations mil bo made effective. In cither event, all other conditions remaining the seme, the reasonableness of commission rates or charges as prescribed by tho Socrotary is not affected by tho reduction or increase in the whole volume of business at a stockyards, D-435 It would bo unfair to commission men to adopt as reasonable and cover into the rates tho functional unit cost of that firm which had tho lowest unit cost. It would be unfair also to tho shippers to charge then rates which would cover tho costs of doing business incurred by that firm having the highest functional unit cost. Under all those circumstances, tho method pursued by the Secretary is to deter*,lino a reasonable and normal cost by the exorcise of judgment upon all the fa.cts of record, including the unit cost incurred by each firm in the performance of the several functions. The rates prescribed by the Secretary will produce a. sufficient revenue to pay a.ll reasonable expenses and yield a reasonable profit to all those firns which the record shows are handling a reasonable volume of business in a reasonably efficient manner, D-435 1G5 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of In order to arrive at a unit cost of salesmanship to be covered into the rates, it is necessary to determine what volume of selling it would be reasonable to associate with the salary of the salesmen. D-435 The adherence by the Secretary to expenses actually incurred, in arriving at reasonable unit costs, would reduce rate making to a nullity, for the reason that the costs incurred under the prevail¬ ing rates would result merely in a sanctioning of those rates, whatever, they might happen to be. D-435 Commission rates and charges arc reasonable which, when applied to the total livestock consigned by patrons of the Fort Worth market to be handled on a commission basis, produce revenues in excess of or a margin over the total reasonable cost plus a reasonable profit for handling it. D-445 The Act directs the Secretary to proscribe reasonable rates. In determining what rates are reasonable, some reasonable and usable standard must be adopted. That adopted in this ease is that the schedule of commission ratos at the Fort Worth market should be high enough to produce sufficient gross revenues to pay all reason¬ able costs and a reasonable compensation for nr nag omen t and risk, that is a reasonable profit, to the owner or owners of any firm who receive enough livestock to enable it to handle its business in a reasonable, efficient, and economical manner. This principle was followed in the Omaha Commission Rate Case and was approved by the Supremo Court of the United States in the case of Tagg B ros . and Moorhead v. United States, Si Commission Rate Cns* in Equity, No. 2328, in the District Court of the United States for the western district of Missouri, western division. D-445 10 U o S a 4 9 ;o, morge n e>nucp Commission Co. 20, end in tho Kansas City v. United States, The method followed by the Secretary in tho establishment of reasonable rates is to analyze the expenses incurred by each of respondents in rendering tho services performed by it, to examine the circumstances under which each functional item of cost was incurred, to determine whether tho expense on account of an item was incurred under peculiar circumstances or under normal circum¬ stances, to identify tho abnormal functional unit cost, the subnormal functional unit cost, and thus, from a considcre.tion of all tho facts, to determine a reasonable and-normal cost to bo covered into tho rates on account of that particular function. This method of pro¬ cedure must be followed with respect to all of the functional unit costs, and an amount must be covered into the ratos sufficient to meet the normal end reasonable cost of rendering all tho functions necessary to the proper and efficient handling of the livestock consigned to any respondent. D-445 166 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rulus for Determining Ronsonabloness of In the application of the standard adopted by the Secretary to dotorm3.no reasonable commission rates and charges, it is neces¬ sary for the rate maker to inform, himself with respect to the affairs of each of the respondent firms and to determine whether it is conducting its business economically, to make investigation as to the volume of business handled, as to the size of tho organ¬ ization setup to handle it, and tho functions performed and the work done by the owners and employees of the firm, to tho end that the schedule of rates provided nay not pass unnecessary and unwar¬ ranted expense on to those shippers who pay the rates, D-445 Tho principles to bo applied in tho determination of reasonable commission rates have been established and approved. In all of tho determinations as to reasonable rate's which have boon mado by the Secretary under tho Packers and Stockyards Act, the prin¬ ciples used in the Omaha Commission Rato Case have been followed. In that ease it was decided that a schedule of reasonable com¬ mission rates should produce sufficient gross revenue to pay all reasonable operating costs and a reasonable compensation for man¬ agement and risk to the owner or owners of any firms that receive enough livestock to enable them to conduct their business in a reasonably efficient and economical manner. That principle was approved by the Supremo Court of the United States in the case of Tagg Bros, and Moorhead et al• v. United States, 280 U„S. 420, " 35-456 and D-457 In the application of tho principle for the determination of rea¬ sonable commission rates, consideration must also be given to the rate payer, Tho producers end shippers of livestock want service when they ship their livestock to market to bo sold. They measure service generally by tho not returns resulting from tho sale. The problem here is to determine what is fair and just for them to pay for the service received. There is no mathematical formula, whereby that may be determined. There is a zone within which any rate pre¬ scribed may be considered to be reasonable, Tho limits of that zone are not definitely fixed, Tho economic condition affecting tho producers and shippers of livestock, a.s well as tho necessity for maintaining efficient service, should bo given consideration in arriving at a rate which will come within the zone of reason¬ ableness, D-456 and D-457 167 COkmlbSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonablencss of The criterion of ror.s mablo coroi-iission rates requires that the cost to each respondent of each of the functions be carefully analyzed and compared with the costs to other firns of similar functions. Accordingly, in arriving at a. base for the fixing of reasonable commission rates, consideration is given to all the factors which go into the operation of a market agency, and a determination is made with respect to the reasonable unit costs for each one of the functions, D-456 and D-457 A tariff structure must be made to apply to the general character of the business. If an attempt were made to cover all exceptional shipments by a special type of tariff which’would do justice in each instance, the resulting tariff would bo so enrol ex as to be impracticable in application, D-456 end D-457 If the volume available at the markets becomes permanently less, it could-not be expected that patrons should pay rates to more firms in business at the markets than arc necessary to handle the tv livestock economically end efficiently. It is not required that reasonable rates safeguard o.gainst hazards of person:.'.! loss of business either to the market as a -whole or to any individual agency, . D-456 and D-457 In addition to producing revenues sufficient to pay all reasonable costs, plus a reasonable profit, to a market agency which has a sufficient volume of business to enable it to operate in a reason¬ ably efficient manner, the tariff should be of such character that it con be easily understood and easily applied end will be as nearly equitable as possible to the various rate payors, D-456 end D-457 The salaries of owners who act-as salesmen, being determined some¬ what by the prosperity of the business, and representing not only the compensation for their services as salesmen but also for other services incidental to ownership, cannot be token ns a safe cri¬ terion for which salesmanship can bo purchased, A better guide for the cost of salesmen is to be found in.the salaries paid to employed salesmen, since those salaries are arrived at on the basis of bargaining, end represent the amount on which a willing seller is willing to sell his services and a. willing buyer is willing to pay for them, D-456 and D-457 168 COM* a SSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rulos for Determining Reasonableness of In making r. doternination ns to what is a reasonable amount to cover into the rates to .provide for tho cost of salesmanship. Wo things arc considered: (l) what constitutes the volunc of business which is reasonable to expect a salesman to sell, and (2) what salary is it reasonable to expect a salesunn to command, D-456 end D-457 In order to prescribe just and reasonable rates, if tho Secretary finds those in effect not to bo so, sene standard of reasonable¬ ness must be ,3 opt ed, The standard.adopted in this case is that approved by the Supremo Court of the United States in Acker jot al. v. United St ates , 560 Supreme Court 824, and Tagg Bros * end Moorhead ct al, v. United States, 280 U.S, 420* In tho Tagg case, which is known as tho Omaha Commission Rato Case, it was docidod that the rates charged by a group of agencies at a market for selling and/)r buying livestock on a commission basis should produce gross revenues sufficient to pay all reasonable expenses end a reasonable compen¬ sation for management and risks, that is, a reasonable profit to the owners of those firms which .receive enough business to enable then to handle it in a reasonably efficient end economical manner* This principle assumes that the rates resulting from, its applica¬ tion are within the- value of the service to those who patronize it, D-534 In applying the standard laid down by the courts in determining reasonable costs of operation of commission firms, in order to arrive at reasonable commission rates and charges, it is necessary for tho rate maker to inform himself with respect to whether each of the respondent commission firms is conducting its business economically, to tho end that the schedule of rates proscribed nay not pass unnecessary or unreasonable expenses on to those who pay tho rates* Commission rate making is a matter of exorcise of well- informed judgment. Costs of operations and statistics of each of the respondent firms arc important in that they are a guide to such judgment, D-534 169 / COMMISSION Rates and charges III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of The tariff in effect at the Now Orleans Stock Yards, at the time of the hearing to determine the reasonableness of its commission rates and charges, was constructed upon a percentage charge based on tho gross proceeds* The extremely wide variation in the unit selling chargo determined in this manner which arises from fluc¬ tuations in livestock prices has no relation to costs* Tho ex¬ pense raid effort required to dispose of a low-grade, low-pricod animal may far exceed tho expense raid effort necessary to dispose of a high-grade, high-priced animal• Tho composite costs of han¬ dling livestock, as determined in these findings, is believed to bo a bettor test of reasonableness of rates then the application of a percentage basis. The composite costs, as determined, more nearly meet tho tost of reasonableness, and this method of procedure has received the approved' of the courts as heretofore stated, D-534 The method adopted in this ease to determine reasonable costs of salesmanship is the ono approved in Tagg Bros, and M oor head v. Unitod State s, 280 U.S, 420, that is, that the unit costs of sales¬ manship should be determined by relating a reasonable annual salary for a salesman to a reasonable year's performance expected in terms of units sold which, in this ease, is the number of head of cattle of the respective species. D-534 The method used in determining a proper allowance for the service of ov/nors to be covered into reasonable costs, in arriving at a rate base for commission rates end charges, was that of determin¬ ing the amount that tho owners would expect in payment for the services of a first-cla.ss salesmen, D-534 In establishing a schedule of rates in conformity with tho prin¬ ciple lead down in the Omaha Commission Rato Case, it becomes necessary to detornino tho reasonable costs to the respondent market agencies of handling each species of livestock, D-534 170 COMMISSION RATES AND CHARGES III Rulos for Determining Reasonableness of Having considered the advantages and disadvantages of the various types of tariff* structures and the rather complex conditions of marketing livestock at the Arabi Market, as shown by the record, end giving duo consideration to the node of arrival, handling, sorting, soiling, and accounting for the sale of livestock at the Arabi Market, the Secretary concluded that the per-head basis is the most equitable one on which to construct a schedule of rea- sonablb c omnis sion r atos. D-534 Tho record hero shows that the consignment is the unit of handling. The consignment has been chosoq therefore, as the unit of costs in determining reasonable commission rates and charges at the Arabi Market. D-534 COMMISSIONS III Charging Both Shipper or Owner and Purchaser No rules or regulations' of the Secretary have boon promulgated nor findings made by him in any proceedings heretofore instituted with regard to the lawfulness of such practices as "weighing-up”, fill¬ ing orders from consignments, and charging, demanding, and collect- ing two commissions while acting in the dual capacity of agent for both the shipper or owner, raid the ultimate purchaser of the live¬ stock „ D-189 Looking toward the betterment of public stockyard marketing condi¬ tions, the Secretary ordered the respondent market agencies herein to cease and desist from acting in the dual capacity of agent for the shipper and the ultimate purchaser with respect to the seme livestock, D-189 It appearing to the Secretary to be in the interest of good admin¬ istration, ho ordered the modifying of the previous order in the present ease, which ordered respondent market agencies to "cease end desist from acting in the dual capacity for the shipper and the ultimate purchaser with respect to the same livestock”; by adding after the word "livestock” the following: "unless the market agencies (respondents) shall fully inform the shipper and purchaser that they did so act end that commissions were charged to both"; this modification to bo effective on end after 10 days from January 9, 1932, D-189 172 COMMISSIONS III Charging Both Shipper or Owner and Purchaser It appearing to the Secretory that the practices end devices com¬ plained of against respondent, to vit: of n woighing-up n livestock to itself and of acting in the dual capacity of agent for both the shipper and the purchaser without the consent of both parties hav¬ ing boon previously obtained, wore discontinued in good faith prior to the appearance of respondent before the Secretary in this hoar- ing, and it appearing further that for the Secretary to set this docket down for hearing with the ultimate result of a possible order to cease and desist would accomplish nothing more than that which has been already attained by the voluntary act of respondent, but would probably renew those, trade controversies which operate to the damage of the livestock industry, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. . D-194 The arguments advanced by respondents to the effect that the com¬ plainants Producers Livestock Commission Association and National Order Buying Company wero one end the same and, honco, acting as one .agent in the dual capacity of buyer and seller, cannot be considered an valid Arguments, the records showing that only one- eighth of the capital stock of* the National Order Buying Company was owned by the Producers Livestock Commission Association, that the National Order Buying Company was not set up as a separate com¬ pany to deframd, that the two companies are separate corporations, and that the Producers Livestock Commission Association stamped on all of its accounts sale a notice to the effect that livestock sold to the National Order Buying Company was sold to one in whom the selling agency had a pecuniary interest. D-330 173 COMMISSIONS III Charging Other Than Posted Schedules Commission charges of §>10,00. per car for both single and double decks for buying hogs, and the requirement that all exchange on drafts shall bo paid by the purchaser, are not just and reasonable rates and charges and arc, therefore, contrary to and in violation of Section 305 of the Act, D-3 A market agency which charges a. coi.irrd.s-sion of '‘‘18,00 for selling a carload of hogs, whereas the schedule of rates and charges filed by it with the Packers and Stockyards Adninistration shows that the maximum charge should be $14.00 for selling a carload of hogs, and $2.00 per car in addition thereto for prorating a plural ownership consignment, is guilty, of violating the Act and Rule 17 of the General Rules end Regulations promulgated thereunder. • D-29 Charging less commissions than the rate or charge posted on the tariff schedule filed with the Packers end Stockyards Administra¬ tion made respondent responsible, under an inquiry end investiga¬ tion instituted by the Secretary, to satisfactorily explain such acts in writing within 10 days from the receipt of the order to explain, issued by the Secretary. D-38 Market agency which renders an stock, charging commissions in fixed by the applicable tariff and Stockyards Administration, account sale to tho owner of livo- an amount less than tho amount ro.tos on filo with the Packers violates Title III of the Act. D-53 Market agency which rendered an account sale showing a commission charge of ^4.00 per head for 292 mules sold at public auction, and a commission charge of v 2.00 per head for 63 mules sold at private sale, there being no schedule filed and in effect at tho tine authorizing a charge of $2.00 per head on mules sold at private sale, and later advised the shipper that a charge of $3.00 straight would be made on all mules sold, refunding and remitting to the shipper $229,00 of tho commission charged, the notation "Rebate Commission, November 18—January 16" appearing upon the remittance chock, violated Title III of the Act. D-80 174 COMMISSIONS III Charging Other Than Posted Schedules Market 0 . 3 oney which charged a commission of . 9 3,00 per head for selling horses and mules, instead of 94.00 per head, the rate specified in the schedules filed and in effect at the tine, violated Title III of the Act. D-80 Market agency which charged a cohnission of 10$ for the sale of horses and nulcs, without having' filed a tariff with the Packers and Stockyards Administration specifying rates or charges for less-tlian-carload shipments on horses end mules, violated the Act. D-80 Market agency which rendered accounts purchase charging and de¬ manding a grantor commission rate or charge than the rates and ■charges specified therefor in its schedule of rates and charges on file with tho Administration, violated Title III of the Act, D-177 Market agency which rendered accounts purchase shov/ing that the livestock was purchased at prices norc or less than the actual amounts paid by the respondent and collecting from the purchaser on the basis of the accounts purchase violated Title III of the Act by charging and demanding greater or loss or different com¬ pensation for stockyards services rendered by respondent as a market agency than the rates and charges specified in his schedule on file and in effect, and did thereby engage in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practices of falsely reporting to his principal that ho had paid greater or loss prices for live¬ stock purchased for it than the prices he actually paid. D-180 Tho Secretary found that the respondent market agencies violated Titlo III of the Act by charging greater or less commissions for livestock transactions than the rates and charges set out in tho schedule on file and in effect, and ordered them to cease and de¬ sist from continuing such violations, even though tho Secretary further found that tho over and under charges were duo, perhaps, to the ambiguity of respondents’ complicated tariff schedule, D-190 175 COMMISSIONS III Charging Other Than Posted Schedules Market agencies who, during the year ended December 31, 1925, charged one owner $467.75 less commissions than those specified in their schedule on file and in effect, and who, during the calendar year 1925, charged another owner $76.50 less commissions for their services than the rates and charges specified in their schedule on file and in effect, violated Title III of the Act. D-195 Market agency which, in various transactions and at various times, charged the owner or consignor loss commissions than the commissions required under the schedule of rates and charges it duly published and filed, violated the Act, even though it made’ .‘.an affidavit in explanation to the effect that the overcharges were due to errors arid had subsequently been collected, D-385 Market agency which, under pressure, reduced its regular tariff rate for the sale of livestock from 22/ per head to 15/ per head, in order to get the business of a patron owing him money, will¬ fully violated Section 306 (f) of the Packers and Stockyards Act which provides, among other things, that no market agency shall "charge, demand, or collect a greater or less or different compen¬ sation for such services than the rates and charges specified in the schedules filed end in effect at the tiinoj nor refund nor .remit in any manner any portion of the rates or charges so spec¬ ified***", the only exception to this requirement of tho Act being in the case of a cooperative association of producers which is 'permitted to return to its members its excess earnings on a patronage basis. Tho respondent does not come within this exception, D-464 Market agency and dealer who, in its capacity as a market' agency, assessed commission charges for the sale of livestock of amounts loss than its rates and charges on file with tho Secretary of Agriculture violated Title III of tho Act. D-514 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by purchasing live¬ stock on order and charging for his services an amount in excess of the rates and charges specified in his tariff on file and in ' effect at the time. D-1162 176 commissions hi Failing to Charge A market agency violates its tariff rates filed with the Secretary of Agriculutro when it fails to chargo an intervening seller com¬ missions , D-27 A market agency which files a schedule of rates and charges with the Packers and Stockyards Administration, indicating that it will charge $2,00 per car for prorating a plural ownership consignment of sheep, but which fails to charge for such service, is guilty of violating the Act and Rule 17 of the General Rules raid Regulations thereunder, D-29 Market agency which charged, no commission to an owner for selling a consignment of hogs, and, in addition thereto, without ray con¬ sideration therefor, paid the owner $75,08 for the sole purpose of reimbursing the owner for its loss on tho sale of said hogs, vio¬ lated Title III of the Act rad Rules 11 and 17 thereunder. The respondent market agency having satisfactorily explained, in an answer filed in the proceedings, that the violations alleged in the complaint of underpayments to shippers, failure to correctly collect from the shipper the rate of commission specified in tho schedule of rates and charges filed by the agency rad in effect at tho time of the transaction, were the result of errors, mid said explanation having boon corroborated by further investigation of the Secretary, tho Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice, D-126 Respondent market agency having submitted in writing a satisfactory explanation of its failure to charge commissions as alleged in the complaint, and an investigation thereof having been made which sub¬ stantially corroborated respondent's explanation, the Secretary ordered tho proceedings dismissed, D-128 » 177 COMMISSIONS III Putting Now Schedules into Effect Market agency which put into effect a new schedule of commission rates on hogs without giving due notice as required by Title III of the Act, end without filing said schedule with the Packers and Stockyards Administration at Washington, D, C., violated Title III of the Act. D~107 178 COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS III ; Control of At the time of the hearing, the evidence indicated that the power of control of respondent cooperative Market agency was vested in the producers♦ : D-77 Patronage Dividends Cooperative market agency which paid patronage refunds to its shareholders, by check or in tho form of stock certificates from moneys other than excess earnings, engaged in aid used ai unfair and unjustly discriminatory practice aid device in connection with tho marketing aid selling of livestock on a commission basis in commerce, as dofinod in the- net, in that it remitted aid refunded a portion of the rates end charges specified in its schedules filed, published, aid in effect under tho Act. D-77 Cooperative market agency which refunded or remitted a portion of its commission charges to owners or consignors who wore not members or shareholders aid were not, therefore, entitled to a patronage refund on the basis of excess earnings violated Title III of tho Act. ' D**88; D-95; D-96 A cooperative market agency which sells cattle on commission and makes refunds to shippers of livestock on complaints from the shippers that their livestock was not sold at tho highest price obtainable, when, in fact, tho livestock was sold at the highest price obtainable, makes a refund or rebale within the moaning of the law aid in violation of Title III of the Act, the refund not having been made on a patronage basis. D-142 The only exception to Section 306 (f) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, which provides, among other things, that no market agency shall "charge, demand, or collect a. greater or loss or different compensation for its sorvicos than the rat os and changes specified in the schedules filed and in effect at the time; nor refund nor remit in any manner any portion of tho rates or charges so speci¬ fied ***", is in the case of a cooperative association of producers, which is permitted to return to its members its excess earnings on a patronage basis. D-464 179 COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, WHAT CONSTITUTES It appearing from the evidence that 20% of the membership of respondent cooperative was composed of those actively engaged in the operation of farms, and that respondent was composed only of members who were eligible to membership undc'r its charter and have secured membership therein in accordance therewith, the Secretary of Agriculture found respondent to bo a cooperative association of producers within the meaning of the Act. E-92 III 180 CORPORATION III Acts of Employees as Acts of Under Section 403 of Title IV of the Act, a market association in its corporate capacity violates the net end becomes amenable to its penalties and disabilities when its officers or employees violate the Act, Section 403 providing that "when construing end enforcing the provisions of this Act, the act, omission, or fail¬ ure of any agent, officer, or other person acting for or employed by any packer, stockyard, market agency, or dealer, within the scope of his employment or office, shall in every caso also be doomed to bo tho act, omission, or failure of such packer, stockyard, market agency, or dealer, as well as that of such agent, officer, or other person.” D-142 Tho defense that tho principal officers of the respondent corpora¬ tion did not know of or sanction tho acts of its employees in violating the Packers and Stockyards Act is unavailable to rospondent, since the provisions of tho Act provide, in substance, that the act of any employee of tho market agency within the scope of its employment shall, in every ease, also be doomed the act of the market agency, D-368 The Union Stockyard Transit Company of Chicago was found by the Secretary to be responsible for tho acts of its employee in incorrectly weighing livestock in certain instances, D-1232 181 COUNTRY OPERATION III There arc occasions when connission firms effect a sale of live¬ stock in the country. This is done more or less as a matter of accommodation and for the convenience of customers. As a general rule, the regular commissions arc charged on such sales, D-402 Some of the commission men perform the soiling and buying of live¬ stock in the country. It is often possible to bring the buyer and seller together in the country where the livestock is located. In effecting such transactions, it is frequently necessary for com¬ mission firms to'melee trips to look at the livestock and then be present when the sale is made or when delivery is made, D-435 Respondents do some buying and soiling in the country. This country business constitutes a largo part of the volume handled by some of then. This class of business requires trips to the country, and evidence shows that it is a much more expense to render than the service at the market. D-456 and D-457 TAThen the respondent market agency furnished country livestock buyers with books of blank drafts, upon the fronts of which were spaces providing for the entry of detailed information with respect to the kind of livestock purchased, purchase date, number of head, weight, price and total mount paid, and respondent's printed name as drawee, together with other pertinent provisions and spaces relating to the transaction, the respondent must have expected the buyers to use the drafts in making payments for the purchase of livestock from rmchmen or others, and this apparent authority given by the respondent to the country buyers, together with full knowledge of the respondent that the countrv buvers were using the drafts in the payment of cattle and were having the shippers or others make the bills of sale for the cattle directly to the respondent, constituted sufficient evidence for the Secre¬ tary to find the respondent market agency to bo the principal of the country buyers and, hence, responsible for the acts of the country buyers, even though the respondent had entered into no special contract of agency with the country buyers, particularly in view of the fact that it was a natter of common knowledge in the communities where the country buyers worked that the respond¬ ent had honored other such drafts of the same country buyers in the purchase of livestock, D-464 182 COUNTRY OPERATION III It is a general custom throughout much of the northwest, including Montana and adjoining states, for country buyers to engage in the business of buying livestock on a commission basis. Many of these buyers do not have sufficient funds to finance their own operations and, therefore, they find it necessary to obtain assistance from others.. Some of these buyers who are not able to finance their own operations arrange with commission firms at public markets to finance them. This is usually accomplished by obtaining permission from the commission firms to draw drafts in payment for livestock purchased. D-464 Generally, before commission firms make arrangements to finance country buyers, they either require the country buyers to put up a margin to protect the commission firms against loss or thoy make a thorough investigation to determine whether the buyers are financially responsible. The most common method of securing them¬ selves against losses is to roqui.ro the buyers to put some of their •own money into the business. D-464 As part of the arrangement for commission firms to finance country buyers and to permit them to draw drafts upon tho commission firms in payments for tho livestock purchased, commission firms distrib¬ ute tho blank draft forms with the buyers with whom tho financing arrangements have boon made. Ordinarily, those forms boar tho name of the firm which is having them issued and are furnished for the convenience of tho country buyers. D-464 Tho respondent’s defonso, that ho rolied upon tho custom of tho trado when permitting the country buyer to uso the draft of his commission agency in the purchase of livestock, is not available in the case whore the undisputed evidence shows that tho respond¬ ent failed' to completely follow the custom of tho trado, in that he failed either to require the country buyer to put some of his own money into tho business, or to assure himself through bank references or financial statements or otherwise of the country buyer’s financial responsibility. D-464 Tho respondent’s receipt and sale of the livestock consigned by tho country buyers to him, with notice that tho owners had made the bills of sale to him, constituted a ratification of tho transactions of tho country buyers and estopped respondent from denying liability for the transactions of the country buyers. D-464 183 COUNTRY OPERATION III The respondent misrepresented the true facts when he printed on the back of drafts for use by country buyers "Tho Fulton Commission Company is not interested in the within transaction", when, in fact, the respondent did wish the country buyers to purchase livestock for respondent in order that the debts duo respondent from the country buyers might be liquidated, the evidence showing that the respondent repeatedly urged the country buyers to ship something to him end that respondent was interested in getting his financing fee and in getting the business to sell in order to realize his commissions, D-464 Nihon shippers of livestock were led to believe, through the happen¬ ing of circumstances under the control of the market agency which would induce a reasonable man to believe that the country buyer had the authority to accept the livestock for the market agency, that the country buyer was purchasing livestock and shipping it on con¬ signment to the market agency with its approval, the market agency was obligated to pay the face amount of the drafts drawn upon it by the country buyer in payment for the livestock, oven though there was no express agreement on the part of the market agency to employ the country buyer as its agent. Under such circumstances, the country buyer was an agent by estoppel, D-465 Market agency hold liable by the Secretary for the payment of the face amount of a draft drawn upon it by a country buyer for tho payment of a consignment of cattle to the country buyer, the evi¬ dence indicating that the country buyer had obtained the request of the respondent to buy livestock in tho country end draw drafts upon respondent in payment therefor, and that, at the time of tho particular transaction in question, the country buyer had an employee of the respondent with him who made no objection at any time to tho country buyer tolling the owner that the respondent would honor the drafts, the first evidence of the respondent's refusal to honor tho draft having come to tho attention of tho shipper by a letter from the respondent four days after tho cattlo had boon consigned to the.country buyer, D-474 The Secretary ordered the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of .;..463,'95 with interest a.t 6/o per annum from the date of tho dishonoring of the draft upon respondent, such sum being tho dif¬ fer once between tho face amount of the draft drawn by tho country buyer upon tho respondent and the proceeds remitted by the respond¬ ent to tho shipper for the sale of tho livestock ir. question, D-474 184 COUNTRY OPERATION III Tho practice of comission finis in permitting country buyers to draw drafts on them in payment for purchases of livestock is general in tho territory tributary to the Kansas City Market. The evidence indicates that the sellers wire on draft when they have had no previous dealings with the parties or if tho parties upon whom tho drafts arc drawn arc not known. D-475 T'lhon a market agency permits a country buyer as an actual or ostensible agent to purchase livestock in the country for it, it yd 11 not be permitted to later repudiate tho agency to the detriment of tho livestock shippers. D-475 It appearing from the evidence that tho respondent market agency entered into an agreement xthereby the country buyer agent of another market agency would purchase cattle end pay for seme by the use of drafts drawn upon the respondent market e.gcncy by the country buyer, that there'wore no limits upon the amount of money for which tho country buyer could draw tho drafts end no limits upon the number of drafts which ho could draw, that the authority of tho country buyer to purchase only one carload of cattle was not brought to tho attention in eny manner of the shippers or sellers, that tho drafts furnished to the country buyer were the blank drafts of tho respondent market agency upon which its nemo wc.s printed, that the respondent hen, therefore, always paid drafts dream upon it by tho other market agency, end that the respondent raarkot e.gcncy did not dishonor the drafts until after the livestock he.d boon shipped, tho Secroteny held that the respondent market e.gcncy was obligated to pay tho faco amounts of the drafts so drawn upon it by tho agent country buyer of the second men]cot agency, end ordered tho respondent market agency to make reparation for tho difference between tho fe.ee amount of the drafts end tho amount of the shippers 1 procoods thorotofor sent to the shippers or sellers. D-475 COUNTRY OPERATION III Pfln.cn a market agency establishes a course of conduct with a country buyer whereby the country buyer purchases cattle, gives his personal check in payment therefor, and advises the market agency of the amount of money involved, the number of head of cattle purchased, arid the person for whom the purchase was made, and the market agency thereupon forwards sufficient money to the bank upon which the country buyer's choc]: was drawn to cover the chock, kno\iing that if this is not done the check will be dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds, the market agency is charged with constructive notice that the shipper docs not receive his money for the sale of the cattle until the market agency covers the personal chock of the country buyer, and, under those circumstances, no title passes from the shipper to the country buyer because of the acceptance by the shipper of the personal chock of the country buyer* D-1043 A market agency which carried an account of a country buyer on its books to which was crodited the proceeds from the sale of livestock purchased by the country buyer and against which wore changed the drafts drawn by the country buyer in payment for such livestock, together with other items of expense, and who permitted the country buyer to operate in a. particular community for several years and lot it be generally known that the drafts were drawn upon the market agency by the country buyer and were paid, is liable to a shipeer of livestock for the ^ricc agreed unon between the shipper and the country buyer, the shipper having relied upon the common knowledge in the community that the country buyer was the agent of the market agency. D-1109 The Secretary of Agriculture has jurisdiction to award reparation a.gadnst a dealer in livestock in the ca.se of country tr.nsactions• If there has been no court decision sustaining the Department on this point, it is also true that there has been, no court decision which differs with the Department. D-1131 ./hen an authorized country buyer purchases sheep and draws a draft upon the markot agency for the purchase price thereof, the market agency must honor the- fa.ee amount of the draft or respond in indem¬ nity for the refusal to do so. D-1131 186 COUNTRY OPERATION III Aii order buyer who had an arrangement with the respondent market agency whereby the order buyer would go into the country, purchase livestock v/ith his personal chock, ship tho livestock to the market agency for sale, and notify the market agency of such ship¬ ment, whereupon the market agency would deliver its draft to the bank of the order buyer to cover his personal check given in pay¬ ment for the livestock, was held by tho Secretary to be the pur¬ chasing agent of tho market agency, other evidence showing that tho country buyer signed his chock ”agent", that it had been customary for the market agency, to place funds in the country buyor’s bank account to moot tho checks drawn by tho country buyer, and that the market agency had accepted tho benefits of the country buyer’s transactions. *' D-1159 A market agency which enters into an agreement with a country buyer whereby the country buyer shall purchase livestock with his personal check but the market agency shall regularly cover tho personal chock before it is presented for payment, by depositing funds for that purpose, and it is understood that tho livestock so purchased shall be shipped to tho market agency for sale on commission, and tho market agency knows that tho country buyer is purchasing live¬ stock upon assurances to tho sellers that tho protection of the market agency is behind tho checks drawn by the country buyer, and tho market agency accepts tho fruits of tho country buyer’s opera¬ tions, is liable to the shipper for tho purchase price of tho cattle as agreed upon between tho country buyor end tho owner or shipper, and the owner or shipper may bo awarded reparation for such amount. D-1159 k/hon tho issue was ’whether or not tho market agency was liable for the payment of a chock given by a country buyor for the purchase of livestock, as tho principal of tho country buyor, part payment by tho market agency on account of the amount stated in tho chock given by the country buyor but returned for insufficient funds, and the retention of tho balance of tho proceeds of the sale of the livestock in question, after the full knowledge of all the facts, operated as a ratification by the market agency of tho acts of tho country buyer. 2 C.J.S. Agency, Par. 49 and Authorities thoro cited. D-1159 187 COUNTRY OPERATION III The respondent market agency was held by the Secretary to be the principal of a country buyer, even though no evidence was intro¬ duced from any of the livestock producers who shipped cattle to the respondent and to whom the respondent owec money from the sale of such livestock and even though the respondent published in a livestock paper an advertisement stating, among other things, that it did not give anyone permission to draw drafts on it, and even though the respondent had sent a postal card to 2500 stockmen stating in part that if anyone accepted drafts or checks upon the respondent, written by another, it was done at the shipper’s own risk, since other evidence introduced at the hearing showed that, with respect to the particular country buyer in question, the respondent had -informed, by word of mouth, two potential shippers that the agent was buying livestock for the respondent, that a stenographer of the respondent had transmitted blank drafts to the country buyer for use and had advised the country buyer to handle the drafts in rotation so that they could bo properly chocked as they came in, that statements appeared on the back of the drafts as to their invalidity unless accompanied by a bill of sale of tho cattle, end the bills of sale of tho cattle in question showing that sales had boon made to the respondent market agency, were sufficient to establish the agency. In addition, the lack of care of the respondent market agency in permitting a rubber stamp show¬ ing the name ’’Great Western Livestock Commission Company” to bo left around where it could bo used with or without tho authority of the respondent, and the knowledge on tho part of the respondent that drafts had been issued by tho country buyer with tho stamp notation on thorn would, in or_y event, constitute an ostensible agency. D-1181 A country buyer was hold by the Secretary to be the agent of the respondent market agency for the purchase of livestock, the evi¬ dence showing that tho market agency furnished blank drafts for use by the country buyer and authorized the country buyer to draw upon tho respondent for payment of livestock purchased, end that the respondent’s name was printed on the drafts, although in snail typo on the draft appeared the inscription ’’Buyers arc not Agents of this Company”, it appearing further that pursuant to this arrangement livestock was shipped directly to tho respondent or to other markets for sale. * ' D-1182 188 COUNTRY OPERATION III A market agency cannot bo required to accept livestock purchased by a country buyer not its agont, where the evidence shows that the complainant did not rely upon any representations from the market agency that the country buyer was the agent of the market agency but that, on the contrary, before the shipment of the cattle to the defendant, the complainant wired the bank upon which tho draft was drawn by the country buyer to determine if the draft would bo honored by tho market agency, tho bank refer¬ red the wire to the defendant, and the defendant info mod the complainant by telegraph that it would not pay the draft. D-1212 189 DEALERS MID TRADERS III At the tine of the filing of tho conplnint, there wore 66 narket agencies registered as such under the Act, end 384 dealers regis¬ tered thereunder as such at tho Kansas City Stockyards, Kansas City, Missouri. D-39 As Essential Market Factors The dealer or trader in cattle is a valuable asset end an essential factor in the Market. D-39 There is no doubt that tho activities of the dealers arc valuable to respondent stockyards con-pony end, indirectly, to the shippers as furnishing on outlet for livestock, but it nay also be said that tho activities of shippers arc advantageous to respondents and to tho dealers as furnishing tho livestock -without which there would be no narket. D-191 The Packers and Stockyards Act recognizes dealers among those who nay be engaged in business at stockyards, end prescribes certain conditions under which they nay bo so engaged. As registrants under the Act, they are entitled to tho suae consideration a.s any other registrants. It must bo assumed that dealers have a function in the present market. D-453 Functions of The merit of the trader's function in tho stockyards side-rod on issue in a proceedings against the trader the reasonableness and lawfulness of certain yardage is not cen¬ to determine charges. D-5 Tho function of the dealer is to grade and sort livestock into classes which will meet tho demands of buyers. D-301 190 DEALERS AND TRADERS III Functions of Dce-lers’ functions at the Kansas City market arc primarily that of buying unsortod lots and small lots of cattle, which they later sort into different grades and classes to meet the requirements of the feeders and finishers, D-311 The function of the trader is chiefly the buying of various lots of livestock md re-sorting it into grades or classes suitable to the particular demands of the trade. They also deal in livestock suitable for roshipment to the country for breeding and feeding purposes, D-402 The presence of traders on the market is doubtless a stabilizing factor for they can buy and hold livestock when the runs are hoavy end dispose of it when the runs become lighter, but to say that they red sc the goner ed price level higher then it would be, but for their presence, is speculative. To say that the trader mc.y be a desirable pent of the market machinorv is not to say that ho should not pay his proportion end reasonable share of the cost of the conduct of the narkot, D-450 v'fho Arc The Packers and Stockyards Act defines the torn '’dealer 1 ' as "any person or narkot agency engaged in the business of buying end selling ***", Obviously, Congress did not contemplate that tho term "dealer" should bo confined to those who engage in tho busi¬ ness of both buyi ng end selling on e. stocky cord. It will be noted that the difference is disjunctive and not conjunctive. It is the conclusion of the Secretory, therefore, the.t the respondent is a deed or as that term is defined in tho Packers end Stockyards Act, oven though some of his operations nay be carried on in the coun¬ try or at other markets, end even though he may remove the live¬ stock from the stockyard after it is purchased before disposing of it elsewhere, end oven though the superintendent of tho stockyards company did not assign him any pens at the stockyards for use in engaging in business, D-655 191 DEMjER PRACTICES III Collusion with hoighnastors Dcolor who colluded with the wei ghnas tor c.t Sioux Foils stockyards to increase tho weight of hoc shipments anc 1 charge such false in¬ crease in weight to tho purchaser, thereafter destroying tho scale tickets end other accounts, records, end memoranda pertaining to tho collusive acts, suspended from registration for one yean; his partner dealer, not equally culpable, suspended for only 60 days* D-188 Conspiracy in arrangement between two dealers whereby one dealer, a book¬ keeper for a market agency, purported to purchase certain numbers of cattle from tho other dealer for his employer, while in fact the number of cattle actually purchased was less then the records showed end tho proceeds remitted by tho bookkeeper for the cattle purported to be sold, but not actually sold, to his employer were either refunded to tho bookkeeper or divided between tho two dealers, constituted a violation of Title III of the Let, D-273 DLaLER practices III Counterfeiting Rewoigh Tickets A ^cr.ler who stole blank scale tickets fron the scale houses of the official. vroighmastcr of a stockyards company end. inserted the weights of cattle on the scale tickets to neke it appear to tho purchaser of the cattle that the cattle had been properly reweighed, in order to avoid payment of a rewoigh charge imposed by tho stockyards company, violated Section 312 (a) of Title III of the Act (U.S.C.A# Title VII, Chap. 9, Sec. 213 A), even though tho weights, put upon the counterfeited scale tickets were the sene as the actual weights of the cattle sold and the purchaser suffered np loss, it being enough to show the unfair end deceptive character of tho practice, and tho deader wc.s suspended for one year, D-1174 Even though it is hot a. violation of any rule of the .stockyards company for a deader to make a resale of cattle without roweigh- ing the animals where the buyer hn.s knowledge of and consents to such an arrangement, a deader violates Title III of the Act by stealthily appropriating blank scale tickets from the scado house of the officicd weighnaster of tho stockyards company end, subse¬ quently, using then as genuine and officially issued scado tickets, such an ant constituting a fraud upon end being unjust to the stockyards company# . D-1174 Diverting Proceeds in Violation of Agreement o — 1 J Deader vdio caused proceeds covering tho sodc of livestock purchased and owned by him as a. deader, except commissions and necessary expenses of selling, to be diverted to his own uso, contrary to a. custom which requires such proceeds to be turned over to the clcor- ing a-gency financing his operations, violated Title III of the Act. D-148 Deader who failed to account to his clearing agent for the sale of livestock suspended from registration a.s a. dealer for ono year. D-912 DEALER PRACTICES III Posting or Circulating Fictitious Bulletins Dealer who posted a false and fictitious bulletin on a bulletin board at the St. Joseph Stockyards Company at the usual and cus¬ tomary place where bulletins of livestock arrivals vrere posted, which purported to show that 46 head of hogs were shipped from New Hampton, Missouri, and had just arrived and been unloaded into Pen Tip. 344, while, in fact, said hogs did not arrive in the manner and at the time stated but had arrived prior thereto and were not the property of the shipper named in the fictitious bulletin, violated Title III of the Act by using a deceptive trade practice. D-196 Dealer who, by magazine, newspapers, letters, and other means of advertising, caused purchasers to believe that cattle or calves sold by respondent were of a better grade than they actually were, or that the breeding of said calves wore personally known to re¬ spondent, when, in truth, the calves were purchased by respondent on the open market without any knowledge on his part of their breeding, was suspended from registration as a dealer for one year for having violated the Act by engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practices and devices in the conduct of his business as a dealer. D-337; D-338 Rendering False Reports to Clearing Agencies Dealer who padded his invoices to his clearing agency and also, from time to time, reported to his clearing agency that he had sold numbers of livestock which wore loss then, the numbers he had actually sold, thereby deceiving his clearing agency into believ¬ ing that ho had on hand 135 more cattle than he actually had on hand, inducing the clearing agency to continue clearing operations for him, which resulted in a loss to the clearing agency of :fpl7,106.58, violated the Act and was ordered suspended for a period of six months. D-384 194 DEL I Villi Y III Markot agency had no right to refuse acceptance of a delivery of livestock purchased from a shipper by the market agency’s duly authorized agent nor to dishonor the draft drarm by the agent in payment therefor# D-927 A market agency cannot bo required to accept livestock purchased by a country buyer not its agont, where the evidence shows that the complainant did not rely upon any representations from the market agency that the country buyer was the agent of the market agency, but that, on the contrary, before the shipment of the cattle to the market agency, the complainant wired the beak upon which the druft was drawn by the country buyer to determine if the draft would bo honored by the market agency, the bank referred the v/irc to the market agency, end the market agency informed the complainant by the telegraph that it would not pay the draft# D-1212 195 DRAFTS III A dealer who issued a draft on one Fordo, representing to Fordo that he had purchased a carload of bulls for him, whereas, in fact, the dealer had made no such purchase, violated Title III of the Act end was suspended from registration as a dealer for one year, D-141 There is no uniform procedure followed in the payment of drafts by the customer of the order buyer upon whom the order buyer usually draws a draft for the -livestock purchased. Sometimes the drafts arc paid very promptly end again there may be severed, days elapse before collection is made. Ordinarily, the bank charges interest during this period until payment is actually ine.de. Some of the order buyers charge exchange on drafts end others do not, D-308 Order buyers usually draw drafts upon their customers as soon c v s the livestock has been shipped, or they may take their customer’s check. It seldom he.ppcns that a customer, in placing on order, xvill advance the cash. D-311 Unless the buyer of livestock he.s ine.de other arrangements for payment, such as a personal check or benlc draft, a. draft is drawn with the bill of lading attached and deposited with the ban!: for collection. D-383 Sometimes shippers draw drafts upon their commission firms as soon as the livestock is shipped to market. If these drafts a.ro honored promptly by the commission firms, it usually necessitates the pay¬ ment of the proceeds before the livestock is sold. Inasmuch a.s commission firms may suffer a. loss if they honor a. dra.ft for more than the livestock eventua.ily brings, the practice; of honoring drafts in a.dvanco is enga.ged in only to a. very limited extent. D-402 ' /hen an order buyer pure he.s os livestock, he sends a-, telegram to the customer an vising him of the purcha.se and giving him the awe rage weight end cost, a draft is drawn on the customer end deposited with the bank for collection unless the customer has made other arrangements for the payment of the livestock pur¬ chased for him. The order buyer is given credit by the bank a.s soon as the dra.ft is deposited. D-402 196 DRAFTS III When livestock is purchased by commission men on order, all charges, including the commissions, arc added to the amount paid for the livestock, and a. draft is djrawn on the customer for tho total amount# As soon as a purchaso is mado, tho buyer usually sends a telcgrcm to his customer giving the details relative to the purchase# Tho draft dra\m upon tho customer is deposited in the local bank for collection and tho account purchase is mailed to the customer# If the customer is present at the time of tho purchase, he nay givo his chock in payment of tho livestock purchased for him# D-435 As soon as an account purchaso has been prepared showing the total cost of the livestock, including any special items of expense, a draft is drawn for the full amount upon tho party for whom the pur¬ chaso is mado# Usually a telcgrcm is sent to tho consignor revis¬ ing him. of tho purchaso, giving weight and the price. The account purchase is mealed with the letter to the consignor. Tho draft is deposited with tho local bank for collection# D-4-45 It is the custom for some firms to arrange with country operators whereby they honor drafts drawn by these- operators in payment for livostock purchased by them in the country. It is the custom for these firms to require tho county operators to put a certain percentage of their cm money in tho business. Ordinarily, the practice is, for those market agencies who engage in this class of 'business, to honor drafts drawn for 75$ of tho purchaso price of tho livestock# D-456 end D-457 A market agency is liable to tho shipper for the payment of the face amount of a draft dram upon tho narkot agency by a country buyer when tho draft is given to tho shipper by the country buyer under such circumstances that tho narkot agency gave the shipper reasonable grounds to believe that the country buyer was the agent of tho market agency, D-474 The practice of commission firms in permitting country buyers to dr aw drafts on then in payment for purchases of livestock is gen¬ eral in the territory tributary to the Kansas City market• The evidence indicates that the sellers wire on draft when they have had no previous dealings with the parties or if the partios upon whom the drafts arc drawn are not known# D-475 197 DRAFTS III The e.cceptcncc and selling of livestock on a commission basis by a market agency knowing that drafts have been drc.wn in payment for the same lays an obligation on the market agency to honor the drafts so dr can • D-475 It appearing from the evidence that the country buyer had not exceeded his apparent authority to draw drafts upon the market agency for the payment of livestock, the Secretary ordered the market agency to make reparation to the shippers or sellers of the livestock for the difference between the face amount of the drafts end the amount of the shippers ’ proceeds remitted by the market agency from the sale of the livestock, D-475 The issue, in the complaint for reparation for the difference between the face amount of the draft drawn upon respondent by the complainant to cover tho payment of cattle ordered by the agent of tho respondent and the amount of shippers * proceeds actually remitted to the complainant, is not whether the cattle were •$Did at the market price but whether there was a definite agreement on tho part of respondents to pay the draft as drawn by the complainant• • D-548 The evidence showing that the respondents, in response to a telegram sent by the complainants to respondents asking for information as to whether a draft in payment of cattle ordered by respondents’ agent would bo honored, wired back "Will pay Freer draft on two lots cattle subject to arrival of same", that this telegram was substantially in the sane words as a. prior telegram of confirmation sent by respondents to complain¬ ant for a prior shipment of cattle for which a draft was honored, thcot the comploinent relied upon the telegram of confirmation and drew tho draft upon respondents and shipped respondents tho cattle in reliance thereon, the Secretary found that the respond¬ ents were liable to the complainant for the fr.co amount of the draft so drawn, D-548 198 DRAFTS III Evidence of a- tvlogram fron the agent of the respondent to the respondent, in which the agent wired; respondent to- send the com¬ plainant the bed cnee of the proceeds fron the side of cattle, was not competent nnd was i;:r ir.tori.nl in the cc.sc where the complain edit was demanding reparation fron the respondent for the full amount of a draft drawn upon respondent by complainant upon promises of payment made by the respondent, since the agent was not an employee of the complainant end no telegram from the agent, however worded, could affect the rights of the complainant. D-548 Market agency who held out an individual to be its lawful .agent to purchase cattle for it end permitted the individual to draw drafts upon it for the payment of cc.ttlc was held to bo liable for the pc.yuent of the face amount of the drafts, end the Secretary ordered reparation to bo pc.id to the shippers of livestock purchased by the agent under color of Authority from the market agency, in the amount of the difference between the face amount of the drafts drawn by the int upon the' respondent end the actual amount of the shippers.’ •proceeds remitted to the shippers by the respondent* D-570 The evidence indicating- that the respondent r. ally authorized one Schc.rio to purchase the c for the respondent end instructed Scheerio to a draft on the respondent, the Secretary held had no right to refuse acceptance of the live to him, and the Secretary ordered the respond from dishonoring drafts given by an authorize livestock• arket agency spccific- o:ip 1 ainemit ’ s 1 i ve s to ck pay for it by drawing that the respondent stock upon its delivery but to cease end desist d agent in payment for D-927 Dishonoring a draft caused the Secretary to issue a cease and desist order against the market agency, even though the market agency presented c.t the hearing a receipt from the complainant showing full cm.d satisfactory settlement of the transaction in question. D-S29 Mhon an authorized country buyer purchases sheep and draws a draft upon the market agency for the purchase price thereof, the market agency must honor the face amount of the draft or respond in indemnity for the refusal to do so. D-1131 199 DRAFTS III A narket agency violates Title III of the Act by using funds fron the shippers 1 proceeds account to cash drafts in advance of its having received p avrient for cattle shipped to it for sale, D-1181 A narket agency which purchases livestock through its duly author¬ ized agent and then fails and refuses to honor the draft in payment for the livestock drawn upon it by tho owner of the livestock is guilty of engaging in and using an unfedr practice in violation of the Act and is liable to the couplainant owner in rcpa.rc.tion for tho full amount of tho draft. D-1200 A narket agency cannot bo required to c.ccept livestock purchased by a c)untry buyer not its agent, where the evidence shows that the complainant did not roly upon any representations fron tho narket agency that tho country buyer was tho agent of the narket agency but that, on the contrary, before the shipment of the cattle to the market agency, the couplainant wired the bank upon which tho draft was dr aim by tho country buyer to determine if the draft would bo honored by the narket c.gency, the bank referred the wire to the narket e.genev, and tho market agency informed tho conplcdnant by telegraph that it would not pay tho draft, D-1212 Although the fonts in the ore-sent ease were somewhat s ini Ian to the fonts in Dockets Nos, 464, 1109, 1159, 1181, 1182, in which cease end desist orders were issued, the Secretary found tha.t in the present erne the evidence would not warrant a. finding tha.t the res pendent market e.gont, tho evidence showing e.genev O c employed the livestock buyer as its ;hat the market agency was only solicit¬ ing business as *a commission merchant; that its practice of honoring previous 'rafts of tho livestock buyer was not intended e.s the ex¬ tension of unlimited credit; that all tho profits realized from tho buyer’s purchasing wont to the buyor and e.ll losses were sustained by tho buyer; that there wen no compensation paid to tho buyer by tho respondent; that tho buyer’s operations were not limited to the buying of livestock and shipment thereof to tho respondent for salc but that he also bought and sold livestock in the country; that there was no exact relation between shipments made by tho buyer to the respondent and drafts drawn upon tho respondent by the buyer; tha.t the honoring of drafts by tho respondent was simply a. form of temporary credit extension to the buyer, and tha.t tho respondent rendered its accounts sr.lo directly to the buyer and not to tho shippers. For a. related ca.se, see Davis & Harm Commission Company v. Mt. Vernon Bk.. 133 S. ’ (Tex.) 448 D-1266 200 DRAFTS III Tho evidence clearly discloses that it market agency to agree to honor drafts qual i f i c ati on. is not the custom for a in any amount -without D-1276 One 'who agrees to honor a draft for n up to ^1200 car heavy corn- fed covts” means, in the parlance of the the mount of the draft should not oxeec cows should v/cigh 1200 pounds or up. livestock industry, that d ol200 and that corn-fed D-1276 I 11 a proceeding to determine if the defendant had unfairlv refused .L O V to honor a draft drawn by the complainant upon him for the payment of a carload of livestock, evidence was admitted showing that the livestock exchange, of which the defendant was a member, had, upon complaint by the complainant, carefully investigated tho matter end had found that tho defendant had not violated any rule of tho livestock exchange by refusing to honor tho particular draft in question. D-1276 I failure of the defendant of a carload of live- Complaint for reparation for the alio market agency to honor a draft in pay- stock to honor a draft only in tho event tho draft was not more then vl200 end the cattle were heavy corn-fed cows, the evidence further showing that the cattle received were not of tho type ordered by the defendant, that tho complainant had no reason to assume that tho particular draft 'would be honorod from my statement made by the defendant, end that the complainant knevr the reputation of the person who represented to him that tho draft v/ould he paid by the defendant to bo bad. D-1276 dismissed, the evidence shewing that tho defendant agreed 201 EVIDENCE III 6 Affidavits or Other Instrunej.its as Stipulation botwoon attorney for Harry E. Carnes and the Examiner that certain affidavits should be cone a pc.rt of the record. D-47 V An affidavit offered by respondent in which the complainant clained to have made several shipments of livestock to respondent and to have authorized respondent to ache out the accounts sale in the names of others was not legally admissible and was i 1 : 11 . 1 a- tcrial in any event as the shipper could not authorize the keeping of records other than as required by the Act. D-287 It was stipulated and agreed between the Attorney for the Govern¬ ment end the respondent market agency that the affidavit of the respondent’s representative, denying the giving of a ,p5.00 bill to the truck driver, would be considered for the purpose of the ce.sc, as if properly received in evidence arid the same 11 the witness himself would have testified thereto, it appearing that there was a misunderstanding as to the time the case would bo commenced, end, for that reason, the representative was not present. D-595 Respondent market agency end dealer's affidavit, submitted in mitigation of his violations of the Act by charging purchasers a higher price then he paid for cattle end increasing the weights of the cattle, resulting in his collecting amounts additional to his regular commission charge, in which affidavit he stated he was under the impression that since ho was registered in the dual capacity of a market agency and dealer he could properly purchase a carload of livestock for a packing company, "fill in" such car with cattle purchased by him as a dealer end receive the profit from the isolated cattle added to such car, together with a commission for his services of buying cattle, held to be of no avail, since it is inconceivable that a registrant doing business at a posted stockyard, as a 0 ont for various out-of-town consumers, could have believed that such transactions wore legally authorized bv the Act. D-758 202 EVIDENCE III Agency, Proof of The ncrc declaration of an agent as to his agency is not proof thereof, end the fact that the party naking the offer to the agent was in the alloy of the alleged principal is not sufficient corrob¬ orative proof of the agency. D-393 YJhen the respondent market money furnished country livestock buyers with books of blank drafts upon the fronts of which were spaces provided for the entrv of detailed information with respect to tho kind of livestock purchased, purchase date, number of head, weight, price and total amount paid, and respondent’s printed none as drawee, together with other pertinent provisions and spaces relating to the transaction, the respondent must have expected the buyers to use the drafts in making payments for the purchase of livestock from ranchmen or others, and this apparent authority given by the respondent to tho country buyers, together with full knowledge of tho respondent that the country buyers were using the drafts in the payment of cattle and were having the shippers or others make the bills of safe for the cattle directly to the respondent, constituted sufficient evidence for the Secretary to find the respondent market agency to bo tho principal of the country buyers and, hence, responsible for the ants of tho country buyers, oven though the respondent had entered into no special contra.ct of a.goncy with the country buyers, particularly in view of the fa„ct that it was a. matter of common knowledge in tho com¬ munities where the country buyers worked that the respondent he.d honored other such drafts of the sane country buyers in the pur¬ chase of livestock. D-464 203 EVIDENCE III Agency, Proof of It is fundamental that an agency cannot bo established by a. noro statement of the supposed agent out of the presence of the alleged principal• D-523 The introduction of evidence on the part of the Government to the effect that the country salesman told the earner that ho was buying cattle for the respondent, that the ovmer had. been informed by a neighbor that the salesman T s drafts' on respondent had boon paid in other cases, that a banker telephoned respondent's firm asking if the salesman's draft on respondent vras all right and vras told that the salesman's drafts wore always add, that the description of the salesman as given by respondent’ to the banker over the tele¬ phone corresponded to the dcscripti on as givon by the owner to the bejiker, that the books of the respondent disclosed that .during • the year 1935 and during January, 1936, 37 drafts had been dream by the salesman, upon respondent and wore all paid, that in three • instances the drafts exceeded, the net proceeds, in five or six cases the drafts did not exceed the not proceeds, end in some cases the drafts equaled the not proceeds, that the draft given to the trucker end then to the ovmer at the time the -cattle were taken was stamped with respondent's none thereon and signed by the sales¬ man, vras sufficient to establish for the Department a prima facie case of agency, D-523 A livestock trucking company was held by the Decretory not to be the agent of the shippers employing the company to transport their live¬ stock to the market to collect payment for the livestock for and on behalf of the shippers, the evidence showing that, although previous chocks for the sale of livestock had boon made to the shippers by the trucking company, the shippers had not authorized the market agency to remit to the shippers through the trucker and that the shippers did not know they were paying the trucker a manager's commission hut thought they wore paying only for the labor and trucking changes in the transportation of the livestock to the market. Under this situation, the trucker stood only in the shoes r\ r\ OX cl railroad common carrier with relation to the shippers and not in the shoos of the manager of shi pain '■ a.s s :>ci uti on • ■*- x •—/ D-56S ) 204 EVIDENCE III Aroncv, Proof of %/ * While it is true tint proof of agency to extend the liabilities of the agent’s acts to the principal cannot be made by the acts cold statonents of the agent alone, such .acts and statements of the agent nay be considered in connection with the acts and dec- Inrations of the principal. For insten.ee, the statement of a country buyer that he was “buying sheep for hr. Humphrey & Conley" and that he was “acting as agent for Conley « Humphrey", together with evidence that drafts ,m'an by the country buy or in other trcnsactions in the scale locality had theretofore been honored by Conley & Humphrey (the respondent market agency), end that the local bank had told the c oarol ejLnant thc.t such drafts had thereto fore been honored by the respondent through said, bank, together with other sinilor evidence, was sufficient, for the Secretary to find that the country buyer was the agent of the respondent market agency in the purchasing of the sheep in — > is i. eJ JL question. D-1131 din order buyer who had on arrangement with the respondent market agency whereby the order buyer would go into the country, purchase livestock with his personal check, ship the livestock to the market agency for sale, and notify the n .rket agency of such shipment. market a. unev would deliver its O v '.raft to the bonk of ■whereupon the the order buyer to cover his personal check given in.payment for the livestock, wo.s hold by the Secretary to be the purchasing agent of the market agency, other evidence shewing that the country buyer signed his checks "agent", that it had boon customary for the norlcct o.goncv to place funds in the country buyer’s bonk account to meet the chocks drawn by the country buyer, end the.t the market agency '.c cep-tod the benefits of the country buyer ’s transactions. D t-1159 had 205 EVIDENCE III Agcncy, Proof of Tho respondent market agency vras held by the Secretary to bo the principal of a country buyer even though no evidence vras intro¬ duced from any of the livestock producers who shipped cattle to the respondent and to whom tho respondent owed money from tho sale of such livestock mid even though the respondent published in a livestock paper cji advertisement stating, among other things, that it did not give anyone permission to draw drafts on it, and ■won thou -h the respondent had sent a postal card to 2500 steelmen, stating in part that if anyone accepted drafts or chocks upon the respondent, written by another, it was done at the shipper’s own risk, since other evidence introduced at tho hearing showed that, with respect to the particular country buyer in question, tho re¬ spondent had informed, by word of mouth, two potential shippers that the agent was buying livestock for tho respondent, that a stenographer of the respondent had transmitted blank drafts to the country buyer for use and had advised the country buyer to handle tho drafts in rotation so that they could bo properly checked as they came in, that statements appeared on tho back of the drafts as to their invalidity unless accompanied by a bill of sale of tho cattle, and the bills of sale of the cattle in question shoving that sales hud been made to the respondent market agency, wc ficient to establish the agency* In addition, the lack of care of the respondent market agency in permitting a rubber stomp showing tho nemo ’’Great "vestern Livestock Commission Comoenv” to bo left .i. «y around where it could bo used with or without the authoritv of tho respondent, end the knowledge on the part of the respondent that drafts had boon issued by the country buyer with the stamp notation on then, would, in any event, constitute an ostensible agency. Li-1181 do suf- A country buyer was held by tho Secretary to be the a 0 ont of the respondent market agency for the purchase of livestock, the evi¬ dence showing that the market agency furnished blank drafts for use by the country buyer and authorized tho country buyer to draw- up on the respondent for payment of livestock purchased, and that the respondent’s name was printed on tho drafts, although in snail type on the draft appeared the inscription "Buyers are not Agents of this Company", it appearing further that pursuant to this arrmi xacnt livestock vras shipped directly to the respondent or to other markets for sale. D-1182 £ 206 EVIDENCE III Agency, Proof of Doc legations or representations no.de by a country buyer there ho is the agent of a particular market a 0 oncy cannot be accepted as proof of the agency whore there is no evidence, by word or action, that such statements or declarations were ratified by the market. P-1212 Although the facts in the present ease were somewhat similar to the facts in Dockets Nos. 464, 1109, 1159, 1181, and 1182, in which cea.se and desist orders were issued, the Secretory found that in the present case the evidence would not warrant a finding that the respondent market agency had employed the livestock buyer as its agent, the ovidonee showing that the market agency was only soliciting business as a commission merchant, that its practice of honoring previous drafts of the livestock buyer was not intended as tho extension of unlimited credit, that all the profits realized from the buyer 1 s purchasing vent to the buyer and' all losses were sustained by the buyer, that there was no compensation paid to the buyer by the respondent, that the buyer’s operations were not limited to. the buying of livestock end shipment thereof to tho respondent for sale but that ho also bought end sold livestock in the country, that there was no exact relation between shipments made by the buyer to the respondent rood drafts drawn upon the respondent by the buyer, that tho honoring of drafts by the respondent was simply a form of temporary credit extension to the buyer, and that the respondent rendered its accounts sale directly to the buyer end not to the shippers. For a related ease, see Davis & Harm Commission Company v. Mt. Vernon Bk., 133 8. V/. TTox.T 448. ~ ~ D-1266 207 EVIDENCE III Allegations in Petition for Rehearing as Since, during the argument before the Secretary on the petition for a rchoarinr in the ’groceedings to determine the reasonableness mid lawfulness of cor mission rates and charges at the Denver Union Stock Yards, the Secretary stated that the petition for rehearing would be entered as a part of the evidence in the hearing and would be taken into account in determining the findings in the case, the Secretary treated the allegations of fact in the petition as if they had been established by proof, and the Secretary con¬ sidered the consequences thereof in connection with the conclusions stated in the petition for rehearing. D-435 Books of Account, Records, Memoranda i in auditor’s report made by the auditors for the Packers and Stockyards Administration based upon an examination of the books of account and records of respondent was introduced in evidence as Government Exhibit No. 1. D-25j D-26 Scale tickets, covering each and every sale made to the respondent and involved in the claims sot forth in tho complaint, wore intro¬ duced into evidence. D-180 A copy of a trade practice audit made by an accountant for tho Packers and Stockyards Administration and a copy of the. auditor’s report which had been previously examined by tho respondent end returned with a notation thereon over respondent’s signature: "The foregoing data has been chocked against our records and found to bo correct" were offered and received in evidence to prove 11 alleged violations of tho Act. D-180 208 EVIDENCE III Boohs of Account, Records, Mcnorf.rn.da Certain statistical data introduce L by the Government covering the business of each respondent for the year 1929, it was disclosed, contained errors, raid it was e.grood by stipulation of counsel that such data should, be chocked and corrected by the Government and respondents and made a part of the record, following the hear¬ ing but prior to the tine of the oral ar■:uncuts . D-300 Respondents’ counsel’s application for subpoenas ad testificandum to coeipol the Secretary of Agriculture, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, the Chair¬ men of the Federal Farm Board, and a member of the Federal Farm Board, to testify on behalf of the respondents, end application for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to compel the complain¬ ant National Order Buying Company to produce its charter, amend¬ ments to charter, by-laws, amendments to by-lams, minute books, ledger, journal, end books of records and accounts, and also for all of the lodgers, journals, records, end books of accounts of tho National Stockyards Branch of the complainant National Order Buying Company, and. also for similar books and records of the complainant Producers Livestock Commission Association end for tho seme books and records of tho Producers Feeder Pool, and for other books, speeches, and records, mas denied by the Examiner upon the ground that such testimony and records would be incom¬ petent, immaterial, and irrelevant to the issues in tho ca.se,’ and tho Secretory oS firmed tho Examiner’s action. D-330 Burden of Proof Tho burden of proof is on tho comp establish done.;o vdth reasona.ble c fails to sustain this burden, the be dismissed. lain ant for reparation to •e ortainty. If the complainant complaint for reparation should D-7 Tho Secretary found that tho facts produced in tho proceeding felled to '-rove that tho rewoi ;h charges complained of were unjustly or unreasonably discrir.iina.tory end that, therefore, complainant was not entitled to a reward for reparation. D-208 209 bVIDbNCk III Burdon of Proof The burden of provim the charycs that the actual application of the tariff rciroi h char 50 is not assessed against finished live¬ stock rewoi 'hod for shipnont to outside meekers or other markets is upon the conolainant, and the connlainant \/ill fail in estab- lishine his case if it has not been developed in the record with sufficient clarity to enable the Secretary to find it. D-208 The burden of proof was upon the Government to show that the alloyed offer to the trucker was made at a time when respondent was registered as a market aycncy. D-397 It appoarinj from the record that the sums of money obtained by the trucker from the respondent market agency were subsequently repaid to the respondent by the trucker, the rosy indent testify¬ ing that thov were loans, the burden of proof restin'* upon the Government to show that navnents wore made to the trucker to x *J influence him in the delivery of livestock to the respondent was not sustained, oven though the evidence indicated that nothing Y/as said about repaying the money at the time it was advanced by the respondent to the trucker, D-398 In order for the Government to sustain the burden of proof that offers were made to truckers for the purpose of indueinj them to deliver livestock to the respondent, it is not necessary to prove the amount of the offer, it bcin . sufficient to orove that the offer y e> j. was made. D-398 a stockyards compony, at a hoarinj to determine if a previous order of the Secretary prescribing certain rates and charges should be modified, should not be char od with the burden of proof beyond the point of showing that the operating expenses have increased, as allowed in the petition for modification. The stockyards com¬ pany should not be charged with the burden of proof, in such a proceedings, to sho\/ that the valuation of its property as set forth said found in the Secretary’s previous order remains unchanged, since the imposition of such a burden v/ould preclude the stockyards company from obtaining increases in r dees, however slight, except through the medium of a jonorol re-inquiry into its rate base. D-450 210 EVIDENCE III Burden of Proof After the Department has established a prina facie ease of agency, the burden of proof is upon respondent to disprove the prina facie case, and, in such a case, it nay be considered, significant end militate ayainst respondent i;hcn the respondent fails to cell any officer or onployce of the firm to disprove the prina facie case or to allow- then to bo subjected to cro.ss~ exanination. D-523 It is a well-rocoynized principle of law that where knowlodyc of o. material natter is peculiarly within the power of the ad.verse perty to produce, there the burden is upon that party. D-536 The failure ;f the respondent market ayoney to produce evidence of the proper woijhts of the cattle, which evidence was peculiarly in its ossossion and available to it in its defense for haviny refused to honor a draft for the payment of cattle because it was improperly wciyhod, creates a presumption that it did not suffer any pecuniary loss in connection with the woiwhin.a of the cattle. *J J. \J CJ vj D~754 The defense of the respondent Peoria Union Stock Y.-.rds Company, that the burden of proof was upon the complainant „u.rkot ajoncy to prove that the action of the n.;sondont in refusing it stock- yar ?. privilojos wa s unreason, .bly dscrii-iinatory, was not all owe cl by the Secretary. P-879 The c 04 plr.incu. 1 t haviny failed to sustain the burden of proof that the respondent market aponcy did not obtain a fair ' rice for the cattle in question and thereby failed to render- reasonable stock- yard service, the Secretary ordered that the complaint for repara¬ tion be dismissed, D-1143 A complainant who bases his riyht to recovery for alloyed improper weiyhiny of cattle on the around that the steers in question wore fed for approximately 120 days and duriny most of that time upon corn and molasses and that they had ell they could oat and should have made substantial pains did not sufficiently sustain the burden of proof to permit recovery, the actual- evidence of the defendant indieatin that the steers were wei ;hod bv cm experienced woiwh- master of a stockyards. cc.ipru.iy ;n a scale which was periodically chocked for accuracy and that the actual weiqht did not show such s ub stmti al ; ai n. D -1224 In order for the complainant to recover reparation ayainst the defendant stockyards conprny for the alloyed loss of one calf, it is necessary for the com; - lain ant to show by a fair preponder¬ ance of the evidence that the defendant vas responsible for the loss of the calf. D-1200 211 EVIDENCE III Conflicting Evidence The testimony adduced at tho hearing relative to the insolvency or solvency of the respondent boinp conflicting, the Secretary found that tho evidence was not sufficient to warrant a finding that respondent was insolvent. D-148 witness The was made t for the Government testified that an offer of money the truck driver. Two witnesses for the respondent testified that no offer -was made. Confronted with tho problem of whether to accept the testimony of one witness or the directly o--vosito testimony of the two other witnesses, all of whom wore in a position to know tho facts, end no motive to falsify boinp shown or suggested by the record, tho Secretary accepted as true tho testimony of tho one witness for the Government, since tho two witnesses for the res pondent t;ero interested parties. D-393 '..lien tho testimony of two or more witnesses as to a particular fact is directly in conflict, no motive to falsify yn tho part of either witness bein : shown >v su.; tested by the record, the Secret:.ry till accept tho testimony of the witness havinp no intorost in the proceedings. D-393; D-395; D-598 No til as reason boinp disintcroste correct as t" shnai by the record to discredit the testimony of d witness, the Secretary will accent his testimony the offer to the trucker havin' been made bv tho ro s p on 1 o.nt, even thou • h th e directly Opposite, since the testimony r f res;, _undent T s witness witness of tho respondent is an i s interested party to the oee D-397 Hi on testimony is necessary to of one witness, of records end not been attack adduced at a near nip orosents a conflict, end it L y determine wwh ether tho positive end direct testimony supported by corroborative evidence in the nature ic counts pi cd by rus undent, */ j. y of respondent the validity of which have shall be cnee' ted over the testi¬ mony of several witnesses, end others of idiom failed or linarily c.cce )t tho ewld z> -1 as tho evidence havin' tho some jf wliom were va u^ a to romenbo-r dotr.ils, the S once of the mo witness as proator probative force. nd indefinite ecrotary will corroborated D-536 s 212 EVIDENCE III Conspiracy In order to establish the charpo of cons piracy, it is necessary to show that both parties acted with joint ’mouledpo end intent D-272 In a proceeding in which respondents were alleged to have combined, conspired, end a;’reed with each other '..'hereby respondent Otten would sell livestock to respondent Gal la,-.her who was a re pi stored dealer, raid respondent Gallaphcr would pay for scuie by renittinp proceeds bclonpinp to Idaur or-Per shall raid Conn any, for when respondent Gallapher was c.lso a bookkeeper, the Secretary found that the records failed to show that respondent Otten acted with joint knowledpo raid intent with respondent Gallaphor end dismissed the ce.se as to both respondents', D-272 Cons-dracics •y bo proyon and, in fr.ct, in. nest ce.ses necessarily are roven oy direct .woof of c ombim .ti ,n of facts s.-^eific reo-.ient. circumstances rather then D-33Q Corr .'borati vc It is not necessary to produce corroborative testimony of facts a blitted by the respondent’s witnesses. D-393 Little credit was pivon by the Secretary to the testimony of a witness for tho Govornnont who, in a procoodin s with respect to certain unfair practices alloyed to have been practiced by the res on. X dents : larked himself to or of is-a of his enss-wadn hi.vin ' ^ innu: ier ■ .b 1 C market ajency i ith : market a ’cncv. wh . \ ;h o s ^ ve r al t i me s d.urinp tho course iui.ierr.blc c inferences with a coupe tit or -f the respondent spect to the alloyed unfair practices of the raid of acce din’ clothina from the competitor, who had boon o-crat- inp a strinp of slot machines, and who, without authority, renoyed certain records of the respondent packer from the office of the packer. The Secretary pave credit to only so much of the testimony of the witness as was otherwise corroborated, Li-1175 213 EVIDENCE III Depositions The deposition f i. witness convicted of inndnissiblc ns evidence in c. proceeding, evidence nr-.y Do nr. t or i e.11 y effected. c. felony is not but its T'oipht D-1276 214 EVIDENCE III Exclusion of In a hoariny to Cctcrrd.no the rcaso nob 1 oness and lc.wfulnoss of commission rates and charyes, evidence and statistical infoma- tien which is stale and without probative value should be excluded. D-311 (Second Reheariny) Inc onpetent, Imnat cri al, end Ir r cl event Testimony introduced to show the be.sis of the alloyed indebtedness or actual indebtedness by various market aycncics to the respond¬ ent, in an attempt to justify a set-off, is imaterial in the ease ••There it is shown that market aycncics selliny to the respondent wore actin' sololv .as an* out f~r the cor si-nor or owner end that tf e a- the respondent, in nr.kiny purchases, was actin g as ayent for outside • ,'rincir.v.l; D-180 Evidence offered to show that the respondent made a laryc profit from the sale of food and that the respondent was already earning a fair return upon the value of its property was not admissible in the ease, it bciny irrelevent to the main issue r.s to whether tho rcsalo charyo for yc.rdc.yc cervices, is justified. D-191 Since complainant does not contend that he suffered loss end is not seekin g reparation for such loss bec.auso ros L ondont sold tho cattle for.loss than tho hiyhcst bid, the evidonee introduced vdth res sect thereto is immaterial and need not bo considered. D-193 in affidavit offered res:• indent in which the complainant claimed to have nadc several shipments of livestock to respondent end to have authorized respondent to make out the accounts sale in tho nemos of others was not loyally admissible end was immaterial in any event as tho shipper could not authorize tho keepiny of records other then c.s required by the Act. h-287 Objections an:. attempted defenses to the agricultural marketiny net x as sod in 1929 ..re wholly irrelevant to the issues in boy¬ cott proceedings arisiuy ur.lor the Packers end Stockytords Act pe.ssed in 1921, the place for such dejections bciny before the Conyress of the Unite I States, which alone has the power to Chanyo its terms. D-330 215 EVIDENCE III Inconpctent, Immaterial, rnd Irrelevant The record and showing nc.dc by respondents ’ counsel in connection with his a;plication for subpoenas ad testificandum end subpoenas duces tccun being insufficient to show that the alleged evidence demanded, if pro luce cl, would be conpctont, r cl o vent, or material to the action involved, the action of the Examiner in denying, the ap lication for th^ subp oenas was affirmed by the Secretary, D-330 Respondents’ counsel's a lication for subpoenas ad testificandum to compel the Secretary of Agriculture, the Assistant Secretary of Apriculture, the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, the Chair - nan of the Federal Farn Board, rood a nonber of the Federal Pam Board to tcs.tifv on behalf of the res’ indents, raid application for the issucnco of subpoenas luces tocuri to conpcl the c om.pl oin- nnt National Order Buying Coj.ipco.iy to produce its charter, cxiond- nonts to charter, by-laws, amendments to by-laws, ninutc books, lodger, journal, end books of records and accounts, end also for all of the lcdoers, journals, records, end books of accounts of the National Stockyards Branch of the complainant National Order Buyin.p Coup any, and also for snail ar books end records of the coiid .incut Producers Livestock Commission association end for roe ores or tne Pr r..ucers F’cedor P> :1 end for the sene books er •thor books, speeches, end records, was denied by the Lxcr.iinor unon the -round that such testiiiony end records wnuld be incon- potent, iunatorial, and, irrelevant to the issues in the case, nd the Secretary affirmed the Examiner *s action. D-330 Counsel for res; indent were not allowed, during the course of a hearinp to determine the reasonableness end lawfulness of the respondents' commission rates end charpcs for selling livestock at the Denver Union Stock Yards, to question on employee of the Government with respect to how reasonable costs no determined or have been determined in the past by the Department jf ^^riculture, since such evidence, if admitted, would be incimpotent. The orders speak for thoasulvos • The method of commission rate mnkin ; adopted by the Secretary has been tested in the courts and has boon opr rove( and it is inconceivable that a witness, merely because it happens to be an employee of the Department of Agriculture, should bo called upon to testify with respect to the operations of the mind of the Secretary in the weighing >f evidence which is necessary to enable him t > arrive at his conclusions ns to reasonable costs end reasonable rates D-d 35 216 EVIDENCE III Inc 'npctont, Immaterial, and Irrelevant Evidence of a telegram from the a.’cnt of the; respondent to the res; on dent, in which the agent wired ros x indent to send the co:v lninco.it the- balance of the proceeds from the sale of cattle, was not c ..metont rncl vac i.-: material in the case V;horc the c ..lainant './as denaubin , re. cnation f r in the res, wident f or the full ’amount A' a draft drawn upon res,, indent by cowolainjnt u^n rood see of payment nado by the respondent, since the a ;ent was not an o:agl oyc o of the cot iplainrnt end no tele. gr on fr om the agent, however worded., could affect the rights of the corral ainent. D-548 In a procoodin ” to determine if the defendant had unfairly refused to honor a draft drawn by the complainant upon him for the payment of a carload of livestock, evidence was admitted shoving that the livestock exchange of which the defendant was a member had, upon complaint by the conpluincmt, carefully investigated the natter end had f ;und that the do fend ait had not violated any rule of the livestock exchange by refusing to honor thu particular draft in question. D-1276 In 1 litigation of Violation of the bet Respondent market agency end dealer’s affidavit submitted in mitigation of his violations of the Act by charging purchasers a higher nrico then he oaid for cattle end increasing the vei lots of the cattle, resulting in his collecting amounts ad.liti mal to his regular commission charge, in which affidavit he stated ho was under the im-ressi on that since ho was re. istored in the dual capacity :>f a . iarkot agency aid dealer ho could properly purchase a carload of livestock for a packin_ company, ’’fill in” such car with cattle purchased ..by him as a dealer end receive the profit frin the isolated cattle added to • such car, together with a con- .lissi.on for his services of buying cattle, hold to bo ~>f no avail, since it is inconceivable that a registrant doing business at a posted stockyard, as agent for various out- f-town consumers, could have believed that such transactions wore legally authorized by the Act. D-758 EVIDENCE III In IS.tination of 'Violation of the Act The offer of the respondent narket apency and lealor to nake restitution -to the ^ urchaser of cattle in cases where the respondent falsely reported the purchase -rice and the weights of the cattle, resulting in the rosaondont collectin ', nonev in ad -ition to his regular c omission charge, was accredited no weipht by the Secretary a.s a< factor in nitiqation of his violation of the Act, since the respondent was already under loyal obli pa.- tion to neke such restitution. D-758 Insufficiency of to Sustain All creations Evidence insufficient to sustain the char ;os sot out in paragraphs llos. o end 1 of the con plaint. D-49 Evidence insufficient to sh at that Lynan Brucaioor know of or participated in the transact!on sot forth in the conplaint, r.lth mph associated with tho narket apcncy and a son of one norib or of tho narkot apency and a brother of another raenber thereof. D-54 Upon review of the entire record, the Secretary was of tho opinion and found that tho evidence was insufficient to sustain the char pcs contained in the conplaint. b-85 Ordered by the Secretary that the proceedings be disnissod as apainst certain of tho ros, >ndent dealers, the evidence beinp insufficient to support the charges aptdnst then. JQ-136 Up> on consider-.ti an of the allocations of the order of inquiry, tho evidence adduced at the hoarinp and the or ;unonts of counsel with respect to tho alloyed activities of tho respondent dealers in conspiring, conbininp, and aprocinq to havo no business relations at the Union Stockyards, Chi capo, Illinois, with Jos. C. Coates, a repistored dealer thereat, the Secretary concluded that the allopations vrcre not sustainod and disraissed tho proceedings• D-299 218 EVIDENCE III Insufficiency of to Sustain ^-11 orations The testimony of the cc.so containing a positive statement from the trucker that no offer of emission rebate had ever bear, nr.de to hi a by respondent to induce bin to deliver shi prior, ts of livestock by true]: to respondent in preference to other market agencies, the Secretary hold that that part of the ease should be dismissed, even though the transcript if testimony appeared to indicate that the trucker t;as a hostile rntnoss, the record boinp barren of cry other testimony to the contrary. D-397 Then the evidence in a - rocccdin ’ fails to sustain allocations a. ao of inquiry, it requires the mdiin.j aid serving of an order of dismissal • D-1266 ".ihon the cxipl .lindnt for rep aration fails to establish by a pre¬ ponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the packers and Stock-yards net, the coup laint> is dismissed. D-1276 Judicial Notice Judicial notice token of respondent’s Tariff No. 2.end Tariff No. 3, L»-25 Judicial notice was token of respondent f s Tariff N). 4, vhich mas filoa with the becret-jry of ^riculture, June i, 1923, to become effective June 14. D-26 ■r 219 BVIDKNCN III Judicial Notice Judicial notice was taken that the St. Paul Union Stockyards had been posted as coninp under the Act, and that Gibbons & Carnes had registered .as a market arency under the terns of the Act. D-47 It is a natter of con ion knowledge that structural property is subject to all the clonents of deterioration which were pi von consideration by Government*s onpineor in arriving at his reproduction cost new less depreciation, such as wear, tear, rot. rust, decay, inadequacy. o u s o 1 e s c on c e • D-301 It is common knowledge that structural property is subject to all the el orients of deterioration such as wear, tear, rot, rust, decay, inadequacy, and obsolescence, wherever thov a~‘ oar. Jo-344 It is true that forced sales do not, in nony instances, reflect the actual value of land. It is true, also, that when forced sales are so numerous in any section that those sales represent practically all of the sales occurring in a. section, the effect of such liquidation has a. material effect upon the actual values of all , ronorty in such a. section, and the value received under those conditions becomes the measure of value in that section. D-344 It is a well-knew. fact that, when prop;orty is valued, the corner and outlyinp lots rn the principal streets have value in excess -f the interior lots, aid it is believed that the sale 'f certain lots bavin. ’ strategic locations is indicativc of the hi host value that would bo "laced m anv of the rovertv md that such value should not be attributed to the entire area. D-344 The Secretary understands that the courts will ordinarily take notice of the fact that price levels affeetinq the livestock'and stockyard industries generally, including the prices paid to • ro- o s.y o y cm x x x dueors for all kinds and classes of livestock, arc now materially lower then heretofore, ai such notice would no doubt be taken of rice declines since the hearings. D-344 Notice has been taken by the Courts that a perioral economic depression is now existin'; which resulted in a widespread m ucti on i n vr .1 uc s. D-344 220 Judicial Uoticc The Secretary took judicial notice of the Federal income tax' Ians and the State tax lavrs under which the Denver Union Stockyards Conyany operates, in the A ro.ee edinj to determine if the Secretary’: • rior order fixing stockycrds rates and charges should he modified D-450 In the •..rocoediii: ;s t< ac tormine the reasonahlencss end lawfulness of stockyard rates end char ,os at thu Denver Union Stockyards, the Scoretmy t o ok judicial n otice of the I,C.C. Invcsti.y ation end Suspension Docket Ik* 4109, Pr.a 342, D-450 Counsel for Doth the res- undent market aycncy end the Government ayrood that the Secretary w uld take judicial notice of the regis¬ tration of the respondent as a market aycncy and dealer end the y os tiny -of the St, Paul Union Stockyards as a yuhlic stockyard. At the outset of the hooriny to determine if the rosyondent Peeria Union Stock Yar ds Cirmy is unfairly denyiny tha cay himat mar¬ ket a; one 7 the : rivilo as .,f its st jcleymris. notice was token of the r ;f the-c..n. lainaat under the Act ns a market a-cncy. the nstina of the st .>ckyard over ..ted by —j u j . i u rcyistrati o..i pondent md of the y •9 79 The attorney for the Government asked the Secretary to take judi¬ cial n ti.ee 'f the postin' of the Uni on Stock Yards Com any, Syrinyficld, Missouri, under the met, of the registration os a :et o ; :oncv of the Farmers end Shiyycrs Livestock Co mission Como any. end of the re - i strati or: of rosy ondent Arnold as a dealer. There bciny r.o objection, judicial notice was taken of the forc- yoiny. D-1041 t the hecrin.y for reparation for the failure of the res; ondent i jLx. market policy to- nonor a arai'c nci accc,,t delivery on . shiynent take judi- of shoe;. . Government counsel requested the Lxa.dnor to Kens: the registration of Kerry Conley, doiny business as Harry Conley’s Connanv, as a merk yards. There was n these matters, D-1131 cial notice of the yostirn. of the Kansas City St:ckyards end of , doiny business as Harry Conic; mnicot c money ana dealer :>n the Kansas City Stock¬ 'd-joe t ion and. judicial notice wc.s taken on 221 VIDEHCE Judicial ! T tice ixt a hoarin 0 to determine tho lawfulness of certain trade practice! of tlio ros_ irulunt nmkot a,;uncy, judicial notice was taken that the Uni Oil ;J '• ./ SJ 9 O/ took Yards, Sprin-gfiol Missouri, had been duly os tod 1 — f -ocretmv end that the res ondont market agones had been «j j tj ov the oci t J HJ registered as a narkot a ’cncy at said stockyards under the ,.ct, b-1132 In a proceeding for repar .ti on for tho c .11 eyed failure of respond¬ ent narkot a ;cncy to sell livestock for the full mmket value thereof, judicial notice was taken of the posting of the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Illinois, end tho registration of the ■.rkct agency, - D-1143 respondents t.s a r At tho homing tj determine the lawfulness, of cert,.in trade prac¬ tices of the ros, ondont nmkot agency, judicial notice was token of the postin • of the IC. ns as City Stock Yards, kens as Citv, Missouri, as e. public stockyard under the **ct, rnd of the registration of the res; indent as a market agency under the net. D-1158 at the homing to determine if the respondent stockyards company had foiled to rendor reasonable stockyard services, Govornnont counsel required that the Examiner and tho■Secretary take judicial notice of the fact that the Missouri Valiev Stock Yards had been c/ duly posted under tho let. There was no objection .nd judicial notice was taken of tho fact, u-1163 ond to do ter.. line if certain trad< kot agency were unlawful was xn.-dh Los wi pics h; .s been duly as tod u J. the respondent is registered -as c there on. V 0 CO(/d iw.. o P u J. ' ; .C ti C xjS of tho ) 3 i j. ' v v til at the sub jo ct to the or kot age ncy to ■■naent n: .r- _ct, end that -o 1 usiness --1182 It the. hearing to investigate certain unfair practices of the res; indents market agenev and dealer, notice w.s token of the posting of the Union Stockyards, Omiia, ITebraska, as a public stockyard, and of tho registration of the rosg indent dealer as dealer, cmd of the respondent narkot agency as a narkot agency under tho let Id-1187 222 ij 'J i .om C ij III Judicial Notic< L1 the opening of the he or in;, to determine if the res ondent narkot agency and for .lor hr o. fr.il of. to execute, nr.intr.dr, and file a - roper perf ornmcc b nO or >thor form of inf enmity, the Secretary, upon request of Government counsel r.t the opening of the hearing, took judicial notice of the rogistrati on of the respondent as a market agency and dealer and of the -posting of the Union Stock Yards at L me aster, P onn s yl vani a« D-1199 i.t the hearing, judicial notice aras taken of the facts that the Parker s bur, ^ Stock Yards, Parkersburg, host Virginia, and the Union Stock Yards, Lancaster, Pennsylvmla, had boon duly posted under the Packers aid Stockyards at, and that at all tines mentioned in the complaint filed in the proceedings, the defendant eras dulv j_ x. O J v D-1200 re ;istore a market agency md dealer under the net• In a mococdings for reparation for the alleged improper Yroighing of cattle, judicial notice mens taken that the Union Stock Yards, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has been i os tod by the Secretary, and that the defendant is re :istored- under the net. b-1224- In the proceedings to determine the alleged unfair practices of the respondent market agency in refusing to honor drafts presented for the p-avnent of livestock, a request m.s made m the record that judicial notice be taken on the mstin^ of the Union Stock Yards at Omalia, Nebraska, as c. market and the re ,i strati on of the " y o rosponmn-c as jOiicy. D-1266 Partnership The Secretary Companv -./as a X V of kgriculture found thc.t the TToolgrowors Commission partnership, uas registered under the Let as a orket a -ency. .go Union Stock and maintained offices at the Chica Yards, Chicago, Illinois, and at the Union Stock Yards, South Omaha, Nebraska, for the transaction of its business as a market agency. D-27 Hi Vi Ci, C-lCC c.S c. jLJr trior by such that the estoppel i/lth Secretary found Larrv Carnes to be Jemos L. Gibbons can. ins. J, C. Carnes. b—17 f 223 j.j .1 arrangement bctuoon t \r members of r. 7 or son T/horcby the members equipped the drafts bearing the name of the market ag to pay for the cattle purchased by using market agency cold a third third person vdth blank oncy end authorized hin those drafts and to sign thon ”3urrus & Patterson by 1 : . F. ifusick", and all three persons aproed that they would divide the profits or losses equally, made the persons partners • D-475 Presunptions At a hearing to do ter: .line if the /petition of the stockyards com any for the modification of rates and charges previously proscribed by the Secretary, due to increased operating expenses, should be grantod, the stockyard company should bo given the benefit of a. presunpti 01 a that the valuati on of its ^ roperty.ns set forth and found in the Secretary’s provious order continues to remain unchallenged either until the Grovornaont makes a showing that it is unduly high or unless the c hex actor ;f the undue ox ei.sos ALlo ol ives rise to a re..so. .able belief that a J- w ei.oral chan o in conditions has taken lace* 1 .bother or not ■'mis presumption should be rebutted by the Department of Agri- culturo during a pr.coeding is a natter of roccdurc which rimarilv mithin the discroti .m of Dcarntment officials «y a w ~ i.uth the constant rev 1 continuous supervision. rests ] Till 3 ar of the level of rates to be charge 1 the stockyards company. 'e-rs "*f livestock at D-450 The failure of the res endont market a ’cncv to * reduce evidence of the proper weights of the cattle, which evidence was -ocul- J- X O 3 X laxly in its possession end available to it in its defense for having refused to honor a draft for the payment of cattle because it was improperly mi- hod, created. a : rosum: tion that it did not suffer any _ccuni. .ry loss in' cumcction with the D-754 wci 'hi: >1 me cc.i EVIREHCI. :n Presumptions 'while, under Section 309 (f) of the Act, "the findings and orders of the Sec.rctr.ry shell he prime. facie evidence of the facts there¬ in stated •> H established Dy interposes this rooms that only a oresumption is such lintrings and orders • It cuts off no defense, it no obstacle to a full contestation of all the issues arid trices no question if fc.ct from either court or jury in a civil r eccc clings • .,t th not it. therefore c .1 nape , it is merely a rule of evidence which docs y jury or t:i:e array any of its of trial it in onv way rrork a denial of due 'recess cy V X the right incidents, nor dees of law* Meeker & Company v. Lchigh Valley Railroad, 233 U. S. 412, 430. “ “ ~ ' * D-1131 Proccodinps as Evidence in Private Litigation Chile, under Section 309 (f) of the net, "the findings and orders riaa facie evidence of the facts there¬ of the Secretary shall be in stated", such findings no obstacle tc j thi s tic, me ms that inlv aid orders. It outs off . full contestation oi question of fact frin either ecurt oi l ,t the most, therefore, it is merely ovic. .once ■of the sump tion is est no defer x S O £ 1 3 all the issues Jury * o vc r x A i. . civil rul 0 of evi den 1 or take away o: cell shea by XJ interposes end trices no does incidents, nor ‘Iocs it in anv way work a denial of duo process y v u x of law. .Mocker & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad, 236 TJ. S. 412, 430, D-1131 Proceedings of Prior Ecarinp as The comcl'inant introduced, in evidence copy oi x «y wrier comlaint issued by the Secretary of Agriculture against the defendant, known as Packers and Stockyards Administration Docket Ho. 88, together with its answer thereto. P-92 By stipulation between the counsel for the Government for the dealer respondents, the testimony taken prior the dealers wore joined in the action was considered sane weight end effect upon the respondents as if tele to their being made parties. and counsel to the time to have the on subsequent b-246 . 225 EVIDENCE III Proccoding8 of Prior Hearing The record nr.de five years previous to the present proceeding, in a arocccdina sinilar to this one, which was held also for purpose of inquiring into the reasonableness rates and char ••G£ was introduced nd lawfulness of respondent’s in the evidence in this proceed” ino i rl the ut obj octi o 0-291 Review of by Secretary The attorneys representing the respondent prepared an abstract of the evidence, which was reviewed by the representatives of the Secretary. 0-115 Ripht to Offer prejudicial error bcinp found by the Secretary to the Ex-'jliner upon the admission end rejection of rulinps a r ere affirued by the Secretary. D-330 Hi material or the rulir.es of testimony, the Statononts of Counsel during Oral .or ;uncut as Evidence cannot be supplied statements in the nature of nent before the Secretary, of sworn testimony, cannot fact unless aprood to so as by counsel for the res . indent r.iabin ' evidence as a fart of his oral arru- Such statements, outside the record bo used as a basis for findings of to *ivc then the character of , stimulations. 0-1117 EVIDENCE III State Statutes bhon tlio respondent offeree, into ovidonee a i urportod Wisconsin statute doalin y -with truckers in truckinj lives toe’: to the market, the Secretary made no except! on to the fact that the urportod statute, was not authenticated by the Secretary of State for /'is cons in, caid the statute was accepted, for the ■purpose of the case, for what it purported to ho, a-566 Stipulations 'and hercements Lt the openiriq of the hoonin , to determine the re;.-.sonablonoss aid lawfulness of certain yards, .c char -cs a -ainst dealers, the ..tt :>rncys for the complainants requested that the respondent stockyards company bo 'directed to furnish information concornin.j its financial oporations -hysical property used in the renderin'; of stock yar.. services. ,r ,r pt.s . .1 . .. i«. .. , hut the attorneys f r r the • 'h \ ll: ros;- on-dent a ;rood to furnish all available information that the dlxainor would request, P-5 i- roaucst by the res- , indent stockyards colip any, for a postponement of the hoar in/' to determine the reasonableness end lawfulness of a proposed new schedule of rates end char pcs for livestock " x lent eel and resold" in the co:mission division of the stockyards of the respondent, was pranted by the Secretary u on the express condition that the respondent aprcc that the suspension order'of said tariff be continued until the hotrin thereon is c.m, letc raid the Secretary llCP reaches, ms decision. O V exconaee by law. i .> 'Ghe expirauio n thou. ;h such suspension should be ‘erica ordered an r* .o-D of the authorized The res; indent stockyar ds company h.-.vinp made application with the Secretary to sot aside and abro 'ate its sti'-ulation pith the See- c/ X- rotar^ tha.t it would not obicct to the sue - ension of the proposed now rates and char’cs for vardape on lives toe’s "a 1 anted and resold" in the commission division of the stockyards of the res; indent until after the hearing in the. case had been concluded end the Secretary had rendered his decision, on the -’round that such rates or char ;os were now bein'- collected at other principal st ck'.r ls m.i on the J. w further ground that a decision in Pocket ho, 7 pith fespoct tv a si..liar char a has been del;..ycd Ion er than it w.as anticipated at the time of onteriii^ into the stiyul. .ti on, the Secretary rdcrcd tha.t the stimulation be nbr .y-atod end that the pro; osod nc. T t'.riff become effective ton days after the issuance of the rder. b—6 227 iJV I. iSi'lCA III Stimulations and .l. ;rooacnts Although the. ori Inal xrdor o £ the Secretary required that the rosy mdont st ickyards coapeny appear r.t n hcarin ; sot for . June 26, 1922, to sb-y.T cause i hy ljli order in respect to the yardape rate in question shoul d not be rir.de by the See rotary, the res; indent filed an cjisrror on October b,.1922, it having been stimulated by counsel for both parties, that, subject to approved of the Secretary, late answer coul be filed. b-7 By stipulation by the counsel for the Govorin lent and counsel for respondent, an audit made by the auditor of the packers and Stockyards Aduini strati on after the ho nr in. j was incorporated into the record v/ith the sane force end effect as if formally introduced at the hoarin • b-24 Coaplaiinxits stimulate 1 end .a reed that the bearin'. be based upon X X ' .J x the c o 1 aint issued by the Socrotcxy of ... riculture end not on the c oaplnint filed by c on.plainants . b-39 Stipulation between attornoy for Harry H. Carnes end the bxce.iincr that certain affidavits should bccoiio a mart of the record* D-47 Attorney for respondent I-Iarry h. Carnes aprcod that, for the ur¬ eses of the co.sc. Harrv Carnes should bo considered as artner, and further oral hcarin •; in the natter was v/uivob. b-17 y <) id. res>:ndents bavin, i.Oviiroi. ...t the hcarin X .L C oi.r : 1 ai nant s mi ordered by the Secret..ry . nb havinj filva in the roc or 1. an a, too* wont or sti^ulnti on, the toms of vhich of foe to-., a settlement of the differences between the parties with respect to the use of a certain auction pavilion, the Secretary ordered, the yieccln s di s c ontinuo d . D-5G Stipulation entered into on February 2, 1928, between rose ardent dealer and the Secretary of Agriculture, in which respondent ad¬ mitted the material f.acts .lie *cd in the inquiry ana notice, end waived a hcarin' thereon. b-159 Respondent entered into a stipulation with the Secretary of Agri¬ culture in which the material facts allc.qod in the inquiry cuid notice concernin ’ the failum of res. ondent to execute a perform¬ ance sone. in accornonce v/ith the *.ct, a. and hear in , thereon was i nival. O e A. VP ... . wore admitted b-160 228 i V jL. jiji'i Cxj III Sti julati ms i nd L roenonts On the 20th sti .ul,_ti in ' 7 "J ■r*V* r. 1927, counsel for the res:'•onfonts, by adai tted tho Material allegations in tico of inquiry, but fib not adnit any conclusions of lav in th; nni, roe r ' to bo draw therefron, end wdvod further ho min ■189 By stimulation bet/rcon tho counsel for tho Sovernnent end counsel for tho dealer respondents, the testimony trlron rior to the tino the dealers vero j oined in tho action vas considered to have tho erne voiaht end effect upon the ruq ondonts as if taken subsequent to thoir boin, aade . ;.xties. j- 21-6 Certain stati s ti c al - Lm. livero .ucc business of each res' ntent for the year 1929, it — *j * the GrOYcrnncnt covering the as 'dscloscd. c ontainoa that such orr-ri ad it n.s a ;rcod bv sti^ulati on of counsel . ip . should be checked and corrected by the C-ovornnent and rose ondonts and nc.dc a next of tho record follov.dnp the hoar- in ’ but prior to the tine of the oral ar pundits. b-308 Stipulation entered into be tire on the Secretary of ..yri culture and nonbers of the Sioux City Livestock bxchahqo vhereby such uenbe-rs aqrcod that if the order fixinq rates, dated. July 25, 1951, is Uodified by the Sccretcxv, it "..dll bo only for the ocried fron , Wi. x v V x. • X w . . w. —x. —. i' y w * ■- -x- , xj \j y %j Uovenber 15. 1957 to f.nd inclu..in nay 51, 1338, and for such tine thereafter x.s the Secretary nay need Ibr the con si .'.oration :.f rcpor-cs. hearin , ad th out . k . tiie.u oii'.yre-f cor •P-. r. O w.ie Ub Secretcxy ay, vdthout further aide o S UCil I urtliv yF xx i d th th vy unt .erst;. aidin' .o ra tos and chcx ■;e s fi 4-V> ol .llo C oil s cut of tl ic nux a ;r o cd to su bait to tr aifications of the order as' he deens ;hat no reduction '.dll be riado by the order of Julv 25, 1931, irs; the aenbers, petitioners. ■,-p -• oc en¬ ter 1937 end quarterly thereafter, a statenent of business tms- actod, for the use of the Secretary for considering further notification of the rates and charyos vdthout a hearing• b-308 229 EVIDENCE III Stimulations and L no orients Upon petition of the respondent nanket agencies operating at the Kansas City livestock narket for an amendment to the Secretary’s order of June 14, 1933, fixing commission rates end charges, the Secretary made certain nodi fie at ions to said order by adding end changing definitions of cattle and by increasing the buying charges thereof in certain instances, end the respondents stip- ulatod -that, pendin . the final determination of the actions in the ease pendin^ before the Supronc -Court of the United States with respect to the validity of said order of Juno 14, 1933, the Secretary rl :ht, vdthout further ho min , Lida such further nod- i Ideations of the order as ho should do on proper in the circum¬ stances provided that no reduction ’ruh’ be made bo Ion the rates and charges' fixed bv said: order of June 14, 1933, without the con- sent of the respondents, except after a. hearing pursuant to the Let* end the petitioners further agreed that they would submit to the Secrotany quarterly itemized statements of their business operations, and the petitioners and the Secretary further agreed that the granting of the modification of the order by the Secre¬ tary should be vdthout prejudice to either the ^ ctitioners or the defendants in sand actions ondin. and that the stipulation should not be considered in evidence or as a pmt of the record or used in any any by any of the panties, with respect to the actions pendin thereof, for the purpose o This stipulati >n offeotin . the fined dctoridnation i. 1937, and was 1937. extended to itcrcd into on October 14, 1937, ts other of the res-"'ondonts between the Secretary and certain of the res - "ndents November 13, n. November 19, D-3i: The respondent commission agencies stipulated v/ith the Secret any on October 26, 1933, and again on November 23, 1937, that if the Secretary vrould grant their petitions for modifications of certain of the commission rates end changes proscribed by him in his order of February 28, 1933, due to conditions sot forth in the petition, the Secretary might order re auctions of such rates end changes •vdthout further hearing, provided that no reduction ’would bo made below the rates end changes fixed by said order without petitioners’ consent, except after a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the net. The petitioners further agreed to submit to the Secretary e„t the close of the yean 1936 and quarterly thereafter an item¬ ized statement of the number of head of hogs sold in each class end group and the charges collected thereon, according to the provision of the tariff as modified by the stipulation. Pursuant to such stipulation, the Secretary modified the selling changes on pigs and hogs on November 5, 1936, end on hogs on December 6, 1937. 230 EVIDENCE III Stipulations and Aprooncuts It was stipulated jid agreed between the attorney for the Govern¬ ment and the rospondont that the affidavit of the .respondent’s representative, denying the giving of a 25.00 T ill to the truck driver, would ho considered for the purpose of the case as if properly received in evidence, end the srxio as if the witness hi as elf v/oul-d have testified thereto, it appearing that there was a misunderstanding as to the tine the ease mould be con- noncod, and, for that reason, the representative was not present. D-395 On liar eh 11, 1937, Soptenber 1, 1937, March 15, 1938, and April 22, 1938, the Secretary nadc certain modifications of his order proscribing certain commission rates raid charges at the Chicago Union Stockyards, dated January 8, 1934, up m stipulation by the petitioners that, if such notifications wore nadc by the Secretary, the Secretary ni Jit, without further hear in.;, .mike further modifi¬ cations of' the order as he night doen proper in the circumstances, provided that such nodifications would not be nadc below the rates raid charges fixed by the Secretary’s supplemental order dated March 12, 1934, without the petitioners’ consent, except after a hearing pursuant to the Actj the petitioners further stipulated to submit to the Secretary, quarterly, an itemized statement of their busi¬ ness operations, end apreed that the Secretary mi ;ht use such information as a basis for considering further modifications without a hearing. J-402 231 EVIDENCE III S ti pul e.ti :ms cj id Apr c oncnt s Under an agreement between the Sioux City Stock Yards Company and the Secretary of Agriculture to the effect that if a petition by the stockyards company to increase its rates and charpcs above the schedule prescribed by the Secretary in his order of December IS, 1934, but not beyond the rates end charges in effect at the Omaha Stock Yards and proscribed in Docket 344, should be allowed by the Secretary, the Secretary nipht, without further hearing, order reductions of such ratos end charges from tine to time when¬ ever ho finds from such investigations as he dooms proper under the circumstances that such reductions are warranted, provided, however, that such reductions should not bo undo below the rates proscribed by the Secretary in the order of December 13, 1934, without the perties’ consent, except after a hearing pursuant to the Act; further that the petitioner would submit to the Secretary, not later than the tenth of cr.eh month, an itemized statement of rovenues end statements of the preceding month, including details an to volume of livestock receipts handled and quantity of feed and bedding sold end as to changes in the scale of wages and sa,l- cries paid by the respondent, the Secretary, on August 15, 1935, made certain modifications to his order of December 13, 1934. a similar modification of the order of December 13, 1934, c.s modi¬ fied on August 15, 1935, under a. similar stipulation, was made by the Secretary on November 6, 1937; and a similar petition for mod¬ ification, filed by the respondent on March 18, 1937, was denied by the Secretary on iggril 7, 1937. D-425 Upon stipulation end agreement between the respondents opera.tin at the Denver Union Stock Yards and the Secretary, the Secretar Ki ? V 1 S original order in the case proscribing certain rales and charges for the selling of livestock and for the application thereof was modified to clarify certain provisions in order cation might be more equitably imposed upon the of livestock. that their an; li- shippers and owners D-43.5 232 EVIDENCE III Stipule.ti .ms and Agreements Pursuant to a. stipulation entered into by the Secretary and the respondents ir. the American Commission Compeny commission rate case, the Secretary modified his previous order roscrioiny certain rates and charges for the selling of cattle, calves, sheep, end lambs, by ineroe.siny the rates end charges for e. seven- month period bo tinning from the effective de.tc of the original (4. jo o order as modi fie; 1 it bcin . further e. treed that the Secretary might, in the future, without further hearing, melee such modifi¬ cations of his modified order i he night deem proper in the circuvAstencos, provided that ho would nedzo no reduction below the r ret os end char tes fixed by his original order vdthout the j r to the purchaser, •violated Title III of the Act. D-60 837 FiX.SE ECC OUT r TS PUT?. CHE qv >•-> JJj III purchc'.so Price, Kisrepresentin * J j. •—> lasci pi inary procoodinys aya.in.st market agency dismissed when it appeared to tho Secretary that the c^cney’s prentices of over- char -in.* the purchaser end of switchin anincls wore the result of errors end were not iridiactive o f or. v_tic -137 Market agency which increased the price remitted to the seller for hoys 10^ per cwt• end rendered accounts purchase charyiny tho pur¬ chaser such increase in addition to the re pul or comais si on charges to which it was entitled violated Title III of the Act. -154 Market agency which rendered accounts purchase showing that tho livestock was purchased at prices noro or less than the actual amounts pend by the market a,;ency, collecting fron the purchaser on the basis of the accounts purchase, violated Title III of the Act by char spin- end denandiny pro at or or loss or different cm- pensation for stockyards services than the rates and charyes specified in his schedule on file and in effect, end did thereby onyaye in unfair, unjustly discrX.dnatory, end deceptive practices of falsely r^p irtin^ to his principal that he had paid yreater or loss prices for livestock purchased for it then the -prices ho actually paid. 1-180 Market aycncy which purchased sheep fron a commission cor ip any for f2,53S.-15, which includod yli.OO fir diyyiny. end ienodi atcly invoiced the sheep to a purchaser for p>2,737.22, which includod the usual connission chhryc of '')18,00, ,)7.77 for "dippiny on last order”, OXf»00 for ’’dippiny this order”, and El0.00 for hay, and showed upon the invoice rendered the aver aye woiyht a.s bciny 123*4 pounds, whcroo.s the aver aye woiyht was actually 97 pounds, and, fino.lly, upon tho purchaser refusiny to pay the amount of tho invoice, scttliny for (>2,350.00, violated Title III of the Act. 0-184 x.Iarkct a.yoncy and dealer suspended fron registration for six nonths on first order and for one year on second irdor fir reprosentiny, on accounts purchase, the price to be noro than that paid for the livestock, and for havin' increased the woiyhts on the accounts -'■urchase over and above tho actual wciyhts, resultin ' in the collection fron tho purcha.se of amounts noro than tho reyular connission charye* 0-327 258 FALSE ACCOUNTS PURCHASE III Purchase Price, Misrepresenting Market agency raid dealer -violated the Act as amended by rendering accounts purchase showin g the purchase price of the livestock to be noro than he actually paid for it end collecting on the basis 'of the account purcho.se, resulting in charges to the purchasers in additional to lawful expenses end commissions. E-533 Respondent who, while a.cting in the capacity of market a pent, rendered on account purchase showing one cow to have been purchased on order at a total cost of A.47.75, while, in fact, the co w cost only $39.10, one! charged the purchaser with the difference in addition to his regular commission charpc, violated Title III of the Act, b-389 Market apency which rendered accounts purchase indieatinp that hops had been purchased from drovers Commission Company or other commission companies in two or noro drafts, at certain weights end prices per hundredweight, while, in fact, the hops wore pur¬ chased from Various other sources and firms in different lots or drafts, at lower prices per hundredweight end at lessor wed :hts, and the respondent collected on the basis of the accounts purchase, resulting in charpcs to the purchaser in excess of actual cost plus the usual commission char pc, violated the Act, E—407 Market apency end dealer who engaged in end used the unfair and deceptive practice and device of rendering accounts purchase representing the costs of livestock purchased on order to bo more than he actually paid therefor, end attempted to substantiate such misropresontation by changing the price appearing on the scale ticket or substituting and using an unauthorized scale ticket in lieu of the original scale ticket so that the price a.ppoarin^ on the substituted ticket was acsi no dcsi ned to substantiate V _* rice mentioned in'the account purchase. the false purchase resulting in the purchaser being overcharged for the livestock purchased, violated Title III of the Act and was sus; ended fron registration as a mar? months• :ot dealer for a peri of six D-436 H39 • - 1 * i FALSE ACCOUNTS PURCHASE III Purchase Price, Misrepresenting Tho respondent market.agency ha^n^ aciniowlcdgcd receipt of the order and notice of inquiry mu admitted that he changed a pur¬ chaser 50/ per cvrt. more for cattle them ho paid therefor and kept the difference, in addition to the re ular commission charge, and hrdn ; waived a hearing, the Secretary ordered the respondent suspended for, a period of two years, P-980 Market agency and dealer who admitted that in rendering accounts purchase of livestock purchased on order he reported the price as being hi ’her than he actually raid for the livestock and tho weight as being -renter than the actual weight, resultin ’ in his collectin ’ from the purchaser amounts in addition to his regular coin.iissi on charges, and that he also failed to give full ;.nd accurate infor¬ mation respecting his transactions, to his cl ear in,, agency, was suspended from re istrati on as a market f money and dealer for one year. 7-756; P-758 The Secretary suspended the re ’istrati on of the respondent market agency for a period of one year for the unlawful practice of rendering accounts ourchase to buyers of livestock showing the purchase price to have been 35/ per hundredweight noro them tho price paid therefor and collecting such amounts, in addition to its regular commission charge from tho buyers end dividing such amounts secretly among tho members of the market agency firm, the evidence further showing that after the accountant of tho department discovered the practice the respondent took no action toward reimbursing the purchaser for such overcharge and that the president of tho respondent coreoration did not am ear at the hoarin. r - i > r LU.lt offer any testimony on the situation. N-1158 Market agency viMated Title III of the net as amended by render- in; accounts purchase showing livestock to have boon purchased for •■rices hi ’her them tho price actually maid therefor and collecting on the basis of tho accounts purchase, resulting in tho respondent collecting more from the purchaser than tho commission rates pub¬ lished and in effect. j-1162 210 FALSE ACCOUNTS RJRCKASE III True Seller, Fed.lure to disclose Market agency which rendered accounts purchase indicating that hops had boon purchasocl from Drovers Commission Company or other con- mission companies in- two- or noro drafts, at certain weights and prices per hundredweight, while, in fact, the hops were purchased from various other sources and firms in different lots or drafts, at lower prices por hundredweight and at lesser weights, and the respondent collected on the basis of the accounts purchase, result¬ ing in overcharges to the purchaser in excess of actual cost plus the usual commission charge, violated the Act. m-407 .. market a ;o:icy which rendered an account sale covorin * sheep pur- chased by cm t. 0 oat country buyer, shov/in^ that the sale was made for the account of the owners of the livestock, violated Titlo III p the _*.ct because the sheep, havin . boon purchased fron the owners a * ■ A 1 1 by the country buyer for the market a ;cncy, di •• not, at the tine of their sal )lon ' to their owners but belonged to the respond¬ ent market a ;oncv, .3 e- : —1182 bfei bit. Misrepresentation as to -> ? j- Market agency which purchased sheep fron a commission comp my for p2,535.15, which included v 14.00 for dipping, aid immediately invoiced the sheep to a purchaser for v 2,737,22, which included the usual co.miissioa charge of ,*18.00, .^7.77 for "dipping on last order", $>l.c.00 for "dipping this order", end 510.00 for hay, and showed up on the invoice rendered the average weight as being 123*4 pounds, whereas the average weight was actually 97 pounds, and, finally, u; on the purchaser refusing to pay the mount of the invoice, settling for )2,350.00, violated Title III of the Act. b-184 Market agency and dealer suspended from registration for six months on first order aid for one year on second order for representing, on accounts purchase, the •rice to be a. re then that paid f or the livestock and for having increased the weights on the acc unts j purchase over end above the actual weights, resulting in the collection from the purchaser of mounts more then the re ular conn.ssi on caar 1-527 241 FALSE ACCOUNTS PURCHASE III height, Misrepresentation as to Market agency which rendered accounts purchase indicating that hogs had been purchased from Drovers Commission Company or other commission companies in two or more drafts, at certain weights and prices per hundredweight, while, in fact, the hogs were pur¬ chased from various other sources and firms in different lots or drafts, at lower prices per hundredweight and at lesser weights, and the respondent collected on the basis of the accounts pur¬ chase, resulting in overcharges to the purchaser in excess of actual cost plus the usual commission charge, violated the .act, D-407 Market agency and dealer who admitted that in rendering accounts purchase of livestock purchased on order he reported the price as being higher than he actually paid for the livestock end the weight as being greater then the actual weight, resulting in his collecting from the purchaser amounts in addition to his regular commission charges, end that he also failed to give full and accurate information respecting his transactions, to his clearing agency, was suspended from registration as a market agency and dealer for one year, D-75Sj D-758 FALSE ACCOUNTS SAL III A market agency which renders to shippers a.ccount sales which do not truly end completely set forth the facts of the transaction, as required by the Act and regulations issued thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture, is guilty of violating the applicable provisions of Title III of the Act and regulations issued there¬ under* D-27 Arbitrary Weight Estimates Market agency which sold a shipment of livestock owned or consigned by plural owners or consignors and did not weigh, in separate lots, the hogs of each owner or consignor, but took a. gross weight of the entire shipment and arbitrarily prorated the individual lots over the gross weight, rendering sales aecount reports to the individual owner on the basis of such arbitrary fixing of weights, violaated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Roguleafcions thereunder, it not being shown that respondent ha.d authority to make arbitrary estimates of the weights of the respective lots* D-51 Market c.gency which sold livestock of plural owners and rendered individual accounts sale to each owner, the total weight of which livestock, as shown by adding the total weights of the individual accounts sale, amounted to loss than the total a.ctue.1 weight of the livestock sold, and then arbitrarily distributed the differ¬ ence in weight between the actual weight and the weight as shorn by all of the individual a.ccounts sale to ea.ch owner in proportion to the number of hogs sold for him, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations there¬ under. D-S8 243 v FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Dockage Market agency which rendered accounts sale showing that hogs had been docked .certain numbers of pounds, whereas, in fact, the hogs were not subject to dockage nor had they boon inspected for dock¬ age in the customary end usual -way at the St. Joseph Stockyards, violated Title III of the Act. D-104 Failure to Disclose Condition of Animals The evidence indicating that both the shipper end the market agency intended to take an unfair advantage of the purchaser by withholding the fact from the purchaser that a. cholera risk was involved in the purchase of the hogs, the Secretary concluded that both the shipper end the respondent failed to exercise that measure of good faith which should characterize all transactions at public market, it being the opinion of the Secretary that in a transaction of this sort good faith would require the complete disclosure of all facts coming within the knowledge of all parties involved in the transaction. D-162 Fictitious Market agency violated Title III of 'the Act and Rules 11 end 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, by rendering an account sale upon which it appeared that 23 calves of the owner or consignor were sold in 20 separate transactions instead of in 2 transactions as was actually the ca.sc. D-50 Market agency violated the net by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice and device of making and entering upon its books of accounts, records, and memoranda false and fictitious account sales shoving sales to have been made for Joo Killor. Goo. Curtis, *7. Ryalls, etc., whereas, in truth and in fact, the sales represented by said accounts wore not mndo by respond¬ ent for any of said parties. D-287 244 FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Fictitious Market agency violated the .act by engaging in the deceptive prac¬ tice and device of procuring scale tickets and filling them out in such manner as to indicate a sale of livestock, attaching an invoice to it end presenting the scale ticket together -with the invoice, in the customary manner and form of demanding payment upon an actual sale of livestock, to a. person in order to procure Cl loan to replenish the shippers’ proceeds a.ccount from which he ha.d theretofore without author!z action made v/ithdra.wals• D-292 Market agency who rendered his shipper a. false and fictitious account sale showing a consignment of calves to have boon sold and weighed to one person at an a-grecd price, while, in fact, the market agency sold the calves to a. different person without actually weighing them and remitted to the shipper ll•50 per cwt. more than the price actually received, thereby refunding and remitting to the shipper a portion of its commission rates and charges, suspended by the Secretary for a period of six months. D-357 245 v FALSE ACCOUNTS SiJLE III Number of Livestock Sold, Misroprosontr.ti on as to Market agency which rendered an account sale to the owner or con¬ signor shearing the number of livestock sold to be more or less 'than the number actually sold violated Title III of the Act end Rules 11 end 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder. D-53; D-60 Market agency which rendered on accoun.t sale to on owner or con¬ signor showing the sale of 7 live hogs at §10.00 per cvrfc. end one dead hog at 25^ per cwt. when it, in fact, sold 8 live hogs at §10.00 per cwt. end remitted on the basis of the account sale, violated Title III of the Act end: Rules 11 end 17 of the General Rules end Regulations thereunder, oven though respondent later remitted to the owner the difference of jl9.50 to account for the true sale, the evidence showing that the later additional remittance was made only after on auditor of the Packers end Stockyards Administration had visited respondent’s office for the purpose of inspecting its books. D-54 Respondent which rendered on various occasions accounts sale to owners or consignors of livestock in which the number of live¬ stock sold did not agree with the actual number thereof sold excused from violation of the Act when the evidonee adduced at the hearing indicated that the accounts sale, as rendered, agreed with either the scale record or the loading or unloading count, the discrepancy originally occurring between the scale record and the unloading count end not because ■of error on the part of respondent; the evidence showing further that the discrepancies occurred in the formative period of respondent’s business when it was dovc 1 oping irith cxtrnordin ally largo for on organization of experience. ary rapidity and was exceptiun¬ its then limited size end D-57 246 FijLbri nCCOUi^TO Sjj-fiii III Number of Livestock Sold, Misrepresentation r.s to Market agency vrhich rendered cm account sale showing tho sale of 62 hogs at *7.80 per cwt., remitting on tho basis of tho account sale while, in fact, the shipment consisted of 63 hogs and were sold at 07.75 per cwt., violated Titlo III of tho Act end Rules 11 and 17 of tho General Rules and Regulations thereunder* D-74 Market agency which received a report from the shipper that tho number of hogs shipped to be sold was 163 and reported back to the shipper that 163 hogs wore sold, whereas, in fact, the ship¬ ment contained only 150 hogs end the purchaser received only 160 , violated Title III of the Act. D-88 nogs Respondent, while acting as a market agency which rendered an account sale to the owner which stated tho total weight of a consignment of 53 hogs to bo 11,575 pounds, while, in fact, 51 of the hogs weighed 11,575 pounds end the respondent withhold two of the hogs end did not account for thorn, thus remitting to the owner less them he was entitled to, violated Title III of the Act. D-389 Market agency violated tho net by rendering cn account sale to a shipper showing that it sold 50 hogs f,r tho shipper at :';l2 per cwt., while, in fact, it sold only 40 hogs at 012 per cwt., resulting in ,n overpayment to the shipper. D-521 247 \ Fi-LSB ACCOUNTS SALE III Pecuniary Interest, Failure to Discloso Market agency which sold livestock to c. person in whose business it had a pecuniary interest, but which did not disclose such fact or the purchaser on the account sale rendered to the owner, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11, 12, and 17 thereunder, D-55 Market agency which sold ho 0 s to F. G. Vogt a Sons, Roe., without to lisclosing on the account sale that it owned certificates of in¬ debtedness in the amount of ..pi50,000 end 1200 shares of the common stock of said purchaser, violated Title III of the Act and Rule 12 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, by failing to disclose to the seller the pecuniary interest of respondent in the purchaser. D-86 Market agency which sold 45 head of sheep to a. shocp salesmen in its employ, and rendered on account sale to tho owner of the shocp which did not state the none of the purchaser of tho sheep, violated Title III of the Act and Rulo 12 of the General Rules and Regula¬ tions thereunder. D-88 Market agency which rendered in account sale showing hogs to have been "woighed-up" or sold to itself at 88.50 per cwt., remitting on the basis of said account sale, while, in fact, tho hogs were sold to a stockholder in and salesman for it a.t £8.40 per cwt.. viol rated the Act, D-100 Respondent market agency which knowingly made fictitious or - "pretended” sa.lcs of hogs to D. B, Made or "Hunter”, said Wa.de or "Hunter” having never seen said hogs or bid on any of thorn, and rendered reports to shippers showing "Wade” or "Hunter" to have been the purchaser, whereas, in fact, the true purchasers were either a. partner or 2 employees of respondent who immediately resold said hogs cat a. profit to themselves, violated Title III of the Act. D-104 248 FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Pecuniary Interest, Failure to Disclose Market agency which sold livestock to corporations or companies in which it had a pecuniary interest, but failed to report such pecuniary interest on the j'xt, ;ho account sale, violated Title III of D-130 Market agency which rendered an account sale failing to disclose his pecuniary interest in the buyer of the livestock sold violated Title III of the Act. D-197 A market agency which violates Regulation 12 of the rules end regulations promulgated under the Act, by failing to report on accounts sale that the purchaser of livestock is one in whom the market agency has a pecuniary interest, is not excused from such violation even though the evidence might show that the market agency acted in good faith in protecting remittances of shipments of cattle oil a weak or declining market 'and that in no instance were any cattle so purchased by the mirkot agency at a price less than the highest bid for the cattle on the day of the sale. D-1117 A market agency violates Title III of the Act as amended when it renders accounts sale covering shipments of livestock consigned to it on commission, but fails to disclose that the purchaser of the livestock is one in whom the market agency has a financial interest. • ' D~1213 249 FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Plural Owners, Failure to Show True Amount Each Entitled to 7'Ihen a market agency sells a shipment of livestock belonging to plural owners and renders a prorate sheet showing that 'cattle of one owner sold for less than the actual amount thereof, and cattle of another owner of the same shipment sold for more than the actual amount thereof, but fails to take steps to correct the prorate sheet and accounts sale, the market agency violates Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Piules and Regulations thereunder. D-49 Respondent market agency received from a shipping association a shipment consisting of two carloads of hogs, tho livestock of the first carload and the livestock of the second carload having no common owner but tho livestock of each carload belonging to sev¬ eral individual owners. The firdt carload of hogs weighed 16,400 pounds at the time of sale, but tho total weight as shown upon the individual accounts sale rendered by respondent was only 16,225 pounds. The difference of 175 pounds between the actual weight paid- for by the purchaser end the weight as reported by the re¬ spondent was added to the total weight of tho second carload of hogs and prorated among tho individual owners thereof, resulting in the owners of the first carload receiving .^.9.89 less then the actual amount paid by tho purchasers, and tho owners of the second carload receiving $11.40 moro then tho actual amount paid by tho purchasers. The Secret cry held tho respondent to have violated Title III of the Act. D-88 Market agency which sold hogs and cattle of plural owners and rendered individual accounts sale which did not truly show tho amount of money ouch of the owners was entitled to receive violated Title III of tho net. D-88 Market agency which, when accounting for livestock sold for plural owners, arbitrarily increased tho price per cwt. on individual accounts sale reports to a rate sufficient to make the total amount of money shown on said individual accounts sale reports equal to the returns from tho sale of said hogs end an amount in addition thereto, retaining the additional amount, violated Title III of the Act. D-88 \ 250 FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Reporting Price Different Them Price Received for Livestock A market ngency which renders on account of sale to .the seller showing that one cow sold for jit .50 per cwt. whereas, in fact, it sold for 14.00 per cwt., and throe heifers sold ..for ‘4.55 per cwt. whcr.cas,. in fact, they sold for A 4.50 per cvrt., violates Title III of tlie Act and 'Rule 17 of the General Rules and Regula¬ tions thereunder oven though the total amounts of the reported sale ond of the actual sale arc the some. D-28 ■ A market agency which;-sells four steers weighing 2,830 pounds for $2.75 per cwt. hat shows on the account sale to the seller that the steers were sold for f3.50 per cwt. is guilty of render¬ ing false accounts in violation of ‘the Act and of Rule 17 of the General Rules aid Regulations thereunder. D-29 When respondent commission merchant rendered an account sale in which it stated that one cow weighing 745 pounds was sold for $3.75 per cwt. and the mount paid therefor by the purchaser was given as j27.93, whereas, in fact, the cow sold for )3.25 per cwt. and the purchaser paid therefor $24.21 end, in another instance, the commission company reported cjn an account sale throe cows weighing 3,340 pounds as selling for $3.90 per cwt. end the total amount paid by the purchaser was given as $130.26, whereas, in fact, the throe cows sold for $4.00 per cwt. end the purchaser paid RL33.30 for them, the commission company violated Title III of the Act and the General Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. D-30 A market agency which sells 52 hogs at y>7• 50 per cwt. for a total price of ^621.00, ;.nd 10 hogs weighing 3100 pounds at 47 *50 per cwt. for a total amount of 4252.50, but renders an account salo to the shipping association which does not state such facts end figures but states that 54 hogs weighed 8730 pounds and sold at $7.60 per cwt. for a total amount of $663.48, and that 8 hogs weighed 2650 pounds and sold at 47.20 for a total price of 4190.80, violated .Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder by failing to report a. true account of the sales. D-31 0 251 FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Reporting Price Different Than Price Received for Livestock A commission company which sold 37 ho^s weighing ,,.6,40 per cwt, for a total purchase price of ,-.568 an account sale to the shipper association 'which hogs 'weighed 8,740 pounds and that the purchaser them was actually paid for them, and, at a later the difference of 09,50 to the manager of the shi violated Title III of the Act end Rules 11 and 17 Rules and Regulations thereunder. 8,890 pounds at ,9G end rendered stated that the paid a9,60 loss date, remitted pper association, of the General D-32 Market agency which sold a steer weighing 1,130 pounds at 35,00 per cvrfc, for the total purchase price of )56,50, but rendered cn account sode to the shipper that said steer was sold at ,^4,50 per curb, for a total purchase price of 350,85, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules caulations thereunder by misrepresenting to the owners or consignors the price received therefor 0 D-32 Respondents engaged in buying end selling livestock in commerce on a commission basis violated Title III of the Act end Rules 11 » and 17 thereunder, by failing to report on account sales rendered the total amounts of the purchase nric< the livestock, changing the difference between the tietual price received and the price rendered on the account sales to its Hog Speculation Account, D-35 Market agency who sold livestock for a price less then the price reported to shipper on its account sado and remitted to the shipper at the rate reported on the account sado violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the' General Rules end Regulations there¬ under by misrepresenting to the owners consignors receives, uhoreior, D-45'j D-46 ; D-48: the price D-43; D-50 5 D-54j D~55j D-58. D-60| D-62; D~65j D-68- D-69j D-70* D-72 j D-74j D-78; D-102 Market agonev violated Title III and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder by misrepresenting on the accounts sale to the owners or consignors the true price received for live¬ stock sold, D-47 252 FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Reporting Price Different Them Price Received for Livestock Market agency violated Title III of the net' and, Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules end Regulations thereunder by reporting on the accounts sale, to the owner or consignor of livestock, net proceeds in cm amount loss than the amount received for the actual- sale thereof* D-48; D-48; D-50; D-53; D-54; D-60; D-62; D-67; D-69; D-102; D-120; D-1169. Market agency which rendered an account sale to the owner or con¬ signor of livestock, in which the gross weight and price per cwt. received was correctly stated but the total amount received was miscalculated, and remitted to the owner on the basis of the amount misstated in the account sale violated Title III of the Act* D-50 Market agency which rendered to the consignor cm account sale in which it was stated a lot of six hogs was sold at §9*90 per cwt, whereas, in‘'fact, the purchaser. Swift & Company, paid only §8*50 per cwt* for said hogs, one! remitted on the basis of the rate stated in the account sale, causing an over-remittance of §34*72, held excused from such violation of the Act, the evidence showing that the scale ticket from which the bookkeeper obtained his figures was erroneously narked ”)9*90 per hundred”; the evidence showing further that the market agency made am attempt to recover back the over-payment from the owners and shipper but was unsuccessful* D-52 Market agency which rendered an account sale showing that 70 calves wore sold at' 8^ per pound while, in fa.ct, GO of said calves were sold at ,.7.50 per cwt. and 10 of sedd calves afore sold at ,,10.50 per cwt., said market agency remitting on the basis of tho account sale, violated Title III of tho Act and Rules 11 and 17 of tho General Rules emd Re gul add on s thereunder. D-60 253 false accounts sale hi Reporting Price Difforont Then Price Received, for .Livested Market agency which rendered, accounts sale to owners or consignors which stated that livestock was sold at various prices per cart. whereas, in fact, said livestock was sold at one price per cart, only, collecting by this device of marking the price thereof up and down a greater compensation than the rates and charges specified in the schedules filed with the Packers end Stockyards Administration, violated Title III of the Act end Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder. D-64 Market agency which rendered an account sale covering sale of a shipment of livestock, which showed that 10 heifers were sold for ,•8.00 per cwt. raid 7 heifers wore sold at- ,/6.75 per cwt 0 , remitting on the basis of the account sale, while, in fact, 17 heifers were sold at 07.50 per end:., violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder. D-72 Market agency which rendered an account sale showing the sale of three steers at:,|>7.50 per cwt;., three heifers at 06.85 per cwt., and five heifers at a5.50 per cwt., remitting on the basis of the account sale, while, in fact, the throe animals accounted for as steers wore heifers and all the animals sold for prices different than those listed on the account sale, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 end 17 of the General Rules end Regulations thereunder. D-72 Market ;oncy which rendered 3 aj that a ship- an account sale statin' mont of hogs was sold, in several lots at varying Prices, ronittin on the basis of the account sale, while, in fact, the shipment wa sold in one lot at one price, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules end Regulations thereunder. D-72 Market agency which rendered accounts sale showing shipments of hogs to have been sold in lots of varying numbers at varying prices, remitting on the basis of the account sale, while, in fact, the shipments wore sold in lots of different numbers and at different prices then those reported on the accounts sale, violated Title III of the Act ana. Rules 11 and 17 of the General thereunder. D-75 Rules and Regulations 254 CO GO FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Reporting Price Different Than Prico Received for Livestock Market agency which rendered an account sale stating that various lots of hogs were sold for prices loss than the actual prices thereof, remitting on the basis of tho account sale mid later remitting the difference to the owner, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations ther cunder• D-7 8 Market agency which rendered on account sale showing livestock to have been sold at a higher price per cwt, than tho purchaser paid for it and increased the market expenses incident to the sale of said shipment to amount to the difference between the oricc actually received end the price reported on the account sale, keeping the difference as a marketing expense, did not truly state tho facts pertaining to the sale of tho hogs involved and violated Title III of the Act* D-88 Market agency which rendered individual accounts sale to plural owners of a shipment of hogs and stated in some of the accounts sale that the bulk of good hogs contained in said shipment sold at 86*70 per cwt,, in other of the accounts sale that the bulk of good hogs sold at 06.65 per cwt,, end on still other of tho accounts sale that the bulk of good ho^s sold at a6.15 or 86*05 per cwt,, whereas, in fact, the bulk of good hogs sold for (>6,60, violated the Act, D-88 Market agency which rendered accounts sale to owners or consignors whioh stated that livestock was sold at a price more or loss than the purchaser paid for it, remitting on the basis of tho accounts sale, violated Title III of the. Act. D-89; D-90; D—119; D-121; D-410. Market agency which rendered accounts sale showing that hogs wore "weighed-up” or sold to itself at certain prices whereas, in fact, tho hogs were sold to other purchasers at lower prices, the agency remitting to the owners or consignors on tho basis of the accounts sale, violated Title III jf the ^ct. D-91 Market agency which rendered an account sale stated that it weighed 101 pounds at the time 12wy per pound, remitting on tho basis of tho in fact, tho calf weighed 102 pounds and soil violated tho Act, for one calf which of sale md sold for account sale while, for loft por pound, D-94 255 v FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III Reporting Price Different Than Price Received for Livestock Respondent market agency which rendered cn account sale showing that hogs wore sold at £9,25 per cwt. while, in fact, said hogs vrero sold for <;9.35 per cwt,, end, in a letter later, respondent stated, that the shipper had been "recompensed to the extent of v2,54, which is the difference in price" but introduced no fur¬ ther evidence to explain the action, violated Title III of the Act. D-99 Market nicy which rendered been "weighod-up" or, sold 1 1 on the basis of said account sold to o. stockholder in and per cwt., violated the Act. an account sale showing hogs to have itself at £8.50 per cwt., remitting salo, while, in fact, the hogs woro salesman for respondent at £8.40 B-100 Market agency which rendered a first account sale which correctly stated that 61 hogs wore sold to C. Kiinck Packing Company cab £8.75 per cwt., then rendered a second account sale which incor¬ rectly stated that the some hogs were "weighod-up" or sold to it at J8.85 per cwt. end remitted to the owner on the basis of the second account sale, violated the Act. D-100 •Yhon market agency rendered an account sale shovdnj that 24 heifers wore sold at £4.90 per cwt. and did not state the name of the pur¬ chaser thereof, while, in fact, the heifers were sold at )5.00 per cwt, to the market agency itself, the market agency violated tho Act by not remitting the entire proceeds of sale and by failing to disclose the true purchaser. D-118 "When market agency rendered accounts sale covering hog shipments which stated tho price per cwt, to have been more in some instances, end loss in other instances, than the price actually paid by the purchaser, rosultin ; in either overpayments or underpayments to tho seller, .aid in addition thereto showed initials end numbers representing the grades of certain hogs but did not show tho none of tho purchasers m the accounts stated, the agency violated the Act. ‘ D-118 Haricot agency which received and accepted for sale on commission a shipment of 28 steers from one owner and a shipment of 26 steers from a socond owner, and deducted 5/ per cwt, from tho procoods of sale of the first owner and added the deduction on to the procoods of tho sale of tho second owner, thereby remitting loss then the sale price to tho first owner end more than tho sa.lc price to tho second owner, violated Title III of tho Act. D-197 25S FALSE ACCOUNTS SiXE III Reporting Price Different Then Price Received for Livestock Market cogency who rendered his shipper a fc.lso end fictitious account s ole showing a consignment‘of calves to have been sold end weighed to one person at an agreed price, while, in fact, it sold the calves to a different person without actually weighing then and remitted to the shipper 01*50 per cwt• mere than the price ‘actually received, thereby refunding end remitting to the shipper a portion of its commission rates end chcrgcs, suspended by the Secretary for a period of six months. D-357 Market agency which rendered accounts sale to owners or consignors showing that livestock heed, been sold to fictitious nemos, while, in fact, it had boon sold to a particular individual, showing its weight to bo less than its actual weight end showing the price per cwt. to bo less then the actual price per cwt, received, remitting to the owners or consignors on the basis of the accounts sale, resulting in underpayments to the owners or consignors, violated Title III of the Act, D-368 Respondent who, while acting .as a market agent, rendered an account sale to the owner which showed that hogs had boon sold at $5,50 per cwt, to K. C, & Company, remitting on the basis of the account sale, while, in fact, respondent weighed up the hogs to itself end. later in the day sold the hogs to K. C, & Company at 05.75 per cwt., resulting in a profit to respondent of 018,59 in addition to his regular commission charge of ■.15,00, violated Title III of the Act. D-389 Market agency violated the Act by rendering accounts sale showing that hogs consigned by shippers weighed loss end wore sold for more then was actually the ease, resulting in overpayments to the shipper. D-521 Sox of Livestock, Misrepresentation as to Market agency which rendered an account sale showing the sale of 3 steers at §7.50 per cwt., 3 heifers at 06.85 per cwrfc», and 5 heifers at §5.50 per cwt., remitting on the basis of the account salo, while, in fact, the 3 animals accounted for as steers were heifers end all the animals sold for prices different than those listed on the account sale, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 end 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, D~72 257 v FALSE ACCOUNTS SiJjE III Truo Purchaser, Failure to Disclose "When a market agency registered under the Act reports to A that A’s sheep wore sold to C and deducts its coimission as if for an original sale, whereas, in fact, tlic sheep wore sold by the market agency to E, then to C, and no commission was charged B for the resale to C, but the commission which would ordinarily be charged to B was, in fact, the commission charged to A, and the profits made by B on the resale to C were turned over to the market agency, the market agency indulged in dealer practices violating the applic¬ able provisions of the Act, rules end regulations issued pursuant thereto. D-27 Market agency violated Title III ' f the _ct end Mules 11 end 17 of the General Rules end Re, ulatims thereunder when it "weighed ui O" ;" or "sold" livestock to itself end rendered an account sale to tho owner or consignor which did not show itself to be the pur¬ chaser • D-40: D-41: D-42 D-43* D-44; D-46 Market agency which rondcrod an c,ccount salo failing to show to whom tho livestock wore sold or stating that tho salo was made to ono other than tho true purchaser violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of tho General Rules and Regulations there¬ under. D-53; D-60» D-62 Market agency which sold livestock to a person in whoso business it haul a. pecuniary interest, but did not disclose such fact or the purchaser on tho account sale rendered to the owner, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11, 12, and 17 thereunder. D-55 an one y j %/ lich rendered accounts sale to various owners or Market - > V consignors showing the name of tho purchasers to be "Brr.inard", "Pittsburgh Packing Plant", "Zollor Co.", and other such names, whereas, in fa.ct, the livestock was "weighod-up" or sold to tho respondent market agency itself, violated Title III of tho Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thcro- undor. D-58 Respondent’s violation of Title III of the Act by incorrectly stating on accounts salo rendered to owners or consignors the name of the truo purchaser or buyer excused, the respondent having submitted in vritirn a satisfactory explanation of tho apparent violations, end an invostigati on by tho livestock supervisor having substantially corroborated tho explanation filed by tho respondent. D-6S 258 FihSE ACCOUNTS SihE III True Purchaser, Failure to Discloso Market agency ■which rendered accounts sale for shipments of horses and mules, without disclosing the name of the purchaser of the animals, violated the Act# D-80 Market agency which sold 45 head of sheep to a sheep salesman in its employ, and rendered an account sale to the owner of the sheep which did not state the none of the purchaser of the sheep, violated Title III of the Act end xiule 12 of the General Rules end Regula¬ tions thereunder# D-88 Market agency which rendered an account sale ciation which showed that hogs wore sold to name used in said market agency’s tmokkccoin the livestock which is "weighed-up” or sold not otherwise report that the hogs i, r cro sold Title III of the Act# to a. shipping as so- P# Dold, a fictitious g record to designate to itself,' and did to itsolf violated D-90 Market cogency which rendered accounts sale shovdng that hogs wore "woighed-up" or sold to itself at certadn prices v/horous, in feet, the hogs were sold to other purchasers at lower prices, the e-gcncy remitting to the owners or consignors on the basis of the a.ccounts salty, violated Title III of the net# D-91 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by reporting on the account sale to the shipper the purchaser f s.name as John Doe instead of shovdng the purchaser T s true name. D-98 Market agency which rendered an account sale shovdng 15 hogs to have boon sold to Reading Abattoir Company, while, in fact, said hogs wero weighed to "Matt G," for the Dan ah ay Pa.cld.ng Company, violated Title III of the Act# D-99 Respondent market agency v/hich rendered a first account sale which correctly stated that 61 hogs wore sold to C# Klinck Packing Com¬ pany at „8.75 per cwt#, then rendered a second account sale which incorrectly stated that the same hogs were "woighed-up" or sold to respondent at ,.8.85 per cwt#, and remitted to the owner on the ba.sis of the second account sale, violated the net. D-100 Respondent market agency which rendered an account sale shovdng hogs to have been "woighod-up" or sold to itself at '"'8.50 per cwt., roroitting on the basis of said account sale, while, in fact, the hogs were sold to a. stockholder in and salesman for respondent at (’8.40 per cwt., violated the Act. D-100 259 FiiSE ACCOUNT SALE III # True Parchaser, Failure to Disclose Respondent market agency which rendered an account sale for hops which showed the initials only of tho purchaser, whereas, in fact, the full name should have been shown, violated Title III of the act. D-102 Market a.jency which rendered written accounts sale shoving various consignments of livestock to have been sold to ”11. W.", whereas, in fact, the livestock was "vrai ^hod-up" or sold to itself, vio- lated Title III of the Act. D-103 Respondent market agency which knorringly made fictitious or '’pretended” sales of hops to D. B. Hade or ”IIuntcr”, said Wade or ’’Hunter" having never seen said hops or bid on any of then, ar.d rendered reports to shippers showing Wade or "Hunter” to have been the purchaser, whereas, in fact, the true purchasers ’.Tore either a partner or 2 employees of respondent who immediately resold said profit to themselves, violated Title III of the Act. D-104 hogs at When market agency rendered, accounts coverin-’ horn shipments which stated the price x ,cr cwt. to have boon more in some instances, ,and less in other instances, than the price actually paid by the purchaser, resulting in either overpayments or underpayments to the seller, and in addition thereto showed initials and numbers representing the grades of certain hogs but did not show the none of the purchasers on tho accounts stated, the agency violated tho Act. D-118 When a market agency rendered a written account sale covering a shipment of 26 ,,-tt w * »- a. a. \y wv » * jl o. v \y VAO. A v kj V/ v/ \/ w v «k _ju ^ cattle which stated that the cattle were "weighed- up" or sold to itself, while, in fact, tho cattle were sold to various purchasers, it violated tho Act by failing to disclose D-118 the true name of tho purch o.s or s When a market agency rendered an account sale showing that 24 heifers were sold at ‘4.90 per cwt. and did not state the none of the purchaser thereof, while, in fact, the heifers were sold at '5.00 per cwt. to the market agency itself, the market agency violated the Act by not remitting the entire proceeds of sale and by failing to disclose tho true purchaser. D-118 m FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III True Purchaser, Failure to Disclose Alien respondent market agency rendered accounts sale for livestock '•■/hieh stated that purchaser was ’’Kelly" whereas, in fact, one consignment was sold to tho A. A. Crawford Commission Company and another consignment was sold to Pan Clancy, respondent violated the Act by failing to disclose the true purchaser of tho livestock, D-119 Alien a market agency rendered-accounts sale to shippers showing livestock to have been sold for a price less than the purchaser actually paid, resulting in undcr-romittances to the sellers, end on some of tho accounts sale stated that the livestock was sold to "Morgan" while, in fact, the true purchasers were other people, it violated Title III of tho Act by misrepresenting tho true price received and by fed ling to disclose tho true purchaser, D-120 Tho respondent market agency having satisfactorily explained in an answer filed in tho proceedings that the violations alleged in the complaint of underpayments to shippers, failure to correctly de¬ scribe the names of the purchasers, and failure to charge end collect from tho shipper the rode of commission specified in the schedule of rodcs and charges filed by the agency end in effect at tho time of the transaction were tho result of errors, and said explanation having been corroborodod by further investigation of tho Secretary, tho Secretary ordered tho proceedings dismissed without pr e judic c• D-12 6 'Then respondent market agency rendered accounts sale which stated various persons other then itself to be the purchasers of the live¬ stock ed a certain price per pound end remitted on the basis of scad accounts se.lo, while, in fe.ct, the livestock was "weighod-up" or sold to itself ed the price stated on tho accounts sale, end on tho following day or a fow days thoroaftor it sold send livestock to cn entirely now purchaser ed an increased price per pound, it violated Title III of tho Act by failing to disclose tho true pur¬ chaser and by anting as dealer idthout hewing registered as such. D-130 Market e*goncy violated tho Act by reporting to shippers horses were sold to "Cassady" while, in fe.ct, they wore itself. that their sold to D-360 261 FALSE ACCOUNTS SiiE III True Purchaser, Failure to Disclose Haricot agency which rendered accounts sale to oi/ners or consignors showing that livestock had boon sold to fictitious names, while, in fact,, it had been sold to a particular individual, showing its wei ght to be less than its actual weight and showing the price per cwt. to be less them the actual price per cwt. received, ro- nitting to the owners or consignors on the basis of the accounts sale, resulting in underpayments to the owners or consignors, violated Title III of the Act. D-368 Respondent who, while acting as a market agent, rendered an account sale to the owner which showed that hogs had boon sold at ,>5.50 per cvrt. to K. C. & Company, remitting on the basis of the account sale, while, in fact, respondent weighed up the hogs to itself end later in the day sold the hogs to K. C. & Company at v 5.75 per cwt., resulting in a profit to respondent of v 18.69 in addition to his regular commission charge of v 15.00, violated Title III of the Act. P-389 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by reporting on an account sale one hog to have been sold to "Boyd i& L.” whereas, in fact, the hog was sold to L. Miller. D-410 Market e„goncy violated Title III of the Act by rendering accounts sale showing that livestock had been sold to ”L. S. Hogs’ 1 and charging commissions and other incidental expenses of selling while, in fact, the livestock was weighed up to the account of and title was taken by itself, and no selling service was per¬ formed by it. • D-521 The Secret any issued a cease and desist order against respondent market agency, Tobin & Shannon, a corporation, for having sold a carload of lambs on commission to ci packer without having disclosed the name of the packer to the shipper but, instead, having rendered an account sale to the shipper stating that a. third party had pur¬ chased all the lambs, while, in fact, the third party purchased only a. part of the shipment. D-603 262 FALSE ACCOUNTS SALE III True Purchaser, Failure to Disclose A market agency which rendered on account sale covering a shipment of cattle stating that the cattle had been sold to "Gains & Roy" when, in fact, the cattle had boon sold to a dealer under a secret agreement whereby an employee and part owner of the market agency would split profits or divide the losses upon resale, violated Title III of the Act, oven though the evidence indicated that the livestock were in very poor condition, that the shipper knew the livestock to bo in very poor condition, and that the shipper, after he discovered the agreement, had no objection thereto. D-1041 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by reporting on an accounts sale that livestock was sold to "Green" when, in fact, the livestock was sold to another# D-1108 Market agency which rendered accounts sale to shippers of livestock showing that the livestock had been sold to "Northern Trade" which was, in effect, a fictitious name for itself, and later resold the livestock at a profit but covered the profit into its "Northern Trade" account cud did not report such profit to the shipper, vio¬ lated the Act by engaging in business as a dealer without having secured a license to do so, D-1117 The Secretary entered a eeaso cud desist order against the respond¬ ent market agency for having rendered an account sale covering a shipment of livestock, which showed that the livestock were sold to the Lake Cattle Company when, in effect, they were sold to Li. J. Cook & Sons# D-1143 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by reporting that four steers were sold to "R & E" whereas, in fact, the sale was made to Swift & Company, thereby failin^ to give the shipper the true name of the purchaser of the livestock. D-1169 A market agency violates Title III of the Act as emended by rendering accounts sale to shippers of livestock showing that sales on commission were made to "Order No. 2", etc#, when, in fact, the sales were not so made. D-1213 2c r* r 7 Oo 5 FALSE ACCOUNTS S.LE III Weight, ixisropres entation as to Market agency violated Title III of the Act oncl Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder by knowingly renderin'; accounts sale to the aimers or consignors of livestock which showed the livestock to weigh loss than it actually weighed at the tine of sale thereof, D-47 Market agency which .rendered on account sale to the owner or con¬ signor for livestock sold, in which the gross weight of livestock was stated to be less than the actual weight, and ronittod and accounted for the shipment on the basis of the account sale, violated Title III of the Act, •50; A-54; D-72. D-94; A—327; b-368; D-521 Market agency which rendered on account sale for one calf which stated that it weighed 101 pounds at tho tine of sale and sold for 12-p^ per pound, remitting on tho basis of the account sale, while, in fact, tho calf weighed 102 pounds and sold for 13^ per pound, violated tho Act, D-94 Dcalor who/on various occasions used tho unjust and deceptive practice or device of placing his foot upon the scales of live¬ stock being weighed, causing tho weight of said livestock to appear to be noro than it actually was and rendering accounts on tho basis of such apparent weights, violated Title III of tho Act. ' D-198 Market agency who rendered his shipper a false and fictitious account sale showin 0 a consignment of calves to have boon sold and weighed to one person at an agreed price, while, in fact, it sold tho calves to a different person without actuallv vei'diirw then, and remitted to the shipper 1.50 oar cert, more then, the price actually received, thereby refunding and remitting to tho shipper a portion of its commission rates and charges, suspended by tho Secretary for a period of six months. D-357 Respondent market agency violated Title III of the Act by weigh¬ ing up to itself and’ talcing title to livestock at a certain weight, remitting on tho basis of the weight as shown at tho tine the live¬ stock was weighed up to- the respondent, while, in fact, there was a gain of 20 pounds in tho livestock at the tine tho respondent sold it, resulting in a profit of v 2.40 to respondent which should have been remitted to the shi ppor. D-521 264 HEARINGS III Ch eng e of Place of Upon request of the interested parties, the hearing was changed fron Op den, Utah, to Salt Lake City, Utah, on April 26, 1935, notice of such change of place of hearing theretofore having been given to respondents* D-456 end 457 Dismissal, Discontinuance, ancl Termination of It appearing. after cn informal conference between res' ondonts end representatives of the Packers end Stockyards Administration, that respondents would cooperate with the Administration in in audit of its records in order to determine the reasonableness of its feeding charges and would, in the meantime, reduce its proposed tariff rate from 41*30 per bushel for corn to Cl.10 per bushel, the rate of the former tariff schedule, tho Secretary ordered the proceedings to be vaca.ted, sot aside, and discontinued. D-4 That part of the inquiry relating to the reasonableness end lawful¬ ness of proposed rates end char :cs on livestock "planted and resold” in the commission division of the stockyards of tho respondent company having presented substantially the sau:io questions as those considered in the Secretary’s order rendered in Docket No. 116, the Secretary concluded that for the reason stated in Docket No. 116 tho proceedings in this docket should bo dismissed without prejudice, subject to reopening on order of the Secretary. D-6 Although the Board of Directors of the South Omaha Livestock Traders Exchange passed a resolution to tho effect that the rowoigh charge in question should be allowed to remain as then in effect end that no complaint against tho charge be filed with tho Packers end Stock- yards Administration, it was deemed by the Sccrcte.ry to be inadvis¬ able to dismiss the proceedings for the rce.son that one dealer did not join in tho request end for the additional rce.son the.t the public interest was involved. D-6 265 \ HBiJlINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of The Secretary ordered that the horrin 0 vri»th respect to the riyht to reparation by the complainant traders for the return of certain rewoi.'h char ;cs nnid under orotost should be ; :i¥en to the traders, but that the hominy wi th respect to the r e as on ab 1 en e s s and lawful¬ ness of the rcwoi.yh chmycs in question could' not be finally deter¬ mined until a hearing had ■ been had on the yonoral inquiry mth respect to the reasonableness and lawfulness of all ra.tcs and char yes of the respondent stockyard company, and that the proceedings with respect to the ycncra.l inquiry should be;dismissed without prejudice, subject to bqiny reopened upon notice to. the respondent, pondiny preliminary i'n-vestiyationa.l work 4 D-7 The complai.nah.ts for reparation for the payment of alloyed discrim¬ inatory rov/ci 0 h charycs ,ma.de by tile respondent stocky an-is company haviny failed to prove, with reasona.bio. certainty, that the rcwoiyh choryos Wore paid by them and not passed on to the next purchaser and, hence, that they suffered damayc, the Secretary, ordered that the complaint for reparation on account of the .'aileyed discrimina¬ tion be dismissed. .. '_ D-7 Pro'cccdiny discontinued and termina.ted vdthout prejudice to respond¬ ent when proposed unreasonable tariff schedule was withdrawn and a new tariff schodulo with same ra.tcs and charycs a.s former tariff schedule ,was filed with the Pa.ckers, one! Stockyards hdministration« . ' • ' • - D-21: D-56: D-61 Hoariny dismis-sod and terminated without prejudice upon respondent filiny mth Secretary a. new and satisfactory tariff schedule super¬ seding a.ll previous schedules. ■ •' D-23 ;. 1 Pursuant to Examiner *.s re< 5 oi.f.londation, the Secretary'-dismissed-.the proceediny wdthout prejudice, subject to being reopened upon his. order and duo notice thereof to the,respondent. D-24 Procoedin *s a.yadnst id chi yarn Central Railroad Connenv dismissed vd thout prejudice• D-2 5 Procecdinys ayadnst Now York Central Railroad Company dismissed •without prejudice. m~26 26S HEARINGS III \ Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Ter,dilation of It appearing to the Secretary that rebates of commissions by a •market agency, without any proper or legal consideration therefor, had been properly and satisfactorily explained, he ordered the proceeding dismissed. D-36 Complainants and respondents having appeared at the hearing ordered by the Secretary and having filed in the record an agreement or stipulation, the terms of which effected a settlement of the dif¬ ferences between tho parties with respect to the use of a certain auction pavilion, the Secretary ordered the proceedings discontinued. D-59 Market agency'having' submitted in writing, pursuant to order of the Secretary, a satisfactory explanation of tho apparent violation of Title III of tho Act by rendering an account sale vrhich showed that •13 hogs were sold to "Cudy”, while, in fact, tho hogs were sold to '’Garry”, tho Secretary ordered the proceedings discontinued. D—63 Respondent, pursuant to order by tho Secretary, having satisfactor¬ ily explained tho apparent violations referred to in tho complaint, and such explanations having boon corroborated by the livestock the Secretary ordered the proceedings discontinued. D-66 supervisor. The alleged violations as sot forth in the satisfactorily explained by respondent and complaint having been by cm investigation made with respect thereto by the Secretary, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-93- D-109; D-110; D-lll; D-112; D-113; D-128. Ordered by the Socretr,ry that so much of the complaint a.s consti¬ tutes a repetition of the charges in the complaint in Docket Ho. 81 be dismissed* D-101 267 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of It appearing fron tho ovidonee that respondent Gross cancelled his as a market agency on September 1, 1923, end that the rogistra.tion violations charged in tho complaint occurred prior to the date of the cancellation of registration end could only have boon done by a market agency, respondent Gross having subsequently registered and now operating as a dealer, the Secretory ordered tho proceed¬ ings dismissed without prejudice, with the rosorva.tion that a notice of inquiry nay be issued again on said complaint in tho event respondent again operates as a. market agency. D-105 It a.ppoaring that respondent Fort Worth Stockyard Company, at the suggestion of tho Examiner, modified Section 9, subdivision (l) of its regulations of Tariff No. 3 on file rdth the Secretary of Agriculture, which required that any person, firm, or corporation doing business at the stockyards be bonded in an amount not loss than 5,000 to the extent that the amount of tho bond required by respondent should bear relation to the normal obligations of the dealers amd market agencies to the respondent, and it a.ppoaring that such modified requirements and such bond is consistent with tho regulations promulgated by the Secret cry end in accordance with the- amendment to the t r^ \- J.1.C u effective July 1, 1924, and it appearing that no exceptions to such amendment wore filed by any dealer or market agency, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-106 The complainant having expressed a. desire to withdraw the complaint alleging that respondent was attempting to charge complainant excessive and unjust rental for office spa.ee at respondent’s stock- yards alter respondent had filed an answer denying generally the allegations in tho complaint, and tho Secretary having, subsequent thereto, ma.do inquiry which disclosed that a proceeding in the premises would not bo in the public interest, tho Secretary ordered the proceeding dismissed without prejudice. D-114 268 HEADINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of It having boon concluded by the Goerotary that a determination of tho reasonableness of respondent’s Tariff Hate No. 8 for stockyard services charges end feeding charges cannot be fairly end justly decided u;on the present record until there be added thereto the result of a detailed study and investigation of tho Tenoral stock- yard rate situation, the -Secretary ordered the present proceeding dismissed without prejudice, subject to be reopened upon notice at such time as final disposition thereof may be na.de in conjunction •with a general determination as to reasonable rates at this and other comparable stockyards. D-116 The respondent market agency having satisfactorily explained in an answer filed in the proceedings that tho violations alleged in the complaint wore the result of errors, and said explanation having been corroborated by further investigation of tho Secretary, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-126• D-127 The respondents and other market agencies operating in tho Union Stockyards, Baltimore, Maryland, having agreed in writing to remit to shippers strictly on tho basis of tho prices received for their livestock and without deviation therefrom, thereby correcting the pra.ctice complained of in tho notice of inquiry, the Secretary ordered tho proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-129 Respondent stockyard having ma.de a request in writing that it be allowed to withdraw its proposed new charge for corn and ha.y and in lieu thereof to file a new tariff providin ; for the same rates end charges in effect at the time the proceeding was begun, tho Secretary ordered•that respondent’s request bo granted and that the proceeding bo discontinued and terminated without prejudice when the now tariff ha/1 boon filed and published and had become effective, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 306 of tho Act. D-131 Ordered by the Secretary that the proceedings be dismissed as against certain of the respondent dealers, tho evidence being insufficient to support the charges against then. D-136 269 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of It appearing to the Secretary of Agriculture that the respondent market c.gency is not nov* violating the Act, and that its previous -practices of overcharging the purchaser and switching animals mere the result of errors and were not indicative of a practice, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice, D-137 It appearing to the Secretary that respondent dealer is no longer an independent dealer and does not contemplate becoming an inde¬ pendent dealer at any stockyard under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the proceedings concerning his insol¬ vency wore dismissed without prejudice, D-145 Inquiry and notice of hearing served by the Secretary on the Fort Worth Stockyards Company, ordering the respondent to be' given a hearing upon the reasonableness and lawfulness of its amended schedule of stockyards yardage charges and privileges, dismissed by the Secretary without prejudice and without comment, D-153 The Secretary having found that the respondent Fred Signall, doing business as the Independent Livestock Company, had voluntarily retired from business as a market agency, he ordered that the order of inquiry with respect to respondent’s insolvency bo dismissed without prejudice, D-158 The testimony of the shipper not having been in accordance with the facts alleged in his complaint to the Secretary, upon which complaint the inquiry and notice of the Secretary was issued, the charges sot forth in the notice of inquiry wore dismissed, D-162 It appearing from the evidence that, due to the death of the manager of the respondent, respondent has ceased to do business and is now being dissolved, the Secretary ordered the insolvency proceedings dismissed, D-163 Bond proceedings dismissed, it appearing that the respondent market agency was improperly registered as such and that his registration had been made inactive, D-164 270 HEARINGS III Dismissal* Discontinuance, and Termination of Having received a request from the complainant, the Traders * Live¬ stock Exchange, a voluntary association, 'to dismiss its complaint against the Kansas City Stockyards Company, a corporation, asking reparation for alleged unreasonable and discriminatory reweigh charges, the Secretary ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudicing the right of the complainant to institute such further proceedings' as it sees fit. D-166 Complaint dismissed upon motion of counsel for complainant, no reason appearing why the motion should be denied. D-175 Proceedings dismissed as against Logan Dillon, it appearing from the evidence at the hearing that he is no longer connected with respondent Middlesworth Commission Company. D-181 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing that the respondent dealer is not engaged in business as a dealer at any stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and does not contemplate resuming business at any such stockyards. D-183 Rate proceeding dismissed when respondent stockyard company filed a now and s alls fa.c tor y schedule of ro.tos and changes with the Secretary. D-187 The Secretary heaving found that the. yardage resole charges at the Union Stock Yards, San Antonio, Texan, arc not unreasonable and discriminatory, he ordered the complaint and the ordor in exten¬ sion thereof dismissed. D-191 Insolvency proceedings dismissed, it appearing that the respondent market agency end dealer is not engaged in business at any stock- yards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and has not boon so engaged for a number of months. D-192 271 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, raid Termination' of It appearing to the Secretary that the practices and devices complained of against respondent, to wit; of ”weighing-up" livestock to itself raid of acting in the dual capacity of agent for both tho shipper and the purchaser without tho consent of both parties having boon previ¬ ously obtained, were discontinued in good faith prior to tho appear¬ ance of respondent before the Secretary in this hearing, and it appearing further that for. the Secretary to set this docket down for hearing with tho ultimate result of a possible order to coo.se and desist would accomplish nothing more than that which has been already atted nod by the voluntary act of respondent but would probably re¬ new those trade controversies which operate to tho damage of tho livestock industry, tho Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice* D-194 Bond proceedings dismissed, it appearing that tho respondent market agency is clearing its transactions through a duly registered and bonded broker and clearing agent responsible for its financial obligations* D-199 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing from tho records that the respondent dealer has maintained a bond for over a year raid has recently filed a fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry in accordance with the regulations under tho Act* D-216 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing to the Acting Secretary of Agriculture that respondent dealer is not engaged in business at. any stockyard under tho jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture raid has not operated as a dealer on coxy such stockyards since Novem¬ ber 1, 1924, tho effective date of the amendment to Regulation 17, requiring bonds of.dealers, D-226 272 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of \ The records of the Department showing that on October 7, 1927 respondent dealer submitted the fair equivalent of a good and sufficient bond and thereby complied with the regulations of the Department, the Secretory ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice, D-240 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing to the Secretary that respondent has not operated as a registered dealer since October 1, 1927, but has become a member of a firm and that such firm has filed the bond required by the Act and the regulations thereunder. D-249 Bond proceedings dismissed, it appearing from the records that respondent dealer discontinued business shortly after the order of inquiry was served upon him and did not resume business as a dealer until ho had complied fully with the Act and amended Regulation 17 thereunder. D-252; D-265 Bond proceedings dis. dssed, ing that respondent dealers the records of the Department indicat- have not engaged in business as dealers for some time end have canccl1od thei r rogistration as dealers. D-266 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing from the testimony at the hearing that the respondents buy end sell all livestock received at the Springfield Union Stockyards end do not permit any other agency to deal with the public at the yards, ond it appearing further that the Springfield Union Stockyards is not a public market end, therefore, is not a stockyard as defined in the Act. D-267 > In a proceeding in which respondents wore alleged to have combined, conspired, and agreed with each other whereby respondent Ottcn would sell livestock to respondent Gallagher, who was a registered dealer, end respondent Gallagher would pay for sane by remitting proceeds belonging to Maurer-Pershal1 end Company for whom respondent Gallagher was also a bookkeeper, the Secretary found that the records failed to show that respondent Ottcn acted with joint knowledge and intent with respondent Gallagher, end dismissed the case as to both respondents. D-272 27b HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of Although rospondont market. agency viola.tod the Act by ■ paying truck drivers $1.00 per truck loa.d of livestock delivered to it for salo in its capacity an a market agency, the Secretary dismissed the case without prejudice in view of the fact that respondent had in good -faith, long prior to the time of inquiry, requested advice concerning the effect of such a practice from a. representative of the Department and had been told on several occasions that such a practice was not objectionable. D-274 Complaint for reparation dismissed, the evidence failing to show that the complainant sustained any damages by reason of the fail¬ ure of the defendant to weigh complainant’s livestock, it appearing that the defendant did not refuse to -weigh the livestock end did not refuse to issue a scale ticket therefor but failed to do so upon 'erroneous belief' that the firm of complainant did not exist. D-28S Bond proceedings dismissed, it appearing from the evidence that the respondent market agency was engaged only in buying livestock for four packers or wholesale mo at dealers, all of which livestock was weighed direct to its principals, loaning rospondont no obli¬ gations for which a bond would be required, and it appearing further that the respondent ha.s, since this hearing was hold, changed his rogistra.tion to show that he is buying .only for said four principals* D-293 Upon consideration of the allegations of the order of inquiry, the evidence adduced at the ho coring end the arguments of counsel with respect to the alleged activities of the respondent dealers in con- . spiring, combining, and agreeing to have no business relations at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Illinois, with Jos. C. Coates, a registored dorlor theroat, tho Secretary concluded that the allega¬ tions wero not sustained and dismissed the proceedings. D-299 Proceedings to determine the rca.sona.bloness and lawfulness of the schedule of nates acrid chccrgcs for stockyard services dismissed without prejudice by tho Secretary rend without comment. D-305; D-305 274 HEARINGS III Dismissed, Discontinuance, end Termination of Insolvency proceeding dismissed, it appearing that respondent market agency has discontinued business as a market agency and that the individuals thereof me now engaged as employees of other concerns and that neither of them intends to attempt to re-engage in business on his own account at any time in the future. D-309; D-371 The respondent having appeared at the homing on insolvency and introduced into evidence a. bank statement and balance sheet showing that on May 15, 1930, he had a balance in the bank to his credit, the proceedings on insolvency were dismissed. D-310 Bond proceedings dismissed, the records of the Department shoving that on July 28, 1930, respondent Charles Clayton submitted a good and sufficient bond dated July 22, 1930, thereby complying wi th th oregul ati ons . D- 312 Boycott proceedings against C. A. Carter, trading and doing business as C. A. Carter Commission Company, and F. A. Daniels, dismissed by the Secrotary. D-330 Ordered that Clyde E. 0 T Dcll bo dropped and dismissed as respondent in insolvency proceedings, he ha.ving ceased to bo a member of respondent partnership two days after the date of the inquiry and notice. D-335 Commission rate proceeding dismissed cuts, since the homing end argument filed now tariff schedules containin lower than those the reasonableness the inquiry end hearing. , it appearing that; the respond- in connection therewith, havo g commission rates substentiedly of which were the subject of D-334; D-347 Reparation proceeding dismissed, it appearing that the claim for reparation has been satisfactorily settled. D-352; D-373j D-511; D-977; D-1042. v 275 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of Insolvency proceedings dismissed, it appearing that since the issuance of the inquiry the respondents market agencies and dealers have satisfactorily adjusted their financial situation and their indebtednesses. D-354; D-431 Bond proceedings dismissed, it appearing that respondents market agency end dealers have ceased to operate at the various stock¬ yards mentioned in the order of inquiry end do not expect to renew their operations, either as a market agency or e.s dealers, at any posted stockyards. ' D-355 Bond proceeding dismissed,, it appearing that respondent dealer is not engaged in business at a stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and, therefore, is not a. dealer as defined by the Act nor required to execute or maintain the bond required by statute of such dealers. D-35S Bond proceeding dismissed and dealer’s registration considered as inactive until ho commences business- at a stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. D-358 Insolvency proceeding dismissed upon information th Frank J. Meehan, registered a.s' a market agency, had after the institution of the order of inquiry. at respondent become deceased D-372 Bond proceeding dismissed, a statement having been received from respondent market agency and dealer alter the order of suspension luted March 17, 1932, which showed to the sa.tisfaction of the Sec¬ retary that the respondent incurred no obligations as a. market agency on- the Baltimore and Lancaster markets for which a bond was necessary, and the Secretary also having found tha.t the respondent executed a reasonable bond after the dale of the order of suspension to secure' the performance of his dealer obliga.tions and filed a copy thereof in compliance with the Act's, • D-381 Insolvency proceeding dismissed, it appearing tha.t since the issu¬ ance of the order of inquiry the respondent menket agency has ma.de a settlement with all do dors who cleared through his office, with the exception of one whoso claim is now ponding in court, and that the respondent is no longer operating as a market agency at a public stockyard. D-387 276 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of Insolvency proceeding dismissed, the Department hearing been offi- cially advised that a bookkeeper of respondent embezzled sufficient funds of money to render respondent insolvent but that all such sums have been paid back to the shippers or their claims arc in the process of settlement, end that respondent is no longer in business as a market agency or dealer but is now an employee of another registrant. D-390 respondent in making Proceedings to determine the unlawfulness o: offers to truck drivers for delivery of hogs to respondent dismissed, it appearing from the record that the highest value for any one of the articles given was §1.00, and that it had been a custom on the stockyards for a period of years for market s.gcncies to givo canes, scissors, or hog hurdlers" or any one or more of such articles to :hc truck drivers engaged in the business of transporting and delivering livestock to market agencies by truck, D-394 The trucker to whom the alleged offer to pa.v a sum of monev was made having testified at the hearing that the offer was made by a. representative of the respondent market agency but that he did not know the name of the person making the offer nor was he able to identify the person making the offer, oven though every person who was employed by the respondent at or near the tine the alleged offer was made was produced by respondent for identification, the Secretary dismissed thc proceodiin•;, D-396 It r.ppccoring from the evidence that the trucker to whom the alleged offer was ma.de was not certain when the offer was made, that he gave an affidavit that it was na.de in 1930 but later recalled that the time of the offer was a. long time previously thereto, that the book¬ keeper of the respondent testified tha.t an examination of the records back to and including six years previous to the order of inquiry did not disclose the trucker f s nano on the records, and tha.t it would have appeared thereon if ho had done business with the respondent in cither the capacity of agent or principal, the Secretary ordered the ca.sc dismissed. D-399 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing from the records of the Department that after the dale of the order of inquiry the respondent market agency and dealer submitted a. trust fund agreement in lieu of a. surety bond which wa.s accepted as satisfactory by the Chief of the Burea.u of Animal Industry, thereby complying with the regulations of the Department. D-412 277 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of Bond proceeding dismissed, the Department having been officially advised that the respondent market agency had, prior to. the ..date of the order of inquiry, furnished an acceptable bond to the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C. D-421; D-576; D-577- Bond proceeding dismissed, the Secretary having found that respond¬ ent market agency had voluntarily retired from business. D-432 The record disclosing that respondent market.agency did not receive any consignments of livestock between October 24 and November 7, 1933, the bond phase of the inquiry was dismissed. D-433 i Bond proceeding dismissed, it having boon determined on investiga¬ tion that respondents market agencies had not violated the Act as alleged but had furnished an acceptable performance bond. D-437 Rato proceeding dismissed, it appearing from an analysis of informa¬ tion in the possession of tho Secretary that the respondent Wichita Union Stock Yards Company’s existing rates and charges one not now yielding, nor are they likely to yield in the immediate future, more than a fair return uocn the fair value of the used and useful property and that, therefore, under these circumstances, no purpose would bo served at this tine in holding the hearing directed in the order of inquiry. D-448 Unfair practices inquiry dismissed, unsuccessful efforts having been made to serve the order of inquiry upon respondent dealers for the reason that the respondents have left Springfield, Missouri, and their present address cannot be ascertained. D-454 Suspension proceeding dismissed, it appearing that the respondent has sold his interest in the commission business, has sold his home in Seattle, Washington, ha.s moved to another vicinity and does not contemplate engaging in handling livestock at any stockyard, and that it would be to no useful purpose to hold a. hearing on tho order to show cause. D-464 278 KEYRINGS III Di smi s s al, Disc on t i nuc.nc o, raid Termination of Bond proceeding dismissed, it p.pp .oaring- from the evidence thr.t the resoondont is not operating at o. stockyards with an area. of 20,000 square feet and, hence, is not operating, cat a stockyard which is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture as defined in Section'302 (a) of the Act. D-501 Bond proceeding dismissed, it having been ascertained that the per¬ formance bond of ^9,000 on file with the Bureau of Animal Industry before the date of the order of inquiry is sufficient to cover tho business of respondent as a market agency. D-502 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing that respondent has now filed with tho Bureau jf /Uiinal Industry a satisfactory bend as required by tho previous order dated May 15, 1936. D-535 Insurance rate proceeding dismissed, the respondent market agencios havin'’ filed a lower tariff of rates and charges for insurance subsequent to tho issuance of the inquiry to determine the reason¬ ableness of the insurance ra.tos then in effect, and an investiga.- tion by an accountant of the Department indicating that the new charges worc reasonable. D-557 Respondent market agency which received pant of a. split shipment of livestock from another market agency, but received no informa¬ tion from the other market agency with respect to who owned the cattle in tho shipment except thr.t tho only nemo that appeared was tho name of the trucking company which transported the livestock to the market, was negligent in remitting the proceeds of tho sale of the livestock to the trucking company, it appearing from the evidence that the res- indent know that tho trucking company did not own the livestock, but, under tho circumstances, the Secretary was of tho belief that an unfair practice was not shown by the record and dismissed tho ease. D-567 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing from tho record that after tho institution of the order of inquiry the respondent dealer increased his bond to an amount sufficient to cover the voluno of his business. D-568; D-569 279 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Ternination of The complainant market agency having, by letter, requested that the Secretary drop the proceedings to determine if the respondent stockyards coup any is unfairly discriminating against it by refusing it the assignment of certain pens, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed. D-571 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing frora the record that the respondent market agency filed a sa.tisfactory performance bond vdth the Bureau of Animal Industry prior to tho time a date was set for tho hearing, D-578; D-670 Bond proceeding dismissed, the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., having received satisfactory proof that respond¬ ents secured satisfactory bond coverage in the form of a clearing statement from the Farmers National Livestock Commission Company subsequent to tho date of the order of inquiry, D-660 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing that the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D.C., received satisfactory proof, after the institution of the order of inquiry, that the respondents had furnished a satisfactory bond covering their obligations incurred as a market agency, tho bond to be effective from a date prior to the date of the order of inquiry, D-669 Bond proceedings dismissed, the Bureau of Animal Industry having boon reliably informed that tho respondents in the case have dis¬ solved partnership aid neither of them is now engaged in business as a dealer, D-671 At tho conclusion of the hearing to determine the lawfulness of the respondent Milwaukee Stock Yards Company’s requirement that- market agencies handling livestock at its stockyards execute on agreement not to do business at any place other then at a posted stockyards, the respondent agreed to delete such objectionable feature in its contract with the market agencies, and tho Socro- tary dismis s ed the proc eedings , D-721 280 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of After the hearing and before the date sot for argument before the Secretary, counsel for the respondent, the Livestock Marketing Association, requested that the complaint be dismissed and all proceedings terminated, and the Secretary ordered tho.t all com¬ plaints and counter-complaints be dismissed. D-728 The complaint for reparation for the alleged failure on the part of the respondent market agency to fully account for the net pro¬ ceeds from the sale of one cow was dismissed by the Secretary, the evidence of the respondent indicating that the cow, upon delivery at the stockyards, was tagged as a suspect by the Stoote inspector, later condemned by a Federal inspector raid sold at the customary price paid for condemned cattle, end the evidence of the complain¬ ant hearing failed to disprove the defense, D-766 Complaint for reparation dismissed, the defendant market agency having made reparation in full, with interest, to the complainant for cattle owned by the complednant and sold by the defendant, but for which the defendant had remitted to a third party who had stolen the cattle* D-895 A preponder once of the evidence adduced at the hearing having indicated that certain dead livestock were not improperly weighed by the defendant market agency and that the defendant did remit to the complainant for the full amount of the weights OvS shown by tho scales, tho Secretary ordered that the complaint for reparation, for the alleged failure of the defendant to properly remit for the gross weight of certain dead livestock sold, and the inquiry in the case be dismissed. D-899 Reparation proceedings dismissed, the defendant market agency having mo.de reparo.tibn for the amounts clodmcd by tho conplaincnt for the alleged failure to properly account for the gross weights of doad livestock sold, and the defendant having informed the Deportment that it hOvS ceased doing business o.s o. market agency. D-900 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appcoring from the record that the respondent deo.lcr furnished a rcc.sonablc bond, as required by the Act o.s emended and supplemented o.nd by the rules and regulations for the enforcement thereof, after tho date of the order of inquiry. D-958 281 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuoncc, and Termination of It appearing that the respondent market agency has surrendered its charter to the State of Tennessee and that it is no longer in ex¬ istence as a corporation and is not engaged in business of any kind, the Secretary ordered the inquiry, to determine if it was unfairly handling shippers' proceeds, dismissed without prejudice, D-1085 Bond proceeding dismissed, it appearing from the files of the Depart¬ ment that the stockyards at which the respondent market agency is doing business no longer comes within the definition of yard as that term is defined in the met and that notice effect has been given. a stock- to that D-1107 The motion by the respondent market agency, made at the hearing, to dismiss the case on the ,ground that no adequate proof of damages had been made for the alleged breach of contract by the respondent, was denied by.the Secretary, the Secretary holding that while no adequate proof of damages had boon mo.de, 021 award for nominal damages should'be given and a cease and desist order should be entered. D-1109 Complaint for reparation dismissed, the complainant having requested the Secretary to dismiss his complaint for reparation eight days after the notice of hearing was served upon the defendant by registered mail, , D-1129 Complaint for reparation dismissed, the complainant having foiled to sustain the burden of proof that the respondent market agency did not obtain a fair price for the cattle in question end thereby failed to render reasonable stockyard service. D-1143 The respondent, the Fort Worth Stock Yards Company, having stated in its answer to the order of inquiry that it will furnish proper stockyard services to the complainant dealer, and the dealer having withdrawn his complaint by letter, the Secretory ordered that the proceedings bo dismissed, D-1157 The Examiner having recommended that complaint for reparation in the one case be dismissed, and the partners having agreed to a dismissal of the complaint for reparation in the other case, the Secretary ordered that the complaints for reparation bo dismissed, D-1164 and D-1165 282 HEARINGS III Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Termination of In the proceedings against the Union Stockyard & Transit Company of Chicago ct al«, the Secretary entered as against certain of the respondents. xn order of dismissal D-1232 letter to the Department, authorized the Department to drop tho complaint for reparation for the alleged loss of one hog, D-1234 Reparation proceeding for the alleged unfair practice of the defendant in selling diseased hogs to tho complainant dismissed upon request, by telegram, of attornoy for complainant, D-1236 Proceedings dismissed as against the respondent market agency, the evidence showing that the respondent was tho agent of tho livestock buyer and not the factor or commission merchant of the sellers of the livestock, D-1266 Tho complainant for reparation having filed an informal petition prior to the issuance of a final order in the proceeding, request¬ ing. that his original petition for reparation bo withdrawn on the ground that a settlement had been made between the complainant and tho defendant, tho Secretary ordered the proceeding dismissed. D-1275 The complainant having failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that tho defendant had violated the Act, by refusing to honor a draft drawn upon him for tho payment of a carload of live¬ stock, the Secretary ordered the complaint for reparation dismissed. D-1276 283 HEARINGS III Inspection of Records in Preparation for Notice to the respondent market agencies to permit representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect the books, records, and memoranda of the respondent market agencies, in preparation for the hearing to determine if their proposed now tariff of rates and charges was unlawful and unreasonable, wa.s given pursuant to the provisions of Section 402 of the Act and of Section 9 and 10 of the Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled u An Act to Create a Federal Trado Commission and to Define its Powers and Duties”. D-143 Issues Considered at The Packers and Stockyards Administration expresses no to the reasonableness of'charges made at markets other markets to be considered in the particular proceeding. The possible unreasonableness in amount of reweigh charges not being an issue raised by the complaint end answer, the Secretary cannot consider it in a proceeding for reparation. D-208 opinion c.s than the D-3 284 HEARINGS III Nature of Order of inquiry to dot online if St, Louis Livestock Exchange and in violation of Title III of the the rules and by-laws of the if the observance thereof are Let, D-2 Proceedings instituted N by the Secretary under Title III of the Act to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agencies’ boycott practices, D-2 Proceeding by the Secretary under Title III of the Act to deter nine the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent market agencies’ commission charges. 132 D-3; D-8; D-9-14; D-15; D-83; D-112; D-122; D-123; D-124; D ;-308; D-311; D-334; D-347; D-383; D-456 and D-457 <, D-l43; D-147; D-151; D-195: D-402; D-435; L 45 : Proceedings by the Secretary under Title III of the Act to deter- mine the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent stockyardfe proposed now schedule of rates and charges for stockyard feeding, D-4; D-16; D-l7| D-61; D-87; D-116; D-131. Complaint by certain dealers against the Peoria Union Stockyards Company, Peoria., Illinois, for the alleged unfair and discriminatory yardage charge against then for stockyard services, end a general inquiry under Title III to determine the justness end reasonable¬ ness of such charges, D-5 Order of inquiry to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of a yardage charge of one-half the regular vardawe charge for live- stock "planted end resold” in the commission division of the Union Stockyards Company of Omaha, Ltd, D-6; D-7 Proceeding instituted by the Secretary under Title III of the Act to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent stock- yard's proposed now schedule of rates and charges for stockyard services• D-18j D-20; D-21; D-23; D-24; D-56; D-61; D-82; D-114; D-116; D-l53; D-l55; D-l87; D-268; D-270; D-305; D-306. Proceeding under Title III of the wet to dotermine the reasonable¬ ness and lawfulness of respondent railroad's proposed new schedule of rates and charges for stockyard services. D-25; D-26 285 HEARINGS III Nature of Proceedings by the S nine the lawfulness 0-27; 0-28; D-29; D- D-42; D—43; D 0-53; D-66; D-80; D-100 ceretary under Title of respondent market III of the Act to deter a Cj oncy’s trade practices• D-41; D-52; D-65; P-78; D-99: D—43; P-54; D-67; D-85; P« D- D« O' ■ 102 ; 30; 44; 55; 68 ; 86 ; D-103; P-104 P-31; P-32; P-45; P-46; D-57; P-58; D-69; P-70; ;-88; D-89. P-35; P-47; P-59; P-71; P-90 ■105; P-36; P-48; P-60; D-72; ; D-91; P-107; D-108 P-37; P-38; P-40; P-49; P-50; P-51; P-62; P-63; P-64; P-74; P-75; P-76; P-93; P-94; P-98; P—110; P—111; D-129. D-162 P-115; P-118; D-119; D-120; D-121; P-125; P-126; P-127; 0-128; P-130; P-135; P-137; P-142; P-146; P-149; o-l50; 0-154; P-161; D-180; D-182; P-184; P-189; P-194; o-197; o— 2-.t0; o-287; o-292; P-333; P-350; P-357; P-360; P-362; 0-363; 0-364.-; P-365; P-366; P-385; P-388; o-389; 0-407; o-410; 0-436; P-514; P-521; D-756; J-759; P-894; o-9 49; O-980; 0-981; 0-983; P-1017 ; P-1041 ; D-1085 P-1117 P-1132; P-11 50; o-1162; 0 -1169; D-1175; D-1182; P-1187; P-1108; P-1202; P-1213; P-12 22; P-1237. Inquiry instituted under Title III of the Act for the purpose of ascertaining if certain market agencies and dealers arc failing and refusing to buy from or sell to complainants in the ordinary course of business or to enter into business relations with com¬ plainants in the commerce in livestock at Kansas City Stockyards while at the sane tine freely engaging in end carrying on busi¬ ness in commerce in livestock at said stockyards between and among themselves• P-39 Inquiry instituted by the Secretary under Title III of the Act to determine the lawfulness of respondent’s patronage dividend refunds. P-77; P-95; P-96 Complaints concerning excessive commission charges assessed under Tariff No# 2 of the market agency members of the Sioux City Live¬ stock Exchange forwarded to respondent to satisfy and to secure an acknowledgment of satisfaction from each complainant upon the face of the complaint within 30 days from the receipt of the Sec¬ retary’s notice thereof, in accordance with Section 309 (a) of Title III of the Act# P-79 Complaint by Minnesota Pig & Cattle Company against Central Coop¬ erative Commission Association, a corporation, , alleging the refusal of the respondent Commission .association to soil livestock to the Cattle Company. D-81; D-101 HEARINGS III Nature Of Upon complaints made by the joint conference committee represent¬ ing the,Livestock Exchange and Traders’ Exchange, composed of mar¬ ket agencies and dealers doing business as such at Indianapolis, Indiana, and registered under the Act, the Secretary ordered an inquiry to determine the lawfulness of respondent stockyard owner’s proposed new rate or charge for vaccinating services. D-84 Proceedings instituted by the Secretary upon complaint of the South St. Joseph Livestock Exchange, of South St. Joseph, Missouri, to determine if the Farmers Union Livestock Commission of South St. Joseph, Missouri, is a , cooperative association within the mean¬ ing of the Act, and for other purposes. , D-92 Proceedings instituted by the Secretary to determine the propriety of charges, complained of by Roberts & Oake, a corporation, of alleged practice of the Union Stockyards & Transit Company of reselling livestock which had previously been sold to the complain¬ ant and sealed in complainant’s pen. D-97 Inquiry instituted by the Secretary, upon complaint of certain dealers and market agencies registered under the Act end doing • business at Fort Worth Stockyards, to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of the Fort Worth Stockyard Company's Tariff No.3, on file with the Secretary of Agriculture. D-106 Inquiry instituted by the Secretary, under Title III of the Act, to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agency's practice in changing more commissions than those specified in the schedule on file and in effect. D~109$ D-177 ■ 7 1 * • , ; • 1 • ’! / ' i Inquiry instituted by the Secretary, on his own motion, to deter¬ mine the lawfulness of respondent stockyards company’s practices in connection with stockyard feeding. D-117 > 287 HEARINGS III Nature of Inquiry instituted by the Secretary, on his own motion, to deter¬ mine the lawfulness of respondent dealer’s trade practices. D-134; D-142; D-14S; D-188; D-194; D-196; D-197; D-193; D-272$D-273j D-2S0; D-314; D-327j D-333; D-337; D-338; D-341; D-353; D-384; D-3S9; D-408; D-436; D-454; D-514; D-756j D-758; D-894; D-912; D-1017 j D—ll6l; D-1175• Inquiry instituted by the Secretary, on his own motion, to investi¬ gate the alleged boycott practices of respondents at Oklahoma National Stockyards, 0k3.ahoma City, Oklahoma. D-I36 > Complaint and notice of hearing issued by the Secretary to deter¬ mine if respondent dealer is insolvent. D-138; D-139; D-141; D-144; D-145; D-14B; D-156; D-157; D-158; D-276; D-290; D-297; D-313j B-320; D-332,* D-471; D-807; D-1039; D-1160 Order of inquiry to determine if the Chicago Producers Commission Association overcharged shippers for feed for livestock consigned for sale. D-140 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent dealer is insolvent, and if it fraudulently endeavored to obtain money from a potential purchaser of livestock. D-141 Proceedings instituted by the Secretary to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agency’s tra.de practices and to determine if respondent is insolvent. / D-149; D-150; D-292; D-350; D-36O; D-368 j D-388 Inquiry instituted by the Secretary to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of the respondent Fort Worth Stockyards Company's proposed new schedule of yardage charges and proposed new regulation with respect to the waiving of yardage charges under certain con¬ ditions. D-153 HEAR ms III Nature of Bond proceeding instituted against dealer for failure and refusal to execute and maintain and file a duplicate of a performance bond under Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under Title III of the Act, as amended. 1-159; D-160; D-167; 1-168; 1-173; 1-174; D-176; D-183; 1-186; D-201; D-203; 1-204; 1-206; 1-209; D-210; U—211; 1-212; 1-213; 1-214; D-215; D-216; 1-217; D-218; 1-219; 1-220; 1-221; 1-222; 1-223; D-224; D-225; D-226; D-227; 1-229; 1-231; 1-232; 1-233; 1-234; D-238; 1-240; 1-241; 1-247; 1-248; D-249; 1-250; 1-252; 1-253; D-254; 1-255; 1-256; 1-257; .1-258; 1-260; 1-262; 1-263; 1-264; D-265; D-266; 1-279; 1-282; 1-283; 1-295; 1-304; 1-318; 1-319; D-321; 1—322; 1-323; 1-324; 1-329; 1-336; 1-340; 1-356; 1-558; D-359; .1-376; D-377; D-3.78; 1-386; 1-405; 1-408; 1-423; 1-439; D-4-62; 1-46 7‘; 1-535; 1-539; 1-565; 1-568; 1-579; 1-655; 1-660; 1-669; 1-671; D-695; D-711; 1—722; 1-739; a-930; 1-958; 1-959; 1-1040; 1-1130; 1-1145; 1-1188; 1-1201; 1-125Q. Inquiry and notice instituted by the Secretary to respondent market agency is insolvent. 1-285; 1-300; 1-307; 1-309; 1-328; D-339; 1-361; 1-370; 1-371; 1-372; 1-374; 1-382; 1-387] 1-428; 1-446; ’-455; 1-458; 1-459; 1-468; 1-469; 1-602; 1—853; 1-950; 1-1166; 1-1181; 1-1202; 1-1214. determine if 1—163| 1-367; 1-369; 1-431; 1-433; 1-619; .'.-806; Bond proceedings instituted against market agency for failure and refusal to execute and maintain'and file a duplicate of a performance bond under Regulation 17 of the Rules raid Regula- imended. 1-164: tions pronulgs ited under Title III of the Act , as 1-170; 1-179; 1-181; 1-200; -235; 1* -237; 1 - 245; 1-277; 1-293; ->-296; 1-302; > -316; jj* -317; >>— 525; 1-391; 1-401; m—403; ->-404; . 1 * -406; jj’ -409; m— 417; 1-424; u-426; m-452; 1-433; J- -437; " -438; 443; 1-152; ^-455; -.,‘—465; 1-466; u m -486; jJ- -498; 1- 502; " -540; 1-541; 1-556; 1-569; * -578; lJ m -670; 1- 1065 ^-259; j^-526; m-421; •512; 1-261; 1-349; 1-422; 1-447; 1-515; 1 T '-1203; >-1241 289 HEARINGS III Nature of Bond proceedings instituted against market agency and dealer for failure and refusal to execute and maintain and file a duplicate of a performance bond under Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regu¬ lations promulgated under 'Title III of the Act, as amended. D-165; 4-169; 4-171; 4-172; 4-178; D -199; 4-202; 4-205; 4-228; B-230; 4-236; 4-239; 4-212; jj-241; J —251; ..:-267; 4—281; 4-284; 4-303; d— 312; 4-315; m-316; -355; -580; 4-381; n-390; 4—392; 4-400; m—412; n-113; ' ^-111; J* -115; ij -116; '^-427; 4- -129; 4-430; 4-434; 4-111; m-160; 4-173; i.'-SOl; .j -517; 4-522; 4-538; 4-576; 4-577; 4-689; m-1082; 4-108'. 4; .j-1199 0 Complaint of Traders’ Livestock Exchange, a voluntary association, a.gainst Kansas City Stockyards Company, a corporation, seeking reparation for unreasonable and discriminatory reweigh charges* 4-166 Complaint filed by T. J. Murphy re hogs lost from pens in Chicago yards. j-175 Inquiry and notice instituted by the Secretary, under Title III of the Act, to determine if respondents arc charging greater or less commissions than their schedules of rates and charges on file end in effect permit* 4-190 Order for investigation and hearing on extension of complaints against the resale charges on file and in effect at the Union Stockyards, San Antonio, Texas, as set forth in its Tariff No. 4. 4-191 Inquiry instituted by the Secretary to determine if respondent market agency and dealer is insolvent. J V — i. V ‘O / 2 : ■275; 4-331; 4-335: 5 ; 4-379 •390: 478 4 — 0\fcO ; 4-696 ■345 ; 4-9 08 j ■348; 4-351; 4-354; •1017, Notice of inquiry and order of hearing on complaint for reparation against respondent commission company, 4-193 Complaint filed by Wertheimer So began, a registered dealer at the Union Stockyards, Omaha, Nebraska., to determine if complainant is entitled to reparation by reason of defendant Union Stockyards Company 7 s allegedly unjustly discriminatory rates and changes for yardage. 4-207 HEARINGS III Nature of Proceeding under the Act upon a complaint against the Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd., filed vdth the Secretary by T. G. Ingraham, a registered dealer at the stockyards of said company, for reparation for allegedly discriminatory reweigh charges. P-208 Inquiry and notice instituted by the Secretary to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agencies’ and dealers’ boycott. P-246; P-299; P-330 Inquiry instituted by the Secretary to determine if respondent dealer is keeping inadequate records of transactions. D—271; P-1158; P-1199 Inquiry and notice to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agency’s trade practice of making payments to truckers of livestock in consideration for preference deliveries. P-274; P-393; P-394; P-395; P-596; j-o97; P-536; ^-735; P-746; j-759. o98; 1^-399; P-521; Complaint for reparation for an overcharge allegedly paid by complainant to defendant for inspection for brands on horses end cattle. P-278 Complaint against market agencies for alleged unlawful tro.de practices and the enforcement of Pule 27 of the Omaha Livestock Exchange, and for reparation for damages in the amount of ^25,000. P-288 Order of suspension and notice of hearing to determine the reason¬ ableness of respondent'c,Nashville Union Stock Yards , Inc., rates and changes for its services as a stockyard owner. D-291 Order of inquiry aid notice of hearing to determine the lawfulness aid reasonableness of schedules of rates and charges posted by the St. Joseph Stock Yards Company for its services as a stockyards owner, P-298 Order of inquiry and notice of hearing instituted by the Secretary to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent Penvcr Union Stockyards Company’s proposed schedule of rates and charges for services as a stockyard owner. v-301 Complaint for reparation under Section 309 of the Act. P-342 291 HEARINGS III Nature of Order of inquiry and notice to determine the lawfulness and reason¬ ableness of all rates and charges of respondent Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd., and of any rule, regulation, or practice whereby any stockyard service is rendered by respondent without making a lawful change therefor. 0-344 Conplaint for reparation for shrinkage. ^-352 Inquiry to determine the lawfulness of respondents market agencies 1 tra.de practices in refusing to sell livestock to the highest bidder 0-362j I-363; 0-3G4; 0-365j 0-366; 0-1108 Complaint for ropo.ra.tion for alleged failure on the part of respond cut market agency to remit to complainant the proceeds of the sole of one steer. 0-373 Inquiry to determine the lo.wfulness of respondent market agency's trade practice of charging less commissions for the sale of live¬ stock than the amounts required under his schedule of rates and charges. ^-385 Complaint for reparation for respondent market agency end dealer heaving allegedly refused to c.ccount properly to complainants, for the proceeds of the sale of ce.ttlc. 0-411 Order of inquiry end notice of hearing to determine and reasonableness of all ro.tes end charges and of lation, or practice affecting the rc.tos and charges Citv Stock Yards Company. \j L*J th c 1 cwf ulnos s any rule, regu- of the Sioux 0-425 Order of inquiry and notico of hearing to determine the lawfulness of all rates and charges and of any rule, regulation, or practice affecting said rates and charges of the Cleveland Union Stock Yards Company. 0-442 Order of inquiry to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of all rates end charges and of any rule, regulation, or practice Cuffecting said rates and charges for respondent Wichita. Union Stock Yards Company's stockyards services. , 0-448 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of the respondents' livestock insurance charges. 0-449 % 0-557 292 HEARINGS III Nature of Order raid notice of hearing to detornino if the petition of the lenver Union Stockyard Company for Modification of the rates and charges proscribed by the Secretary’s order, dated February 17, 1937, should be granted. 1-450 Order of inquiry to detornino the reasonableness end lawfulness of the schedules of rates end charges for stockyards services rendered at the lenver Union Stock Yards. 1-450 Complaint by the 11roctor of the Pro cur orient and distribution for the Emergency Relief Board of the ConnonTfcalth of Pennsylvania against the Pittsburgh Joint Stock Yards Conpany for alleged excessive yardago charge of respondent in yarding cattle, 1-451 Order of inquiry to detornino if respondent’s. Union Stock Yards Conpany of Onaha, Ltd., schedule of rates and charges for weighing livestock is unreasonable end unfair- in its applica¬ tion to order buyers. 1-453 Order of inquiry to deter:line the lawfulness of respondent dealers’ trade practices in altering, without authority, veter¬ inarian permits so that more cattle then those originally authorized by the permit could be removed and released. k'-454- Order of inquiry to determine if respondents stockyards company and market agenev were ncm'li'cnt in their rendering of stockyard services. 1-461 » Order of inquiry to determine if respondent market agency is responsible for the actions of its apparent field agent, end for reparation. 1-464 It appearing to the Secretary from an audit of the books and records of the respondent that respondent had again engaged in the unfair end deceptive practices against which a prior order of the Secretary had been made in this ease, the Secretary ordered respondent, within twenty days from the receipt of the order, to show cause why the original order should not bo fully restored and made offactive; tho order to bo transmitted to respondent by registered nail. 1-464 HEARINGS III Nature of Order of inquiry to investigate respondent market agency’s trade practices in connection with its refusing to honor drafts draval by country buyers upon respondent. 1-465; ^-474; _-475; 1-523; 1-548; .,-570; 1.-1159; 1-1182 Order amending the order of inquiry raid notice of hearing thereto¬ fore served, by broadening the inquiry to include a hearing upon the reasonableness of any tariff schedule in effect or tendered by respondent for filing, end to include particularly a hearing upon the reasonableness end lawfulness of respondent’s proposed new tariff of rates and charges designated as tariff No. 10. 1-472 Order of inquiry to determine if respondent the Union Stock Yard aid Transit Company T s new schedule of rates and charges designated as "Amendment No. 3 to U. S. Y. A* T. Co. No. 9 n for additional yardage charges is lawful and reasonable. 1-4-72 Complaint for reparation for the alleged refusal of respondent market r,geney to remit all of the proceeds to the owner from the sale of nine buffaloes. 1-511 Order of inquiry to determine if respondent market agency is violating the Act by using an improper treble name. 1—513 Inquiry and notice to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agency and dealer’s tra.de practice of honoring drafts from the shippers ’ proceeds account prior to the time title to the livestock was transferred from the shipper to the buyer. 1-514 Inquiry to determine if Act by falsely acquiring practice of holdin 0 out in’s for ropenation for respondent market a ;cncv is violating the the possession of livestock through the individuals to be its agents, and procecd- dca.ia.gos occasioned complainant by reason thereof• -516 Order of inquiry to determine the unlawfulness of respondent market agency’s trade practices in refunding commissions, not reporting the 'true purchaser of livestock, and making payments to truckers of livestock, and to determine if respondent is insolvent. 1-521 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of respondent’s trade practices in dealing in country livestock through an agent, and for reparation. 1-523 294 HEARINGS III Nature of Complaint for reparation for sale' of' cattle, allowed broach of contract of the 1-524 Order of inquiry to doto mine the reasonableness end 1 artfulness of coords si on rates end charges at the New Orleans Stock Yards, Arabi, Louisiana. 1-554 a Second order of inquiry to dctcnd.no if respondent is continuing, after having been suspended by the Secretary, to engago in busi¬ ness as a dealer without having executed, maintained, or filed a reasonable porfomonco bond. 1-535 Order to determine if the respondent market agency is violating the Act by remitting proceeds from the sale of livestock to. truckers without authority from the shippers. . 1-586; 1-567 4 Order of inquiry to determine if respondent Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd., is unfairly denying to a markot agency tho use of certain pons. ' 1-571 Complaint aid notice alleging unfair practices raid or a conspiracy on the part of a packer and market a shipper of livestock. a combination agency against 1-603 Inquiry and notice of hearing to determine the lavtf’ulnoss of re¬ spondent stockyards company’s requirement that each market agency handling livestock at the stockyards of the respondent oxccuto an agreement to tho effect that it itfll not handle livestock at any place other than posted stockyards. 1-721 Complaint allcgin : that tho respondent the Live Stock Marketin'’ i. O jL .> Association is merely a truckers* organization which intends to distribute dividends- upon a patronage basis to members whether or not tho members are livestock producers or owners, praying the Secret my to issue an order permanently refusing said respondent Association to file any schedules of rates or charges with the Socrotony for operation as a market agency. 1-728 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of the respondent market agency and dealer’s trade practices of purchasing livestock on order but not giving full accounts purchase of the seme. _/-756; 1-758 295 HEARINGS III Nature of Complaint for reparation for alleged agency to honor a draft covering the refusal of respondent market purchase of livestock* 1-754; 1-1273; >1276 Conplaint for reparation for alleged market agency to properly handle and proceeds from the sale of one coy/ - . failure of the defendant fully account for the not >766 Complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the respondent market agency to properly account for the proceeds from the sale of one’bull. >767 Inquiry end notice to determine if the respondent market agency and dealer is violating Title III of the Act by switching live¬ stock. >894 4 Complaint for reparation for an accounting on cattle belonging to the complainant and sold by the defendant at the request of a party who had stolen the cattle* .4-895 Conplaint for reparation charging' that the respondent market agency foiled to account for the proper gross weight of certain dead livestock sold* , >899; >900 Order of inquiry alleging -unfair practices on the pent of respond' ent dealer in failing to report the sale of certain cattle to his clearin'.; agent. >912 Complaint for reparation of the respondent market authorized eg:ent for the end order of inquiry charging the refused cogency to honor a draft drawn by its duly purche.se of livestock. 4,-927 s >1131; >1181; .-1200 Order of inquiry alleging the refusal of respondent market agency to honor drafts drawn upon it by its agent in the payment of cattle purchased by the agent. >929; >1109 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent unlawfully vithholding rn.ittunes of shippers ' %J ej i i. from the sale of stolon livestock. market agency is proceeds obtained 4-949 296 IIEAli III Nature of Order of inquiry to dot online if the respondent Fort Worth Stockyards Company is unfairly excluding the N o r thue stern Livestock Commission Company fron doing business at its stockyards. 1-956 Complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the respondent market agency to remit the proceeds fron the sale of livestock. .,-977; 1-1043 Order of inquiry to determine if .the respondent Peoria Union Stock Yards Company is unfairly excluding the complainant market agency from the privileges of its stockyard. , 1-979 Notico of inquiry to determine if the respondent market agency violated the Act, as amended, by selling mortgaged livestock in the usual course of business and remitting the nrocccds thereof to the mortgagor. 1-981; 1-1235 Complaint for reparation for alleged undcr-renittamcc by respondent market agency of the proceeds of the sale of certain livestock. 1-1042 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent market agency is engaging in unfair trade practices by making excessive food charges to shippers without reporting tho sarnie end by doing other things in viol cation of the Act. ' -1117 Complaint for reparation. 1-286; 1-1129; 1-1164; 1-1165; 1-1182 Complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the respondent market agency to honor a draft dr aim by its agent and to accept delivery of a shipment of sheep. „/.-1131 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent market agency is using shippers’ proceeds to finance dealer transactions. 1-1132 Complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the respondent market agency to sell, livestock for the market value thereof, end order of inquiry with respect thereto. 1-1143 297 HEARINGS III ITaturo of Order of inquiry to doternino if the respondent Fort Worth Stock Yards Company is unfairly failing and refusing to furnish a doa.lcr reasonable services and facilities at its stockyard, 1-1157 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent dealers violated the Act by switching livestock. 1-1161 * Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of the respondent mar¬ ket agency's trade pr anti cos of rendering f.alse accounts purchase end failin* to give full account of all his transactions to his clcarina agent, 1-1162 Complaint for ropar at ion for the alleged f ai 1 ur c of the respondent stockyards company to render reasonable stockyard services to tho complainant, .-1163 un Order of inquiry to determine tho/lavjfulnoss of the alleged counterfeitin', of scalo tickets. .'-1174 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of the practice of the respondents market agency and packer in combining, conspiring, and agreeing to ad ter scalp tickets and to engage in other unfair pr entices • 1-1175 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent market agency is insolvent, if it has failed to keep proper records, end if it hen failed to pay drafts drawn by an alleged agent, 1-1181; 1-1182; 1-1199; 1-1237 . I Order of inquiry to determine if respondent Miami Stockyards Company, a stockyards, and G, L. Holden ct al.,, a. market agency, have violatod the Act as amended, 1-1186 and 1-1193 Order of inquiry charging alleged unfair practices of a market agency end dealer in entering into an agreement whereby tho clear¬ ing agency for the dealer unknowingly paid for cattle purchased by the deader in the country, while it had agreed only to clear tho dealer’s transactions on tho stockyard. 1-1187 298 HEARINGS III Nature of Conplaint for narket agency agent. reparation for the alleged refusal of the respondent to accept livestock alloped to bo purchased by its D-1212 Conplaint for narket a *cncv o * / reparation for the alloyed failure of the respondent to properly weigh a shipment of cattle, 0-1224 Conplaint for reparation for the loss of livestock duo to alloyed negligence of respondent stockyards company. the b-1230 Order of inquiry to detcrninc if the respondent Union Stock Yard k Transit Company of Chicago is failing to render reasonable stockyard weighing services. 0-1232 Conplaint for reparation for the alleged loss of a ho shipped to the respondent stockyards company. ^-1234 Complaint for reparation for the alloyed unfair practice defendant dealer : not as warranted. defendant dealer in soiling ho's which were diseased and of the wer c -1236 Order of inquiry to determine the alloyed unfair practices of the respondent narket agency in refusiny to honor drafts for the pay¬ ment of livestock allegedly purchased by its agent. ..--1266 299 HE/JilNGS III Necessity for Necessity for hearing obviated when respondent withdraws its pro¬ posed new tariff schedule and, in lieu thereof, submits, a schedule satisfactory to Secretary which supersedes all previous schedules* v-23 Nhen respondents acIcnowlodrod in writin ; the service of the con- o plaint, admitted the fo.cts and all. allegations stated therein, end waived an oral hearing, the Secretary made an order without further proceeding. j-31; J-32; E-35; '.>-37; N-48 The Secretary of Apriculture having filed a complaint apainst respondent under Title III of the Act, and respondent havino filed an answer to said complaint denying the allocations contained therein, the Secretary ordered a hearing unon the natters and things involved in the cenrolaint and designated an Examiner to hold the .e hearing. ' E-53' The respondents not having satisfied the complaints in the case, end it appearing to the Secretary that there was reasonable ground for investigation, and that the matters complained of should bo investigated both upon said complaints end answers, and under the order in extension thereof, the Secretary ordered a hearing. E-191 Notice of Ordered by the Secretary that respondent have 10 days from the receipt of the order for investigation to satisfactorily explain in writing the matters alleged in the complaint pertaining to his insolvency, and that if no satisfactory explanation is received, the natter will be set down for a hearing on 5 days notice to respondent. E-156; o-157; n-158; E-159$ j- 177 Ordered by the Secretary that notice of continuance of the hearing to determine the lawfulness and rca.sonablonoss of the redoes end changes of the Cleveland Union Stock Yards Company be given respondents bv rw;istored nail. '-442 J- V ■-) 300 HEARINGS III Notice of Upon request of the interested from Ogden, Utah, to Salt Lake notice of such change of place been given to respondents. parties, the hearing was changed City, Utah, on April 26, 1935, of hearing theretofore having D-456 and 457 On Default of Respondent Respondent having failed to appear at the hearing on his insolvency, either in person or by attorney, testimony was introduced tending to establish the truth of the matters and things set forth in the order of inquiry. D-144; D-156; D-157 Respondent dealer having been duly notified that a hearing would bo held at a specified place at a certain time before the Examiner for the Department, the.Examiner proceeded with the holding of the hearing when the respondent failed, for one hour and ton minutes after the time set for the hearing, to appear in person or by representative „ D-579 Postponement of A request by the respondent stockyards company for a postponement of the hearing to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of a proposed new schedule of rates and charges for livestock "planted and resold" in the commission division of the stockyards of the¬ re spondont was granted by the Secretary upon the express condition that the respondent would agree that the suspension order of said tariff be continued until the hearing thereon should be completed 'and the Secretary had reached his decision, even though such sus¬ pension should be extended beyond the expiration of the period ordered and authorized by law. D-8; D-7 301 HEARINGS III Postponement of It appearing that, for good cause shown, the hearing v/ith respect to the alleged reparation due the dealers from the respondent The Union Stock Yards & Transit Company, for payment of discriminatory reweigh charges,- should ho postponed from October 8, 1928 to November 5, 1928, the Secretary ordered that the procedure be governed by Regulation 19 promulgated by the Secretary under the Act, which regulation became effective October 1, 1928. D-7 The hearing on the Secretary’s complaint for alleged excessive yardage charges for reweighing livestock by the respondent was postponed by order of the Secretary from June 26, 1922 to July 25, 1922, and was subsequently postponed twice at the request of counsel for the interested narties. D-7 Postponement of hearing to a time beyond the 60-day period allowed for the suspension of proposed now tariff rates or charges by Section 306 of the Act granted by the Secretary in case where the respondent requested such postponement and agreed that the period of suspension of said now tariff schedule should continue until the conclusion of the hearing, D-18 Postponement of the time of the hearing from April 30, 1923 to May 14, 1923, upon request of respondent, granted. D-23 Hearing postponed and operation of proposed now rates and schedules deferred and suspended beyond the 60-day period allowed by the Act when respondent, for good cause shown, desires and requests such postponement. D-82 The Secretary ordered the hearing, on the lawfulness of charges and rates set forth in a proposed new stockyard services schedule, postponed for an additional period of 30 days and the proposed now rates end charges suspended and deferred for a. further period of 30 days, it appearing that an investigation of the records of the respondent for the purpose of securing material facts bearing upon the issue involved could not bo concluded within the original period of suspension. D-82 302 9 HEARINGS III Postponement of The Secretary postponed tho hearing to determine the reasonable¬ ness of purported new rates and charges of tho respondent market agencies on two different occasions, the first postponement being made at the instance of tho Secretary and tho second postponement upon request of the respondents• D-143 Hearing on consolidated Dockets Nos. 147 and 151 postponed by order of the Secretary from May 24, 1926 until June 28, 1926, tho hour and place to remain the same. D-147 end D-151 Hearing on the trade practices of tho Packers of tho records alleged unlawfulness of respondent market agencies’ adjourned by tho Secretary to permit the auditors and Stocky ends Adninistration to make investigation of tho respondents. D-189 Application for a continuance of the hearing overruled by tho Examiner*. D-207 The request for an extension of timo was denied in the ease involving allegations of boycott activities. D-246 Ordered in proceedings to determine the reasonableness and law¬ fulness of respondent’s stockyards ■ charges that tho hearing be postponed until further notice by the Secretary. D-268 Order of inquiry to determine tho lax^fulnoss of respondent market agencies' commission re.tos-and changes postponed by tho Secretary from February 1, 1932 to February 15, 1932. D-347 Tho Secretary, on his own notion, continued the date of hearing of the commission ra.to case from January 9, 1932 to March 30, 1933, and a.gain to May 15, 1933. D-402 Upon request of the respondent Sioux City Stock Yards Company, tho Secretary continued the date of tho hearing to determine tho re as onc.bl ones s afid lawfulness of its ra.tcs and charges from tho 25th day of September 1933 to October 2, 1933, D-425 Ordered by tho Secretary tha.t the hearing to determine the law¬ fulness of all rates and charges of the Cleveland Union Stock Yards Company bo continued for forty-nine days. D-442 Upon request of respondents, by telegram, for a. continuance of tho hearing for a 60-day period, tho Secretary ordered the hearing continued from September 4, 1934 to October 11, 1934. D-445 503 HEARINGS III Postponement of A .postpononont of tho henring to determine if the rates and charges at the Denver Union Stockyards as prescribed by the Secretary in his order datod February'17, 1937,"should be nodifled in certain respects requested by the Secretary of tho N&tional-Wool growers * Association because the "extreme shortness of your notice makes it entirely impractical for us to have a roprosontativo at tho hearing was denied by the Secretary, but tho Secretary provided that the proceedings would be held open for a sufficient length of time to give tho said Association an opportunity to present evidence in the proceedings. . D-450 Date of hearing on order of inquiry to determine the reasonableness of certain of respondent’s stockyard weighing charges postponed by the Secretary for thirty days. D-453 Hearing upon tho lawfulness and reasonableness of respondent’s, proposed now yardage charges known as "Amendment Ho. Ill to U. S. Y. & T,.Co. No. 9" postponed from June 2S, 1936 to August 24, 1936, it appearing that respondent will not be ready to- proceed with; the hearing on June 29 due to the fact that many of his employee's will bo absent .on vacation# ■■ D-472 It appearing to the Secretary that neither tho Government nor the respondent would bo ready to proceed -vrith the hearing of the case on,April 6, 1936, due to extensive preparations being.mado for tho ease, the Secretary ordered the hearing upon. tho.reasonableness of respondent’s proposed "Amendment Ho. 3 to U. 3,. Y„ & T. Co. Ho. 9" containing new yardage charges continued from April 6, 1936 to June 29, 1936, * , . D-472 An invostigation of the records of tho respondent for the purpose of securing material facts bearing u t ,on the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent’s proposed "nuondmont K-0.V3 to.U. S. Y. os T. Co. HO. 9" yardage charges for haying been not concluded within the*two periods of suspension,' the Secretary ordered tho ca.usc continued from November 20, 1935 to April 6, 1936. Dr472 HEARINGS III Postponement of The hearing to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of commission rates and charges at the New Orleans Stock Yards was postponed by the Secretary because the market agencies interested in the hearing desired to prepare for and participate in the Fourth Annual Louisiana Livestock Show. D-534 Upon request from the respondent market agencies, in the proceed¬ ings to determine the lawfulness of their‘proposed insurance pre¬ miums to cover livestock losses, that the hearing be postponed a reasonable time so that the respondents might file a new tariff setting out reasonable insurance rates arid charges, the Secretary ordered that the hearing be postponed to on indeterminate date, upon fivo days’ notice to respondents. D-557 Upon request of one respondent, the Secretary ordered the hearing to determine if respondents, a packer and market agency, were con¬ spiring against a shipper continued for one day. D-603 The Secretary postponed the proceedings against the Union Stock Yard & Transit Company of Chicago ct c,l. indefinitely. D-1252 Rehearings If rate determinations arc to result from reasoned analysis of the evidence rather then mere offhand opinion, considerable time must be consumed in their making. During that period, some economic change is inevitable. Respondent has obtained one rehearing be¬ cause the first hearing was followed by a general business depres¬ sion which adversely affected its gross revenues. It should not now be permitted to.obtain a second rehearing because, since the first rehearing, there has been a general improvement in those conditions. D-298 305 HEARINGS III Rchcarings In making his determination to grant or deny a rehearing, the Secretary must be allowed to permit an investigation by the Department of the respondent's books and records to determine the weight o.f the respondent's allegations for a rehearing, without subjecting the investigating staff of the Department to cross-examination by the respondent; otherwise, the Secretary would have to grant a rehearing to determine whether he should ;rant a rehearing* D-298 At the rehearing ordered by the Secretary, the Secretary ordered that the respondent stockyards company would be entitled to intro¬ duce further evidence competent and material to the issues raised by the original order of inquiry and that the record theretofore made in the original hearing, together with all the evidence introduced at the hearing and at the rehearing, should constitute the record in the proceeding D-298 In view of"the decision of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri that the Secretary erred in not allowing the respondent’s petition for a rehearing in the stockyards services rate ease, and of the decision of the Supremo Court of the United States in the ease of A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co* v. U. S ° > 284 U. S. 248, the Secretary was of the opinion that it was his duty under the law to reopen the docket and hold a rehearing* ' *> D-298 Upon a rehearing in a. commission rate cc.se, it is proper to permit the introduction of evidence relating to conditions subsequent to the date of the order of the prior -hearing, in order that all of the facts relative to the condition of the business in question may bo considered by the Secretary in making his determination as to the reasonableness of commission rates and charges. D-311 308 HEARINGS III Rehearings Upon rehearing, a notion to withdraw tentative findings of fact based upon the prior hearing was denied by the Secretary, since the Secretary’s final findings of fact upon which the final order would be based would be based upon not only evidence adduced at the prior hearing but also evidence adduced at the present hearing, and the respondent.narkot agencies would be given an opportunity to make exceptions again to the final findings of fact before the final order is made. The tentative findings of fact of the prior hearing should be includod in the record so that the Secretary will have the opportunity for rate-making purposes to compare the trend of operation costs of the respondents. D-311 On July 8, 1933, the Secretary ordered that petitions for rcin- vestigation aid rehearing filed on behalf of the respondent market agencies operating at the Kansas City livestock market and that the effective date of his order upon the first bo denied, rehearing, dated June 14, 1953, bo extended for a period of ton days. D-311 The first rehearing in the Kansas City Stockyards commission rato case t (the Morgan case) was granted by the Secretary upon tho ground, alleged by the majority of the respondent market agencies in tho petitions for a rehearing, that changed economic conditions since the original tost year, 1929, had rendered the experiences of that year insufficient as a basis for tho determination of reasonable rates. D-311 Upon petiti jxi of the respondent market agencies for a rehearing, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fc Ry. Co» v. U nited Sta tes , 284 Uo So 248, and of tho decision of the District Court of the United States for tho Western District of Missouri in tho caso of Sto Joseph Stockyards Comp any v. Uni ted States , 58 Fed. (2d) 290, tho Secretary was of the opinion that it wan his duty under the law to reopen tho docket and hold a rehearing to tho end that all parties in interest night be given an opportunity to present evi¬ dence of changes which occurred in the commission business since tho year 1929 and which are material to the issues raised by the order of inquiry with respect to tho lawfulness and reasonableness of tho commission rates and charges at the Kansas City livestock market, Tho Secretary, therefore, ordered that the original order in tho case, made on May 18, 1932, bo vacated and sot aside and tho docket be reopened, Tho Secretary further ordered that certain additional parties respondent be added, D-311 307 HEARINGS III Rehearings In determining whether a petition for rehearing should be granted, the Secretary’s duty is twofold. He nust be fair both to the users of the services rendered by the respondent stockyard corap any as a class and to the respondent stockyards company itself, D-344 Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied by the Secretary, it appearing that all of the conditions alleged in the petition to reopen the hearing existed at the date of the argument before the Secretary, and that if the- respondent had seriously and in good faith contemplated the filing of a petition for reopening, it should have presented facts during the argument upon which tho Secretary might have reached a conclusion as to the sufficiency of the then existing record upon which to base an order. To grant tho petition for rehearing would moan that much tine and labor in the prepara¬ tion of the order would have boon spent to no purpose. Reasonable administrative procedure should riot be so lightlv thwarted, D-344 Tho petition of the respondent commission firms for a rehearing, which was filed prior to the entering of the order of the Secretary in the proceedings, was denied by the Secretary on the grounds that a) no specific facts were set forth in tho petition to sustain any of the alleged change of conditions, (2) the record in the proceed¬ ings was not closed until July 2, 1932, and no facts were alleged in tho petition for rehearing to indicate that tho record made in tho proceeding did not offer cm accurate index of conditions as they presently exist with reference to respondents ’ business, and (5) in the orderly administration of tho Act, a hearing must ter¬ mini .to sometime. If a petition for reopening the case may bo filed and granted upon indefinite allegations, a prospective order of tho Secretary may be frustrated continually, D-383 308 HEARINGS III Ro hoar in "s The petition for a rehearing in the Chicago Union Stockyards commission rate case on the ground that the Secretary’s order of January 8, 1934, fixing the commission rates and charges, vdll cause certain reductions in revenues -which will nako it impossible for the petitioners to pay necessary operating expenses, that there have been .certain increases in expenses resulting from the National Recovery Act and tho Agricultural Adjustment Act, that the schedule of rates and charges is inequitable end not consistent with the level of cost or the trend of cost, that all Of the petitioners operated at a loss in 1933, and for other reasons, was denied bv the Secretary upon consideration of all the evidence and data submitted and upon a reconsideration of the entire record in the proceedings, but the Secretary made certain modifications with respect to tho schedule of rates and charges# D-402 Tho amended petition for a rehearing, filed by the respondent market agencies, in tho Chicago Union Stockyards case was care¬ fully considered and denied by the Secretary on April 12, 1934. D-402 A petition for a rehearing in a stockyards rate case was denied by tho Secretary, it appearing from facts known to the Secretary that the increased operating expenses of the respondent stockyards company, due to events and legislation occurring subsequent to tho closing of the original hearing, were or would bo offset by the prospoctivo increase in tho future volume of business over end above that volume used as a basis for the rates proscribed at the original hearing# D-425 Sinco tho granting of a petition for a rehearing in a stockyards rate case compels, in order to avoid distortion, that tho rehear¬ ing bo as complete end as full as was the original hearing, end since the original hearing takes a groat deal of time and covers respondent’s business ranging from the peal: of■prosperity through the depth of depression to tho beginning of recovery, and succes¬ sive rcheorings could inclofiliitely postpone the operation of cny order made by the Secretary, the Secretary must, in order to effectuate tho legislative purpose that rates bo regulated, deny the petition for rehoarings until time has been given to deter¬ mine the reasonableness and lawfulness of the rates end charges fixed by tho Secretary in the original hearing. D-425 309 HEARINGS III Rehcarings On petition for a rehearing and for modification of the Secretary's original order fixing certain rates and charges for the sale of livestock at the Denver Union Stock Yards, made on the ground that new conditions had arisen subsequent to the date of the hearing which affected the business of the commission men and which were not considered at the hearing, such now conditions including (l) increased costs of livin’; end a trend towards increased wages for o -.J labor, (2) increased expenses .due to Federal and State old ago security and old ago pension legislation, and (3) increased costs of supplies, the Secretary determined that such new conditions warranted a. modification of the commission rales and changes, and stipulated with the eotitioners that a. modification be made with- out a rehearing, subject to certain conditions therein sot forth, D-435 The respondents' petition for rehearing with respect to the reason¬ ableness of commission rales and charges at the Denver Union Stock Yards was denied, it appearing that: (l) The request for a. rehearing on the ground that the effect of drought upon the Denver Market would ivo some influence upon the future supplies of livestock was too speculative, since an attempt to predict future trends resulting from abnormal conditions, such as drought, must necessarily be socculalive; * o j . y (2) Their petition for rohearino on the ’round that collective bargaining in labor had given rise to serious conditions within the livestock commission business was not supported by any fact or specific allegation of how such collective bargaining resulted in injury to the respondents; (3) A rehearing on the ground that the cost of livin^ of the employees of the market agencies had increased would have little or no value because any fact which right present a. bearing upon the question since the time of the hearing would caver so short a period a,s to render any conclusions valueless in so far ais the effect upon reasonable costs is concerned; (4) A rehearing upon the ;round that the respondents had incurred loss in their oper aliens since the adjournment of the hearing is unnecessary because reasonable rales and charges arc not fixed for the purpose of permitting market agencies to stay in business when the volume of the business will not justify it. D-435 310 HEARINGS III Rchearings Petition for rehearing filed by the attorneys for the respondents in the American Commission Company case, concerning the rens onr.blc- ncss and lawfulness of commission rates and charges at the Denver Union Stock Yards, was denied by the Secretary on the ground that the respondents had sot forth in their petition no adequate reason for roncann P-435 Petition by complainant for rehearing in reparation case denied, the complainant having been permitted and urged at the hearing to introduce evidence relating to all the facts pertaining to the case end to cross-examine all witnesses who testified on behalf of the respondent, and the complainant having been further permitted to submit written arguments end to file a brief with the Secretary, am considera.tion of the entire record as made indicatin. a serious doubt if there ever was a. contract made by the respondent to deliver cho cs.tt.lc, the subject of the inquiry, to the complain* ant, and., if there was a contract, there was a failure on the part D-524 of the complainant to s n.. ■ \'i aama, o« Motion by the complainant for rehearing in rcpa.ra.tion case for the alleged failure of the respondent to deliver cattle to the complainant under a seJ.cc contract, on the ground that the decision of the Socrotarv wa.s "apparently written without consultation of *j j. X 1/ the record and without consider a.ti on for the arguments filed by the complainant", was denied by the Secretary, a. full consideration of the record showing that the complainant was iven and ur god to take every opportunity to prove his ca.so but fad led to do so. D-524- Reopenin.; of X v-J Pursuant pr ocoedin order and to Examiner’s rocomnendation, the Secretary dismissed the • without prejudice, subject to being rcoocned upon his due notice thereof to the respondent• D-24 oil HEARINGS III Reopening of Petition filed by respondent to reopen the case for tho purpose of talcing further testimony after tho Examiner’s findings were issued allowed. D-24 Upon petiti m of tho respondent market agencies at the Omaha Union Stock Yards, South Omaha, Nebraska, for a modification of tho com¬ mission rates proscribed by the Secretary in his order dated Novem¬ ber 19, 1926, the Secretary, on February 20, 1940, ordered that the case be reopened and that all interested parties, including patrons of the petitioners, be given an opportunity to appear and present evidence with respect to the ra.tcs and charges in question. D-143 Motion by tho respondent market agencies to van ate the Secretary’s "order reopening proceedings" in tho Kansas City Stockyard 'com¬ mission rate erne wen denied by the Secretary, but the Secretary reserved to the respondents the right to renew their notion at a. later stage when the nature and extent of the issues in the case should become more clearly defined. D-311 The Supremo Court of the United States having held, on April 25, 1938, that the Secretary’s order of Juno 14, 1933, in the Kansas City Stockyard commission rate ease was invalid because tho respondent market agencies were not fairly advised of what tho Government proposed to do and were not given opportunity to be hoard upon such proposals, the Secretary ordered, on June 2, 1938, that tho proceedings be reopened. D-311 Upon petition • of the respondent market agencies for a rehearing. and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Atchison, Topeka & S anta, Fc Ry. Co. v. United States, 284 r J. S • 248, and of the decision of the District Cjurt of the United States for the lies torn District of Missouri in the case of St. Joseph Stockyards Company v. Uni ted States , 58 Fed, (2d) 290, the Secretary was of the opinion that it was his duty under tho law to reopen tho docket and hold a rehear¬ ing to tho end that all parties in interest might be given an opportunity to present evidence of changes which occurred in tho commission business since the year 1929 and which arc material to tho issues raised by tho order of inquiry with respect to the lawfulness and rccnoiiablcnoss of tho commission rates and charges at tho Kansas City livestock market. The Secretary, therefore, ordered that the original order in the cane, ma.de on May 18, 1932, bo va.cc.tcd and set aside and the docket be reopened. The Secretary further ordered that certain additional parties respondent bo added . D-311 312 HEARINGS III Reopening of After the Secretary had, upon vaiver of a hearing by the respondent narket apency, suspended its registration as a market agency and dealer for six months for certain admitted unfair practices, he reopened the case, hold a hearing, and entered a new order of suspension of one ye ar instead of the original six months * period, D-327 On January 12, 1940, the Secretary ordered a reopening of Docket 402 for the purpose of affording the petitioners for a rchoarinp, and all interested parties, including patrons, an op x ortunity to appear and present such evidence as. may be rolcvan.t and material to the matters allowed in the petition, D-402 x. From an administrative standpoint, it is not possible rate proceedings for the purpose of taking evidence up of every fluctuation in the costs of livinp. to reopen on occasions D-435 Suppl enontal Supplenontal hearing, for the takinp of further testimony relative to boycott activities, ordered by the Secretary, D-246 Waiver of Stipulation entered into on February 2, 1928, between respondent dealer and the Secretary of Apriculture, in which respondent admitted the material facts allowed in the inquiry axid notice and waived a hearing thereon, D-159 313 HEARINGS III Waiver of Respondent entered into a stipulation of facts with the Secretary of Agriculture in which the natcrial facts alleged in the inquiry and notice concerning the fed.lure of respondent to execute e. performance bond in accordmco with the Act, as anondod, wero adnittod, end hearing thereon was waived. D-160 On the 20th day of April, 1927, counsel for 'the respondents, by stipulation in the record, admitted the natcrial allegations in the notice of inquiry, but did not-adnit any conclusions of law to bo drawn therefrom, arid waived further hearing# D-189 The Secretary of Apriculture accoptod respondent narket apcncy’s aciaiowlo dement of service of the order of inquiry with respect to its failure to execute and naintain and file a copy of the performance bond, its admission of the truth of the matters end thinjs therein alio.pod, and its waiver of a hearing thereon, oven though the admi.ssion end waiver which was received in the Bureau of Animal Industry carried no date of the signature of respondent, D-237 Respondent Cleveland Union Stock Yards Company’s request to file a tariff of reduced rates end charges end permit the Secretary to make his conclusions in order thereon, topother with other infor¬ mation furnished the Secretary .in order to avoid the expense of a hcarinp, pranted by the Secretary. D-442 INSOLVENCY III In so for as solvency or financial responsibility is concerned, there is norc risk to the seller in selling cattle than to the buyer, because the question of the ability to collect the sale price exists in every transaction, vdiilo the risk of a chattel nort ;a'c is snail. D~39 The respondent havin ' appeared at the hearin. • on insolvency and introduced into evidence a bank statenent and balance sheet shomn' 1 ’ that on Mav 15, 1930 he had a balance in tho bank to his credit, the proceedings on insolvency ncrc dismissed, D-310 315 INSURANCE III The rules and .by-laws of the Kansas City Livestock Exchange pertain¬ ing to blanket insurance are unjust, unreasonable, end discriminatory in that they provide that no nonber thereof or trader’or commission nan contributin ’ to the blanket insurrncc fund of said exchange shall sell or buy from any party regularly operating at the Kansas City Stocky ends not contributing to the blanket insurance fund, while at the sane tine excludin' the Producers’ Connission Association from ■— > contributing thereto* D-39 Any refusal on the part of tho neribors of the Kansas City Livestock Exchange to deal directly or indirectly with the Producers’ Cx.ois- sion Association, based on the fa.ct that the livestock handled by the Association is not covered by blanket insurance, is without merit, since this insurance can readily be extended to the associa¬ tion end since the allowed obstacle is one created by the members themselves. D-39 It is entirely practicable to extend blanket insurance to all market agencies and persons handlin'* livestock in the Kansas City Stock- yards that are desirous if oarticipc„tin." in such insurance, and it t J j. i m j is desirable that this bo done on an equitable ba.sis, D-39 Market agencies and stockyard owners have not, prior to July 18, 1927, been required to file a tariff showing rates and charges covering insurance. D-193 Livestock handled in the yards of the Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., is insured under a blanket policy against losses that nay occur through the burning of tho yard. The premium on this insur¬ ance is paid by an assessment made against each consignment of livestock. D-291 The Sioux City Livestock Exchange carries a. blanket fire insurance policy to protect the owners of livestock consigned to its members at the Sioux City market against losses by fire during the time the livestock is within the confines of the yard. A separate deduction on the proceeds of sale is made to cover tho cost of premiums and administration of this policy. Tho Exchange realizes a. substantial profit from the charges made for inspection end insurance. The non- pember respondent firms carry their own fire insurance policies and make the deductions from tho proceeds of sale to cover the cost. D-308 In ce.se of truck consignments, a. commission firm usually makes a. deduction to cover transit insurance, and the amount is remitted to the local office of tho insurance company. D-308 316 INSURANCE III The Kansas City Livestock Exchange procures and maintains a policy of insurance protecting livestock ayainst fire while it is in the yard• One-half of the premium is deducted from the proceeds of the sale of livestock, end traders, packers, and order buyers also con¬ tribute to a fund used to maintain this insurance• Those agencies which are not members of the Exchange maintain their individual insurance policies and do'not enjoy tho protection of the blanket policy carried by the Exchange for its members, < ' D-311 The Chicago Livestock Exchange has a. blanket insurance policy covering all livestock, consigned' to' affiliated commission firms while in the stockyards. This policy insures a.joinst loss by firo or nixinj occasioned by fire. The premium is collected partly from the shipper, and tho balance is absorbed j wntly by packers and vend trrulers, D-402 Tho Denver Livestock Exchange has a. blanket life insurance policy covering each member on which it pays the premium and in turn collects for the same from its members* When a member dies, the amount of the insurance is paid to tho Exchange which in turn remits to the beneficiary, D-435 The action of respondents, a.ctiny through the Omaha Livestock Exchange of which they arc members, in yl.acinj insurance upon livestock boujht and sold for choir pa.tr ons with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company to the exclusion of all other insurance companies, and payinj therefor a premium a.t tho rate of 15pf per car, vihich is taken out of the shippers’ proceeds, while a.t the same time several other insurance companies offered to carry such insurance a.t rates much lower than the rates a.s aforementioned, constituted a. ‘violation of the Act in thaet respondents were o bar yin j nd unroe.soma.blo insurance ra.tcs to their patrons• D-449 Insurance and bond premiums were considered by the Secretary, in tho proceeding to fix reasonable commission ra.tcs and char yes a.t tho Now Orleans Stock Yards, as insurable risk expense, all other risk expenses wore considered as uninsurable risk, expense, D-534 317 JURISDICTION III It appearing fron the ovidonee thc.t the respondent is not operating at a stockyards with an area of 20,000 square foot and, honco, is not oporatinj at a stockyard which is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture as defined in Section 302 (a) of the Act, the Secretary dismissed the bond proceedings* D-501 Title II of the Act is general in its application and is similar to the Federal Tro.de Commission Act. A packer nay violate the Act not inly in connection with the buying of livestock, but in handling meats, meat food products, dairy products, poultry, poultry products, or eggs. Such violations need not occur at a, stockyard. On the other hand, violations on the part of a stock- yard owner, market agency, or dealer, covered under the provisions of Title III, must bo in connection with livestock at a, "stockyard"• D-1175 Authority of Secretary in Rate Cases The Packers and Stockyards Act does not empower the Secretary to. prescribe new ra.tes for a stockyard unless and until he has found the rate or ra.tes adopted bv it to be unreasonable. D-116 The function of the Secretary in determining the reasonableness of rates or charges "is not to act as an arbiter in economics, but as an agent of Con-press, to apply the la.w of the land to facts devel¬ oped of record." (St. Louis & O’Fallon Ry. Co. ct al• v. United St ates , 49 S. Ct. 3847) . * D-291 At the outset of the hearing on the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent's schedules of stockyards services rates and charges, respondent’s counsel objected to the scope of the inquiry on the ground that the notice of hearing was given pursuant to Section 207 (e) of Title VII of the U. S. C. A., and that, therefore, the Secretary was without power and jurisdiction in the hearing to examine into the valuation of properties or into the yardago rates and other matters, except charges for feed. The Examiner overruled the objection. D-301 / \ . 318 JURISDICTION III Authority of Secretory in Rato Cases Stipulation.entered into botwoon the Secretary of Agriculture and members of the Sioux City Livestock Rxchango, whereby such nonbors agreed that if the order fixing rates, dated July 25, 1931, is - modified by the Secretary it will bo only for the period from Novonbor 15, 1937 to and including Hay 31, 1938, and for such tine thereafter as the Secrotary nay need for the consideration of reports, and that thereafter the Secretary nay, without further hearing, nako such further modifications of the order as ho dooms proper, with the understanding--that no reduction will be made below the rates and charges fixed by the order of July 25, 1931, without the consent of the members; the members, petitioners, further agreed to submit to the Secretary, at the close of December, 1937, and quarterly thereafter, a statement of business transacted for the use of the Secretary for considering further modification of the rates and charges without a hearing. D-308 It is the duty of the Secrotary to proscribe, on the basis of ascortainablo facts, a schedule of reasonable rates to be charged by market agencies if the oxisting rates in a rate proceeding are found to bo unreasonable. D-311 The Secretary of Agriculture agencies insist, accept as re need not, as the respondent market asonable, in com.'iiscion rato-makiig j > the average oxvendituros of all firms without reword to whether the individual items enterin ’ into the a ; re ate, from which the average is ascertained, are reasonable or not. Such a procedure and method of rate-making would render the exercise of reasonable judgment practically valueless, D-311 It is able the duty of the Secretary of Agriculture to proscribe reason %f w O i. commission rates in accordance with a reasonable standard. Such a standard involves efficiency in the handling of livestock by a market agency and economy in the conduct of the business of the market agency. It is the duty of•the rate-maker to inform himself with respect to whether each respondent market agency is conducting his businoss economically, to the ond that the schedule proscribed, nay not pass on unnecessary expenses to those who pay the rates. D-311 319 JURISDICTION III Authority of Secretary in Rate Cases The Packers and Stockyards Act does not jive 'the Secretary of Agriculture authority to determine just how nany commission firms would be required at a particular market to handle the business properly, or what specific firms should be engaged in the business, or whether certain of the firms arc unwisely continuing in business, .D-311 An objection by the respondent market agencies that the rate- making power should not be exercised in the case, because no authority is vested either in the respondents themselves or in the Secretary to limit the number of agencies which may engage in business at the Kansas City market, is not well founded, since it is the duty of a rate-maker, here the Secretary of Agriculture, to exorcise the authority with which he has been clothed without regard to that with which some nay think he should be clothed, D-311 Tho Packers and Stockyards Act provides that whenever, after investigation and full hearing, the Secretary finds commission rates in effect at a livestock market to bo unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory, ho shall proscribe rates that arc just, reason¬ able, and non discriminatory, or the maximum or minimum, D-311 (Second Rehearing) It is the duty of the Secretary of Agriculture under tho law, if he finds the rates in effect to be unjust, unreasonable, or dis¬ criminatory, to proscribe rates that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, or tho maximum or minimum rates which arc so* D-383 The Packers and Stockyards Act directs tho Secretary to proscribe just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory commission ratos and charges if it is found, after a full hearing, that a schcdulo of ratos end charges is unjust, unreasonable, or unjustly discriminatory, D-402 The Packers and Stockyards Act does not grant the Secretary of Agriculture authority to determine how many commission firms would be required to handle tho business at a market properly, or what specific firms should bo engaged in business, or whether some firms are unwisely continuing in business, D-402 JURISDICTION III Authority of Secretary in Rato Cases The Packers and Stockyards Act provides that tho Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe reasonable raid nondiscriminatory rates if, after a full hearing, he finds those in effect to be unreasonable or unfair, D-435 Tho Packers end Stockyards Act does not vest in the Secretary authority to determine how many firms would be necessary to handle commission business at a particular stockyards profitably, or whether specific firms should bo engaged in business, or whether some firms arc unwisely continuing in business. The mere existence of a firm on the market does not require that tho Secretary proscribe a schedule of rates high enough to guarantoo its continuance and to insure it a yearly profit irrespective of its expense or volume. D-435 Under the 1 atr of the land, it is required that rates prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the respondent Cleveland Union Stock Yards 0or.roanv shall be such as will allow it a fair X. *J return upon the fair value of its property used and useful in tho rendition of the services for which arc charged the rates. Tho Packers and Stockyards Act docs not clothe the Secretary )f Agriculture with the authority to determine hew many firms would be required to handle tho business properly or what specific firms arc unwisely continuing in business. D-445 The Packers And Stockyards net to proscribe reasonable rates• directs the Secretary of Agriculture D-445 ‘ Tho Packers and Stockvards Act provides that nothin": therein shall affect the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, or confer upon tho Secretary of Agriculture concurrent jurisdiction over any natter within tho jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Section 40G• Sinco, therefore, the service of unload¬ ing end loading livestock from end into cars is a railroad service, the chon go therefor is a re.ilroex! charge end not a stockyards charge, end not within the jurisdiction of tho Secretory of Agriculture. D-450 321 JURISDICTION III 0 Authority of Secretary in Rato Cases The Packers and Stockyards Act provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe reasonable and nondlscrininatory rates if, after a full hearing, he finds the rates in force to be unreasonable or unfair or unjustly discriminatory* D-534 . Duties end Authority of Secretary under the net It is a vri.se principle that, in seeking the la, the corrective measures should then the needs of the case require. to correct violations of not work rare mischief D-142 The Packers and Stockyards Act imposes upon the Secretary the duty to apply such corrective orders as will be appropriate to the exigencies of the case end effective to remedy the abuses shown* D-142 It -is fundamental that the Secretary has no power to compel a stockyard to render a service without remuneration. b-208 The Secretary may not apednst someone other require a stockyard to e.sscss e. charpo then the recipient of the service* D-208 Brand inspection is stockyards service nd is controlled by the Packers find Stockyards Act, 1921, when rendered at a stock¬ yard subject to the Act, end in such case brand inspection is not controlled by the laws of the state in which the stockyard is located. D-278 322 JURISDICTION III Duties and Authority of Secretary under the Act Conoress did not intend that regulation under the Packers and Stockyards Act should extend to include regulation of stock-show associations as a stockyard service, for to presume such an intention upon Congress would render it necessary for the Secretary to include the value of tho property of a stock-show association in the rate base and to assume the responsibility for determining tho reasonableness of the general entrance foes, tho price of reserved seat tickets, the charges made for concessions during tho show week, end tho rental for various activities hold occa- sionally through tho year. Stockyards services should not be construed that broadly, D-4-50 Tho stockyards service of and into cars is a common visions of tho Intersta.to and Suspension Docket No, service, (295 U. b. 193) unloading end loa.ding livestock from carrier service subject to the pro- Comer co net, I, C. C. Investigation 4109, Page 342, It is a- transportation D-450 Over Controversies Involving Agency The' contention made by the respondent that the Secretary has no jurisdiction ovor a controversy under tho Packers and Stockyards Act with respect to the alleged actions of respondent in holding out a. person to be his a.gont for country buying because such controversies have no relation to interstate commerce was dis¬ posed of in tho ca.so of Stafford v, Wallace, 258 U, S. 495, D-523 Over Livestock Exchanges Tho Packers and Stockyards Act gives tho Secretary no jurisdiction ovor livestock exchanges an such or over tho relations existing between the exchanges and the members thereof or ovor the disci¬ plinary rules and regulations adoptod by this exchange to govern its members, except incidentally and indirectly in canes where the regulations of tho exchange put into effect prentices which the Packers and Stockyards Act condemns, D-288 JURISDICTION III Over Livestock in Transit The Secretary has no jurisdiction under the Packers and Stockyards Ret rath respect to livestock in the course of transportation, and, so lonj as the livestock is in the custody, of the council carrier, the fact that the stockyards coup any nay bo employed by the carrier to unload the livestock, thereby bccoriiny the carrier’s oyent prior to the tine the transportation ends, does not confer jurisdiction under the Act, See Denver Union Stock Yards Company v. United States 304 U. 3. 470. 477. D~L230 ~~ The service subsequently performed in' disposing of an animal whioh diod in the course of transportation, oven though it may bo a stock¬ yard sorvj.ee, does not brinp the transaction within tho jurisdiction of tho Secretary. D-1230 Over Manajemont of Market Agency nffairs * * The Secretary has no power under the Act relative to nonaecnent of tho affairs of market aqcncios. D-142 Ripht of Socrota.ry to Waive Under the provisions of tho Packers and Stockyards i.et, tho Secretary’s jurisdiction of tho proceeding to determine the 1 awf ulncss of respondent ’s boycott activities is mrndc.tory and can neither be waived nor conferred by consent. D--330 524 JURISDICTION III Set-Off, To Determine Right of It is not for the Secretary to determine, under the circumstances of the case, the validity of a claim of the right of a market agency to vdthhold and off-sot oiiGier’s proceeds from tho sale of ca.ttlc agadnst an alleged debt duo tho purchaser of the ca.ttlc ■ which arose from a prior transaction between the purchaser and the owner, involving hops infected vdth cholera, tho determina¬ tion >? the validity of such a. claim being a judicial question within the jurisdiction of a civil court of competent jurisdiction. D-245 To Award Reparation Tho Secretary concluded that, upon the pleading and evidence and tho facts disclosed by the record in the case, ho hud jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for reparation. D-97 Motion, by respondent stockyards owner, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Secretary has no jurisdiction under Title III of tho Act to award reparation for donates suffered in specific instances, denied, there being also a. more general allegation in the complaint that resp ondont had failed to render to complainant a reasonable service without discrimination, as required by Section 307 of tho Act. D-97 Under the statute, reparation only can be awarded by tho Secretary for damages resulting to a complainant from defendant’s violation of some ono of tho provisions of Sections 304, 305, 306, and 307 or.of some order of the Secretary issued under Title III. D-288 There is no jurisdiction of tho Secretary to award reparation in tho cc.se where complainant has boon fined and expelled from member¬ ship of a livestock exchange for having violated a regulation of tho exchange, since such action is not a violation of any previous order issued under Title III of the Act, even if it be held tha.t the complaint in the proceeding is sufficient to sustain a conclu¬ sion tha.t tho defendants have viola.ted Section 312 of the Act. D-288 525 JURISDICTION III To Award Reparation The Packers and Stockyards Act does not authorize the Secretary to make and issue an award of damages unless the complainant has filed a. petition with the Secretary of Agriculture within ninety days from the date the cause of action accrues„ D-S49j D-981 To Issue Cease and desist Orders Under all the circumstances end facts disclosed by the record, it is felt that a cease and desist ordor is an appropriate exercise of the authoritv conferred bv the statute-. D-136 U t J The material issue in the case, where complainant is claiming reparation for the defendant livestock exchange having forfeited his membership for .violation of an exchange regulation with which the Secretary has jurisdiction to deal, is whether the defendants, as members of the exchange, in their individual capacities, arc indulging in unfair or unjustly discriminatory practices against complainant in 'violation of privileges of Section 312 of the Act, calling for the application of remedial measures by way of the cease and desist order. D-288 The statute authorizes the Department to suspend, for a roasonablc specified period of time, the registration of a registrant who- has violated the terms of the statute, or the Department may issue .a cea.sc and desist order, or both forms of the order may bo invoked. D-393; D-398 Even though the complainant ha.s not filed his petition for r opr no.- tion within the ninety-day period required by the Act and cannot, therefore, bo awarded damages, the Act authorizes the Secretary, still, to determine from the evidence adduced at the hearing whether the respondent violated the .Act, and in the event the facts as found disclose a. violation of either Section 307 or 312 of the Act, the Secretary is authorized to issue an appropriate cease and desist order end, in his discretion, to suspend the registration of the offending market agency for "a reasonable specifi cd • i tt period". D-949 JURISDICTION III To Issue Cease and Desist Orders The Packers end Stockyards Act authorizes the Secretary to deter¬ mine from the evidence adduced at the hearing whether the respond¬ ent violated the Act and, in the event the facts found disclose that the respondent has violated either Sections 307 or 312 of the Act, the Secretary is authorized to issue an appropriate coc.se and desist order and in his discretion to suspend the registration of the offending market agency for "a reasonable specified period”. D-S81 The motion by the respondent market agency, made at the hearing, to dismiss the case on the ground that no adequate proof of damages had been made for the alleged breach of contract by the respondent v/as denied by the Secretary, the Secretary holding that while no adequate proof of damages had boon made, an award for nominal domagos should be given and a cease and desist order should be entered* D-1109 Tho grca.t weight of authority is to the effect that the discontinu¬ ance of irregular practices prior to the issuance of a. complaint does not preclude the issuance of a cease and desist order* D-1175 To Suspend tho Registrant The sta.tute a.uthorizos the Department to suspend, for a. reasonable specified period of time, the registration of a. registrant who has violated tho terms of the .statute, or tho Department may issue a. cease and desist order, or both forms of tho order may bo invoked. D-393; D-398 Avon though the complainant has not filed his petition for repara¬ tion within the ninety-day period required by the Act and cannot, therefore, be awarded damages, the Act authorizes tho Secretary, still, to determine from tho evidence adduced at tho hearing whether tho respondent violated the Act, and in tho event the fa.cts as found disclose a violation of cither Section 307 or 312 of the Act, the Secretary is authorized to issue an appropriate cease and desist order and, in his discretion, to suspend the registration of the offending market agency for "a. reasonable specified period"* D-949 327 JURISDICTION III To Suspond the Registrant Tho Packers and Stockyards Act authorizes the Secretary to deter¬ mine from the evidence adduced at tho hearing whether the respond¬ ent violated tho Act end, in the event tho facts found disclose that the respondent has violated either Sections 307 or 312 of the Act, the Secretary is authorized to issue an appropriate coaso and desist order end, in his discretion, to suspond the registration of the offending market agency for "a reasonable specified period”* D-981 Transactions Involving Country Livestock The contention of tho respondent that the Secretary has no jurisdic¬ tion over the ease, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, because tho transaction occurred in the country end not at a stockyards under tho jurisdiction of the Secretary, is disposed of by tho fact that the cattle wore purchased for end on behalf of a market agency doing business at a posted stockyard with full knowledge and with tho intent that the cattle should bo delivered to the respondent at tho stockyard. D-523 Tho Secretary has jurisdiction under the Act to hear a complaint for reparation for the failure of respondent market agency to honor a draft for tho payment of cattle, even though the contract for tho sale- of the cattle was made in the country end the cattlo wore weighed and shipped either in tho country or at an unposted stock- yard* D-754 The Secretary of Agriculture has jurisdiction to award reparation against a deader in livestock in the case of country transactions« If there has been.no court decision sustaining the Department on this point, it is ad so true that there has been no court decision which differs with tho Department. D-1131 328 LIVESTOCK, LOSS OF DURING TRANSPORTATION III Negligence with respect to the shipment of livestock cannot bo imputed to the shipper thereof when the market agency to whom the livestock is being shipped instructed its buying agent to choose the method of transportation and the buying agent did so. Loss due to negligence in shipping must be borne by the party who chose the method of shipment. D-927 Y/hcn livestock is sold F.O.B. the local place of delivery, and there is a loss of the animals in transit between the place of delivery and the place of sale, the loss must fall upon tho purchaser and not the seller. D-1131 ) \ * 329 LIVESTOCK ON CONSIGNMENT III It was concluded 'by the Secretary that the Examiner’s findin that the country buyer had accepted and shipped the cnttlo o the coiaplaincuit to' the respondent for sale on a consignment basis was not supported by the evidence. . D-1159 530 t-bCO LIVESTOCK SALES A1TD TPJJISACTIONS III Conspiracy in Conspiracies may be proven and, in fact, in most cases necessarily are proven by a combination of facts and circumstances rather than direct proof of specific evgrcement. D-330 Fa.iluro on the part of the order buyer to obtain the competition of the market through tlio device of talcing title to livestock end selling it to the packer at an advanco, or billing the packer at cost plus commission, constitutes an unfair practice, the price paid by the buyer being reflected in the price eventually charged to the packer• D-330 A pa.ckcr and a market agency wore found by the Secretary to have entered into an agreement, combinati on, or conspiracy between then- selves in that after the packer had refused to accept delivery of an order of livestock from the shipper end the shipper had there¬ after consigned the livestock to the market agency for sale, the market agency, vdth knowledge of the facts, then sold the livestock to the packer but reported to the shipper that the livestock had been sold to a third party, resulting in loss to the shipper. D-603 The allegations in the complaint, charging that the respondents marlcot agency and packer conspired with each other to make and use the unfair and deceptive practices or devices complained of vdth respect to rendering reports to or for common carriers for the purpose of influencing freight charges on shipments of live¬ stock, wore hold by the Secretary to have not been established by the evidence. D-1175 331 LIVESTOCK SALES AND TRANSACTIONS III Fraudulently Obtaining Possession of Animali Market agency which obtained possession of 13 lav.ibs by inducing, under false and fraudulent promises to make payment for said lambs, an Gifiployoe of the Cleveland Stockyards Company to drive sold 13 lambs owned by the Cleveland Provisions Company from Pen No* 313 to Pen No* 309, substituting the 13 lambs of inferior grade in Pen No. 309 therefor, and thoror.ftcr delivered said 13 lambs as its property to the packing plant of Blumonstock & Reid, violated Title III of the Act. D-146 Highest Bid, Failing to Accept The practice of a market agency of selling livestock to dealers at loss than the market price and then refunding amounts over and above the proceeds received from the sale of the livestock to the shippers, upon complaint from the shippers that they did not receive- the market price for their livestock, constituted a flagrant violation of Title III of the Act. D-142 Respondent market agencies viol abed the Act by refusing to sell livestock, without just cause, to one Ben Sheppard, a prospective buyer, and to other buyers or prospective buyers acting on behalf of the said Ben Sheppard, even though the, bid upon said livestock by said buyers or bid for the day. prospective buyers D-362; was frequently the highest D-363j D-364- D-365; •366 The respondent that it had fai livestock and t highest bidder. na.ving market agency W led to roport on accounts hat it had failed to sell waived a hearing on the charges sale the true purchaser of certain livestock to tho and having .atis f ac tori1y o explained to tho Depart* merit that the failure to sell tho livestock to tho highest bidder was because of a. misunderstanding between a buyer and a salesman for the respondent market agency, tho Secretary dropped tho charges of having failed to sell to the highest bidder. D-1103 332 LIVESTOCK SALES AND TRANSACTIONS III » Imposition of Penalties on i In vi ox: of all the circumstances, raid looking to the betterment of marketing conditions, and the ostablishaent and maintenance of open, competitive markets, the Secretary is not disposed to impose penalties but rather to seek remedial and corrective measures, D-189 On Contingent Price Basis Respondent market agency whieh violated a rule of the livestock exchange of which it is a member, tho rule having been filed with the Packers end Stockyards Administration and established as a rule of respondent, by selling livestock contingent upon the price which nay be paid for other livestock, violated Title III of tho Act. D-113 Stolon Livestock Under tho laws of Missouri, a commission market agency, however innoccntlv it may do so, which soils stolen cattlo in Missouri without the consent of the true owner and pays the not proceeds to tho thiof, is guilty of a civil conversion and is liable to the owner for the full value of the cattle. D-949 353 \ LIVESTOCK SALES AHD TRANSACTIONS III Stolen Livestock Even though the laws of Hiss our i provide that a commission narket agency is guilty of a. civil conversion and liable to the owner for the full value of stolen cattle which it had sold and remitted for to the thief without the consent of the true owner, it does not follow that the rlarkot agency violates Section 307 or Section 312 of the Act when it refuses, upon the mere presentation of a claim end demand for payment, to pay the value of the cattle to a person who claims to be the true owner thereof, if the narket agency sold the stolon cattle in good faith end without actual knowledge or constructive notice that the cattle had boon stolen. It is neither unfair nor unjust for such market agency, acting in good faith, to withhold payment of such claim until it has had an opportunity to investigate the facts in the case and,. if it desires, to contest the claim and require the claimant to test its validity in a court of competent jurisdiction. .D-949 The Secretary concluded that the respondent market agency had not engaged in an unjust practice in violation of Section 307 or on unfair practice in violation of Section 312 of the Act, as amended, by failing and refusing to pay over to the complainant the proceeds from the sale of the livestock which the complainant contended had boon stolon from him, the evidence showing that the market agency had no actual knowledge or constructive notice that the cattle had been stolen, had in good faith paid*the proceeds from the sale of the cattle over to the thief, and. that’ there was no record made at the hearing that the cattle sold by the. market agency were the identical cattle stolen from-the complainants• D-949 334 LIVESTOCK SALES AND TRANSACTIONS III Switching Animals It appearing to the Secretary that the respondent market agency is not now violating the Act and that its previous practices of over¬ charging the purchaser and of switching animals were the result of errors and iroro not indicative of a practice, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice, D-137 Dealer suspended from registration as a dealer for a period of one year for having engaged in the unfair and deceptive.- practice and device of taking possession without authority of thirty-one hogs belonging to a market agency and removing scdd thirty-one hogs to a pen where they were intermingled with other hogs belonging to the dealer. D-280 Dealer who, without authority, exchanged or switched a small Jersey cow weighing 730 pounds for a large roan cow belonging to another, and yen do d in a. different pen and then sold the roan cow as his own for a pound, the Jersey cow bringing only a pound, engaged in an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive prentice and device in connection with receiving, buying, soiling, holding, and handling livestock in commerce, and wc.s suspended by the Secretary from registration as a denier for a period of one year, D-314 Dealer suspended from registration an a dealer for a, period of one year for having violated Title III of the Act by switching or exchanging, without authority, 5 small sandy-colored hogs belonging to him for 5 larger hogs belonging to another. D-341 Dealer suspended from registration for six months for having enga.ged in the unfair and deceptive practice and device of weigh¬ ing or ce.using to bo weighed to Danahy Packing Company, without 1 awful right or authority, certain rough hogs and pla.cing such rough hogs with a draft of hogs which ha.d 1 awfully been sold to said Packing Company, although the rough hogs had not been sold to said company, B-553 X. . • • LIVESTOCK SALSS AHD TRANSACTIONS III Switching Animals Proof introduced at the hearing having failed to sustain charges that respondent market .agency switched a bull belonging to a - trucker for a bull belonging to a certain farmer, weighing 200 pounds more than the bull belonging to the, trucker, and remitted to the trucker for the additional 200 pounds in consideration for the trucker bring¬ ing livestock to the respondent, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed. D-399 A cease and dosist order was entered against 0 , market agency end dealer for having • switched one steer of inferior grade and quality for a superior steer which the purchaser had bought from tho market agency end dealer, the evidence indicating that the switch was deliberate and not tho result of a mistake. D-894 The evidence adduced at tho hearing having indicated that the respondent dealer substituted three hogs which he owned for three hogs of considerably heavier weight belonging to another, and sold tho hogs thus switched for his own account, leaving the inferior hogs for tho other person, tho Secretary found that such practice was unfair and unjustly discriminatory and ordered that tho regis¬ tration of the respondent be suspended for one year. D-1161 336 MARKET AGENCIES III The Kansas City Livestock Exchange is a voluntary association of persons engaged in the business of buying end selling livestock in interstate commerce on a commission basis as market agencies at the Kansas City Stockyards at Kansas City, bliss our i and Kansas, end is subject to the provisions of Title III of the Act. D-l The Secretary of Agriculture found that the Woolgrowers Commission Company was a partnership, was registered under the Act as a market agency, and maintedned offices at the Chicago Union Stockyards, Chicago, Illinois, and at the Union Stockyards, South Omaha, Nebraska, for the transection of its business as a market agency. D-27 At the time of the filing of the complaint, there were 65 market agencies registered as such under the Act, and 384 dealers regis¬ tered thereunder as such, cd the Kansas City Stockyards, Kansas City, Missouri. D-39 Acting cs Loaders When a market agency registered under the Act reports to A that A’s shcop were sold to C, end deducts its commission as if for an origined sale, whereas, in fact, the sheep were sold by the market agency to B, then to C, end no commission was changed B for the resole to C, but tho commission which would ordinarily be charged to B was, in fact, the commission charged to A, and the profits made by B on tho resede to C were turned over to tho market agency, the market agency indulged in doalor practices violating tho applicable provisions of the Act and of tho rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto by tho Secretary of Agriculture. D-27 When respondent market agency rendered accounts sede which stated various persons other than itself to be the purchasers of tho live¬ stock, at a ccrtcdn price per pound, and remitted on tho basis of said accounts sale, while, in fact, tho livestock was "weighod-up" or sold to itself o.t the price stated on the accounts sale, and on the following day or a few days thcror.fter, it sold sodd livestock to an entirely now purchnsor at an increased price per pound, it violated Title.Ill of the Act by failing- to disclose the true pur¬ chaser and by acting a.s deader without having registered as such. D-130 337 MARKET AGENCIES III Acting :is Dealers Respondent market agency rendered accounts sale reports showing livestock to have been sold to ’Mlatkins-Account of A”, ’’Smith”, end to other such fictitious names, while, in fact, the livestock i:as "weighed up" and sold to itself, rend on the following day or a fevr days after the sale to itself, it, in turn, sold the live¬ stock to various purchasers. Hold by the Secretary that it vio¬ lated the Act by carrying on the business of a. dealer as defined in the Act while being registered as a market agency, D-135 Market agency which rendered accounts sale to shippers of live¬ stock showing that the livestock had boon sold to "northern Trade" which was, in effect, a fictitious nunc for itself, said later resold the livestock at a profit but covered the profit into its "northern Trade" account end' did not report such profit to the shipper, violated, the Act by engaging in business as a dealer without having secured a license to do so, D-1117 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by engaging in business of buying caid selling livestock on his own account as a dealer while at the sane tine being registered with the Secretary of Agriculture only in the capacity of a market agency, D-1162 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by taking title to four steers, failing to disclose such fact to the shipper, and thereby acting as a. dealer, while, in fact, it was at the tine registered rath the Secretary to engage in business only a.s a. market agency, D-1169 As Fiduciaries The livestock commission business is primarily one of personal service, D-311 Selling agencies arc in a fiduciary relationship with the shipper or the producer of livestock, who entrusts such livestock to the commission agent in the belief and full faith that such agent will seek the competition of the market and obtain the best possible price on the sa.lo, D-330 338 I.IARKET AGENCIES III As Fiduciaries Livestock shippers have no concern with. the personal quarrels or disputes of their agents, and, upon a public market regulated by statute, agents or shippers should not be allowed to jeopardize or sacrifice the interests of their principal for selfish reasons. Such conduct on the part of agents is tantamount to a breach of trust and constitutes an unfair practice. It is of paramount importance for the agent to realize that the interests of his principal shall take preference over his personal interests. YJhen this is not possible,•the principal should bo advised, D-330 The livestock commission business is essentially of a personal service character. D-383 As Public Utilities The public interest requires that all livestock be handled, pur¬ chased, or sold at stockyards on their merits, irrespective of the ownership thereof or the agency which handles such livestock, and whether they are members or non-members of livestock exchanges. The manifest purpose of the Act is that the agencies shall perform their respective functions in such a manner as to afford equal opportunities to all persons who buy or soli livestock at public s t o ckyard s. D-l3 6 Bidding, Custom of It is customary for only one buyer at a time to make a bid in the pons where the livestock is exposed for sale and his bid is accepted or rejected before another bid is received from any other buyer. The seller may occasionally, however, telephone or send for a buyer to come to his pens to inspect and bid upon the livestock, or the seller may leave his pons for the purpose of negotiating with the buyer. D-39 339 MARKET AGENCIES III Bidding, Custom of After full consideration of all the facts, and looking toward the betterment of public stockyards marketing practices, the Secretary ordered that each market agency respondent herein shall cease end desist from failing or refusing, in an unjustly discriminatory 'manner, to permit bona fide bidders, in the usual and regular course of business, to look at and bid on livestock consigned to the respondent market agencies for sale on commission. D-189 Looking toward the betterment of public stockyards marketing conditions, the Secretary ordered the respondent market agoncios heroin to cease and desist from the practice of fruling or refusing to accept the beet bid which it is possible to obtain in the usual and regular course of business and in accordance with the established customs of the markets. D-189 Ordinarily, the price of any clans or grade of livestock is not determined in advance of the time that the buyers and sellers meet and consummate a transaction. There is no price trig placed upon the livestock, as is the practice in selling many other commodities where the salesman has no option with rospoct to the price end must endeavor to overcome sales resistance by other means than bargaining with respect to price. The buyers come upon the market equipped with substantially the scone information as that possessed by sales¬ men, It is the bargaining between buyers and sellers which eventu¬ ally determines the price with respect to each lot of livestock sold. D-383 By-Law and Rules of Livestock Exchanges A rule or by-law of a livestock exchange, the observance of which by the members of the Exchange compels the members to discriminate against other market agencies and traders at the stockyards and to refuse to do business with such other traders and market agencies and to otherwise combine against them, and to hinder, obstruct, and prevent them from doing business upon the exchange, is a rule or by-law which viol rates Sections 304 and 313 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. D-2 t 340 MARKET AGENCIES III By-Lavra and Rules of Livestock Exchanges- Market agencies end'dealers at a stockyard, who observe a rule or . by-law of a livestock exchange of whic.li. they are noinbors by com¬ bining or agreeing among themselves or with others to hinder or prevent other market agencies and dealers from engaging in similar business at the stockyards, violate Sections 304 and 312 of the Act, a.s amended, and make thorns el vo.s subject to cca.se and desist or suspension orders by the Secretary. D-2 A by-law of the St. Louis Livestock Exchange, which provided tha.t no member of the exchange shall buy or cause to bo bought any live¬ stock at the National Stock Yards from any agent, individual, or firm who is or may bo regularly-selling livestock for non-residents on commission unless the agent, individual, or some one or more members of such firm is in good standing with the exchange, and providing for a fine in ct.sc of violation- thereof, and expulsion from the exchange for a second offense, is in violation .of Section 304 of the Act.' D-2 The rules and by-laws of the Kansan City Livestock Exchange per¬ taining to blanket insurance are unjust, unroa.sona.blb, and discrim¬ inatory in "that they provide that no member thereof or tra.dor or commission man contributing to the blanket' insurance fund of said exchange shc.ll sell or buy from any party regularly operating at the Kansas City Stockyards not contributing to the blanket insurance fund, while at the serne time excluding the Producers’ Commission • Association from contributing thereto. D-39 The filing of rules and by-laws, adopted by a. voluntary livestock exchange association, with the Secretary of Agriculture does not constitute approval of such rules and by-laws by the Secretary, nor is such approval necessary. D-39 The Secretary of Agriculture- found tha.t the rules and by-laws of the Kansas City Livestock Exchange are the regulations of the market agency members thereof# D-39 MARKET AGENCIES III By-Laws and Rules of Livestock Exchanges Respondent market agency which violated a rule of the livestock exchange of which it is a member, the rule having been filed with the Packers and Stockyards Administration and established as a rule of respondont, by selling livestock contingent upon the price which may be paid for other livestock, violated Title III of the Act. D-113 Respondent market agency violated Title III of the Act -when it vio¬ lated regulation of the stock exchange of which it was a member and which regulation it had adopted end filed with the Packers and Stock yards Administration, by weighing up and soiling livestock to its own account. D-135 It was found by the Secretary that the defendants did not use an unfair or unjustly discriminatory practice against complainant by the application of Regulation 27 of the defendant Exchange against the complainant, the result of which the complainant was fined 4300, his membership was forfeited, and ho allegedly sustained other losses. D-288 • Since the testimony does not show that the complainant could not ha,vo obtained the privilege of the open order list of the livestock exchange of which ho was a member upon proper application, but the evidence docs show that the membership of complainant was forfeited because he exercised the privileges of the open order list without asking permission to do so, in accordance with the regulation of the exchange, it must be concluded that the complainant waived the privilege rather than that it was denied to him by the exchange. D-288 hlien the right to extend or withhold credit, as it applies with respect to members of a livestock exchange, is qualified by the regulations of tho exchange, a member of the exchange cannot com¬ plain that tho regulation qualifying the right is unfclr or unjustly discriminatory when tho member has been denied tho right because he failed or refused to cone within the qualifications. D-288 342 MARKET AGENCIES III By-Lews end Rules of Livestock Exchanges There is no provision of the Packers and Stockyards -Act,., or any public policy, that precludes the organization of market agencies for mutual advantage and protection, for the promotion of their common trade interests, and for the facilitating of their business transactions with one another, end it would seem entirely reason¬ able for market agencies as member's of the Exchange, who. by reason of their common membership therein have established a rclrtionshin x. of trust for the basis of and confidence in one another, to adopt in advenec rules extension of credit to follow members on the preferential that membership, end to safeguard this extension of credit to non-members by the imposition of proper end reasonable conditions* D-288 The Pc.ckers end Stockyards Act gives the Secretary no jurisdiction over livestock exchanges ns such or over the relations existing between the exchanges end the members thereof or over the discipli¬ nary rules and rogulactions adopted by this oxchangc to govorn its nonbers, except incidentally and indirectly in eases where the regulations of the exchange put into effect prentices which the Penkers end Stockyards Act condemns* D-288 The rules of the St. Louis Livestock Exchange provide for the conduct of its joint affairs through the functioning of certain officers end committees• The teniff of rates end charges con¬ stitutes a port of these rules. D-383 In Cl proceeding to determine if the defendant had unfairly rofusod to honor a dr aft drawn by the complainant upon him for the payment of a carload of livestock, evidence wan admitted showing that the livestock exchange of which the defendant was a member had, upon complaint by the complainant, carefully investigated the matter and had found that the defendant had not viole.tcd any rule of the livestock exchange by refusing to honor the particular draft in question* D-1276 MARKET AGEITCIES III Change in Mature or Management of Business, Failure to Report Market agency which registered vdth the Packers end Stockyard Adr.iinistration as a partnership and later incorporated - as a market agency and conncnccd to operate as a corporation without reporting such reorganization in writing to the Packers end Stockyards Administration at Washington, D. C., "within 10 days after such chenge in its management or nature, violated the Act. D-107 6A 4 MARKET AGENCIES III Clearing House Benefits It is entirely practicable to permit the Producers' Commission Association and any other market agencies or persons desirous of obtaining the benefits of a collection association or clearing house to have the benefits thereof on an equitable basis, end it is desirable that this bo done. D-39 The refused of the respondent market agencies to extend to the Producers' Commission Association the use of the facilities of the cleaning house or collection association is unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory and to the prejudice and disadvantage of the association* D-39 Most of the collections for the sale of livestock arc made through the cleaning house ad the Kansas City market. The packers, order buyers, and brokers who clean traders anc members of the cleaning house end, under the rules of that organization, there cno ccrtadn time limits within which they must remit through the cleaning house for the livestock which they have purchased. D-311 The remittance of the proceeds of the sale of trader's livestock is made by check to the firm through which the trader clears. This is handled through the cleaning house. D-402 Duties of Under the Act, market agencies one required to file schedules of rates which they intend to put into effect with the Packers and Stockyards Administration. D-15 k Officers of any market agency cannot permit their supervision of its affairs to become merely perfunctory. Responsibility of this nature cannot be delegated* Supervision that is merely noi.iinal will tend to create temptation to and opportunity for corruption among its personnel. D-142 345 MARKET AGENCIES III Duties of The commission firm performs all the services, or O ivos assistance in rendering all the services, incident to the preparation of livestock for shipment on the market. B-308 Failure on the part of the order buyer to obtain the competition of the market through the device of taking title to livestock and selling it to the packer at an advance or billing the packer at cost plus commission constitutes an unfair practice, the price paid by the buyer being reflected in the price eventually charged to the packers• D-330 There are certain operations which ere customarily performed by commission firms in the sale of livestock. Theso operations in the yard consist of the counting upon delivery, feeding, watering, sorting, selling, end weighing. D-383 The rendition of satisfactory service is essential to the main¬ tenance of the business of a commission firm. D-402 The business of buying end soiling livestock oh a commission basis involves the rendition of a service which is essentially personal in character. - D-402 In the case of plural ownership consignments, respondent commission firms usually pro rate tho charges and make a separate accounting to each owner* This operation requires tho preparation of a sep¬ arate account sale covering the sale and the deductions on account of the sale on each owner’s livestock. D-435 Commission firms regard their chief duty to bo that of obtaining the best possible price for livestock which they have to sell, and of making prompt and faithful remittances )f the proceeds realized from their sales. In their buying oporrations, they endeavor to got the very best class of livestock suitable for the needs of their customers, at tho lowest possible price. D-435 Through custom, it has developed that resident agents have estab¬ lished thornselves at the market end hold themselves out to sell end buy livestock for those who nay choose to engage then. This is tho business in- which respondents ere primarily engaged* D-445 34G MARKET AGENCIES III Duties of Under the general law, the duty of making remittance to shippers for the sale of livestock rests upon the respondent market agency. It has the option of severed, methods of making remittances to shippers, and if it chose its own. agent as a medium for making such remittances, it is' liable to the shippers if the agent fails to make the remittances, and the fact that the shippers, on pre¬ vious occasions, received and cashed checks from the agent was not persuasive that they had ratified that method of the respond¬ ent in making payment to the extent that the market agency would bo relieved from liability if the agent of the market agency should fail to make the remittances• D-566 An agent cannot lawfully have any interest adverse to his principal in property consigned to the agent for sale, Mich a market agency charged a shipper of livestock the usual commission for selling the livestock, it was the duty of the market agency to sell the livestock for the highest price obtainable, and he violated the Act, as emended, by selling it to a dee.lcr under an agreement to divide the losses or split the profits of the resale, even though tho shipper had no objection to such an arrangement after he was told about it, tho arrangement having been made in the first instance without tho knowledge of tho shipper, D-1041 Hog Inspection System It is entirely practicable for tho respondents to amend their rules and extend the benefits of the hog inspection system on on equitable basis to all market agencies and it is desirable that this bo done, D-39 MARKET AGENCIES III Limiting Business of to Posted Stockyards At the conclusion of tho hearing to determine the lawfulness of the Milwaukee Steele Yards Conpany's requirement that market agencies handling livestock at its stockyards execute an agreement not to d d business at any place other than a posted stockyards, the conpany agreed to doloto such objectionable feature in its contract with the narkot agencies, end the Secretary dismissed the proceedings i " D-721 Rihilo a stockyards conpany is entitled to nakc roasonablo chon yes for its services and facilities and to adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the conditions under which those services and facilities mil be extended, it is not reasonable to make the privileges of the narkot available upon conditions relating to activities carried on outside tho stockyard* The Act does not require a commission company or its agents engaged in receiving, buying, or selling livestock on the premises of tho stockyards company to do all of its business at the stockyards. Nas hv ille Union S tock yards, Inc. v. Gris si m , 280 S. V/. 1015 (Supreme Court of Tennessee). 1 D-1186 and 1193 Offer of Restitution, Effect of Tho offer of the respondent market agency and dealer to nakc res¬ titution to the purchaser of ca.ttlo in eases whoro the respondont falsely reported the purchase price and the weights of the cattlo, resulting in tho respondent collocting money in addition to his regular commission charge, was accredited no weight by tho Secre¬ tary as a factor in mitigation of his violation of the Act, since the respondent was already under legal obligation to make such restitution# D-758 MONOPOLY III Combinations Commission non, members of a livestock exchange, violate Section 304 end Section 312 of tho Act when they enter into a combination or agreement to refuse to buy livestock in commerce from others who are not members of the exchange, .and to hinder or prevent said others from freely buying or soiling livestock in commerce# D-2 Any combination or concert of action which obstructs or has the effect to obstruct or interfere in the freedom of commerce, han¬ dling, buying, or soiling of livestock in public stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture is a restraint of trade in commerce end is prejudicial to the owners end pro¬ ducers of livestock, and this is one of the chief evils which the Act sought to prevent and remedy. D-136 Respondent market agencies end dealers found by the Secretary to have violated the Act by engaging in unfair end unjustly discrim¬ inatory boycott practices end devices against complainants, Pro¬ ducers Livestock Commission Association and National Order Buying Company by (l) without just cause, having refused and refrained from selling livestock to said National Order Buying Company, (2) having combined, conspired, end agreed between themselves to have no business relations with said National Order Buying Com¬ pany, and to ce.use other registrants at the stockyard to refrain from and refuse from having business relations with such Company, and (o) by acting similarly with respect to the Producers Live¬ stock Commission association. D-330 349 MORTGAGES III 'When mortgaged cattle were shipped from Hot; Mexico into Californio, for sale, with the knowledge and consent of the mortgagee, the mortgagee lost his lien on the cattle and onv claim to the par- ticular funds derived fron their sale, and he was in no different position with respect to the proceeds of tho sa.le than any other creditor of tho shipper. D-193 It is neither unfair, under Section 312 of the Act, nor unjust, under Section 307 of tho Act, for a market agency acting in good faith to withhold pa.ynent of a mortgagee's claim to the proceeds fron tho sale of livestock until such tino a.s it has had an opportunity to investigate the facts in the case, if it desires, to consult its attorney as to its lego.1 liability and subsequently, upon the advice of its attorney, to contest the claim and require the claimant mortgagee to establish the valid¬ ity of the claim in a. court of competent jurisdiction. D-981 Even though a market agency in Minnesota is liable in civil con- version for having remitted tho proceeds from the se.lo of mort¬ gaged livestock to tho mortgagor instead of to tho mortgagee, the mortgage having boon made and recorded in Iowa, tho location of tho livestock, it does not follow tha.t the market agency has viola.tod Section 307 or Section 312 of tho Act when it, having innocently and without actual knowledge of the mortgage and in good faith, sold the mortgaged property for the mortgagor and paid to him tho not proceeds thereof, refuses, upon the mere presentation of a. claim end demand from the mort agoo for tho payment thereof, to pc.y tho value of tho cattle to a person who claims to hold a mortgage on the cattle, without having first boon given an opportunity to investigate the facts end to con¬ test tho clean end require the claimant to establish its valid¬ ity in a court of competent jurisdiction. D-981 Tho validity of an Iowa mortgage on livestock or tho relation¬ ship existing between the livestock sold by the respondent and the cattle covered by tho mortgage is not an issue in tho case to determine if the respondent market agency violated Section 307 or Section 312 of the Act by remitting proceeds from tho salo of tho livestock to the mortgagor instead of to the mort¬ gagee, the only issue being whether, in connection with scad sale, tho respondent market agency engaged in an unjust prac¬ tice in violation of Section 507, or an unfair practice in violation of Section 512. D-981 350 MORTGAGES III A valid riortyayc upon personal property located in Iowa, duly recorded, in conformity with the laws of Iowa, in the county where the property is located, is constructive notico of its contents, and such recordation constitutes constructive notico under tho laws of Minnesota* It follows that a market agency in Minnesota, however innocently it nay. do so, which sells property covered by a valid, unpaid, recorded mortgage in Iowa, without the consent of tliG nortyayoo, is yuilty of a civil conversion and liable to tho nortpayee for the value of the property sold by him, D-981 Ho evidence haviny been offered by tho complainant to show that tho defendant market ayoncy had any knowlodye of tho affairs of the owner of the livestock so as to place it upon notice of the fact that tho livestock was nortyayed, or that the defendant did not act in pood faith and exercise reasonable care throughout the transaction in tho sale of the livestock-and in the remittance of the proceeds to tho owner instead of to tho mortya-'ce, the defend- ant cannot be said to have cnyayed in or used an unfair, deceptive, and discriminatory practice or device in rcsistiny the claim of tho complainant nortyaycc for the proceeds from the sale of tho livestock, the defendant haviny consulted attorneys and come to the conclusion that it had a valid defense to the claim of the complainant mortyayec. Sod Docket Ho, 981. D-1235 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent market agencies end dealers cease and desist fron combining or agreeing among ther.iselves to induce, intimidate, or compel order buyers end dealers to refuse to buy livestock in commerce at the St. Louis National Stock Yards fron the complainants, or to hinder, obstruct, or prevent said complainants fron freely selling and buying livestock at said stockyardsj provided that nothing contained in the order shall be construed as establishing that nenbership in the St. Louis Livestock Exchange, the Tre.dcrs Live Stock Exchange, or the Order Buyers .association, shall constitute a violation of the order; further ordered that, pursuant to the requirorients of Section 313 of the net, the order shall take effect on and after the sixth day following its execution. D-2 The Secretary of Agriculture makes his formal findings an to the fa.cts and bancs his order upon the report and proposed certain findings of fact of the Examiner, after having duly considered tho entire record, been fully advised in the premises, and approved tho Examiner's report, D-3 Ordered by the Secretary that, until otherwise ordered or permitted pursuant to tho net, the rale or change of g6 per single dock and glO per double deck and the requirement that all exchange on drafts shall be paid by the customer as.set out in the new schedule,shall bo observed for buying hogs on all Eastern order business by the respondents, and that the respondents shall not, until otherwise ordered or permitted to do so, publish, demand, or collect any other ra.te or charge' for furnishing such services; that pursuant to Section 313 of the Act, tho order shall take effect on and after the sixth day following the date of its execution. D-3 Proceeding against respondent ordered to be vacated, and discontinued. set aside, D-4 352 C ORDERS III Stockyards company ordered to coo.se and desist from publishing, demanding, or collecting any rate or charge for yarding livestock in the Peoria Union Stockyards at Peoria, Illinois, in excess of certain charges set forth in the order; further ordered to cease and desist from publishing, demanding, or collecting any rate or charge for feed in excess of the current market price of feed delivered to. it, plus a margin for each kind of feed as sot forth in the order; further ordered to keep, as a pant of its accounts, records, and memoranda, a true copy of the inventory mn.de by the ..Government engineers, to which reference has been made in the findings and opinion of the Secretary upon which the order is basod, together with a true a.ccount of the dates, descriptions, and costs of all changes in and additions to the physical property described in said inventory; and that it cause to be kept as a part of its accounts, records, and memoranda, a true account of its depreciation fund, including the amounts deposited in it or croditod thereto, with the dates thereof, and withdrawals therefrom, with the dates find purposes thereof; further ordered that it file and publish a new schedule of rales and charges in accordance with the order and that the order shall become effective ten days after the date of the receipt by it of a. copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail.; further ordered that reparation be allowed complainants upon proper showing, in accordance with Title III of tho Act. D-5 Ordered that the respondent stockyards ‘company cca.sc and desist from continuing the violation of Section 305 of Title III of the ^ct by publishing, demanding, or collecting tho charge on livestock "planted and ros61d u in the commission division, as provided for in that portion of Section 1 of Tariff No, 2, now on file and in effect, which roads: "For livestock ’planted and resold’ in the commission division, one-half tho above rales, additional, will be charged"; further ordered that the proceed¬ ings remain open for such further order or orders as may be necossa.ry; the order to take effect and bo in force from end after the eighteenth day from the signing thereof. D-6 Ordered thcl the proceedings to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of proposed rates and charges for yardage on livestock "planted and resold" in the commission division of the stockyards of the respondent be dismissed without pre¬ judice, subject to be reopened upon order of the Secretary and duo notice thereof to tho respondent stockyards company, D-6 353 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent stockyards company cease end desist from, continuing the violation of Section 305 of Title III of the Act in publishing, demanding or collcctin ; the service and weipiling charge provided for in the portion of Section 1 of tho respondent’s tariff No. 4, now on file end in effect, to the effect that a service and v/ei diing charge of one-half the rcgulai yardage charges would be made and collected on all livestock weighed over the scales the second and successive tines, except livestock for shipment to country points, other markets, or slaughter houses outside Chicago; further ordered that tho pro¬ ceedings remain open for such further order or orders as may be necessary and that the order shall take effect and be in force from and niter the eighteenth day from the signing of the order. D-7 Ordered that the general inquiry with respect to the reasonable¬ ness and lawfulness of the respondent stockyards company’s stock¬ yards services be dismissed without prejudice, subject to being reopened upon notice to the respondent; further ordered that all issues raised, by the complaints filed by the Traders Live¬ stock Exchange of Chicago, Illinois, except the issue of dis¬ crimination which the Secretary, by his previous order, found to exist, and except tho issue of reparation arising by reason of such discrimination, be held in invcstiga.tion above outlined. abeyance pending the further D-7 Ordered that the eonplalnt for reparation on account of the discrimination of certain reweigh charges by the respondent stockyards company be dismissed. D-7 Respondents ordered tc prounce cvnaeriee. based upon tho records nay be necessary to the of their business, to show facts that dotcri.dha.tion of tho roasonablcnoss and lawfulness of the proposed tariff char e. D-8 Order by the Secretary disudssing proceedings. D-9-14 Incl. Proceeding ordered dismissed without prejudice. D-15 354 * ORDERS The respondent having issued an jtj.iondi.iont Ho• 3 cancelling imendnent to Tariff Ho. 2, formerly filed, amending Item Ho. C providing for a charge or rate on.corn of Si .10 per bushel, effective December 26, 1922. whereby the ori gina.1 nrico of gl.10 per bushel for corn will be restored end continued in effect, the Secretary discontinued end terminated the proceed¬ in' D-17 Hearing ordered discontinued and terminated, without prejudice when proposed modification of new tariff has been filed, and published and become effective, in accordance with provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 308 of the ^ct. D-18 Respondent ordered to coc.sc and. desist from violating the Act and the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture thereunder, said order to take effect after five days from the service of notice thereof. D-27 Market agency ordered to coc.sc and desist from continuing the violations of the Act and. regulations thereunder, in the manner and of the character changed in the complaint, the order to take effect a.t the termination of fivo days after service thereof. D-28; D-30; D—31 ; D-37; D- D-70; D-72; D-74. J 7 xO D-58; D-G5; D-67j D-68; D-69; Respondent ordered, to cea.se and dcsi violation of the Act and of Rulf Reputations thereunder. t. from continuing the 17 of the General Rules and D-29; 32j D-35 It appearing to the Secretary that rebates of commissions by a. market agency, without any proper or legal consideration therefor had boon properly end satisfactorily explained, the Secretary ordered the proceeding to be dismissed. D-36 Re spoil emit ordered, by the Secretary to satisfactorily explain in writing, within ten da.ys from the receipt of the complaint, his wracticc of charging less commission than the rales, or charges filed, and respondent further advised tha.t, unless such explanation is received within the time allowed, the matter will be set down for hear in: days ‘ notice• b-38 III 355 ORDERS III Respondents ordered to'cease and desist from failing or refusing to buy c cattle from Producers ' Comission Association in the ordinary course of business or to enter into [my business rela¬ tions with it with respect thereto, while, at the same tine, engaging in and carrying on business freely among themselves, fron combining or agreeing among thens elves to refrain from buying or refusing to buy ca.ttlc fron said association; by observing or enforcing the provisions of the by-laws of the Kansas City Livestock Exchange with respect to the blanket insurance fund, and fron doing other unfair and unjustly discriminatory acts to the prejudice and disadvantage of the c omplainant as s o ciation, D-3 9 Respondents ordered by the Secretary to corse and desist from any unfair, unjust, unreasonable, and discrim.ina.tory prentice toward the Producers' Commission Association with respect to the extending or failure to extend the hog inspection system to it, D-39 Respondent ordered by Secretary of Agriculture to cease and desist fron continuing the violation of the Act and regulations by rendering accounts sale which do not fully and completely disclose the purchaser of livestock, and by selling or disposing of livestock to itself without disclosing such fac't to the owner or consignor thereof, amd in any other manner disclosed by the facts; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after service thereof, D-40; D-41; D-42; b-43; D-44 Market agency ordered to cease and desist fron continuing the violations of the Act as specified in the complaint, said order to bo understood not to preclude other actions, either civil or - criminal, that the facts and law may warrant; said order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, said copy to bo transmitted by registered mail, 3-45; D-46; D-47; D-49; D~50; D-51; D-54; D-55; D-60; 3-62; 3-64; D-71; D-75; D-78; 3-80; 3-90; 3-91; 3-94; 3-100; 3-102; 3-103; D-48; 3-104; 3-108; D-118; 3-119; 3-120; 3-121; 3-125; 3-130; 3-135. Prococdin ' a gainst respondent Farmers a corporation, dismissed. Uni on Livestock Commission, 3-52 356 / ORDERS Market agency ordered to ceo.se and desist fron continuing vio¬ lations of the- Act and of Rules 11, 17, 'and 24 of the GcncrcJL Rules and Regulations thereunder in the manner and of the char¬ acter set forth in the complaint, the issuance of the order to bo understood as not precluding other action, cither civil or criminal, that the facts and the lav; nay warrant; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered nail* D-53 Proceedings ordered discontinued and terminated without pre¬ judice when the rates and charges contained in respondent's Toriff Supplement Mo* 1 to Schedule Mo. 2 have been filed and published and become effective in accordance with the pro¬ visions of subdivision (c) of Section 306 of the Act. D-56 Ordered that tho proceeding against the Centred Cooperative Commission Association be dismissed. D-57 Ordered by tho Secretary that tho proceeding be discontinued without prejudice. D-59; D-63; D-66 Proceeding ordered discontinued and terminated without pre¬ judice when the rates and charges contained in respondent’s Supplement No, 3 to Schedule Mo. 2 have become effective in accordance with tho provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 306 of tho Act. D-61 Market agency ordered by Secretary to cease and desist from continuing violations of tho Act as charged in paragraphs Mos. 1, 2, and 5 of tho complaint, tho issuance of tho order not to bo understood as precluding other action, cither civil or criminal, that tho facts and law may warrant; the order to take effect at tho termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail. D-76 Paragraphs Nos. 3 and 4 of tho order of' inquiry dismissed without prejudice, D-76 III ORDERS III Cooperative market agency ordered to cease and desist from con¬ tinuing the violation of the Act by remitting patronage refunds to its members from funds other than its excess earnings on their livestock, the issuance of the order to be understood not to preclude other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and the law may warrant; the order to tal.ee effect, pursuant to the requirements of Section 313 of the Act, at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by the respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-77 The Secretary ordered proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D- -20; D- 21; D- ■23 ■; D- 24; D-2 5; D-2 6; D-81; D-82; D-83; D-85; D- D- -93; D- 101; D 1-106; D*109; D-110; D-lll; D-112; D-114; D-126; D- -127; D -128; D- 129; D- ■137; D- 145 ; D-147 & 151; D-148; D-153* D-155; D -158; D- 163; D- ■164; D- 166 ; D-175; D-183; D—18 7 ; D-191; D- -192; D -193; D- 194; D- 199; D- 216 ; D-240; D-245; D-2 49 ; D-262; D- •265; D -266; D- 267; D- -268; D- 272 ; D-274; D-286; D-2 88 ; D-293; D- -299; D -305; B- 306; D- 309; D- 310 ; D-312; P-334; D-347 ; D-352; D- ■354; D -355; D- 356; D- 358; u— 371 ; D-372; P-373; D-387 ; D-390; D-394; P -396; D- 412; D- 421; p— 431 ; p-432; p-437; D-448 ; D-454; D- ■501; D -502; D— 511; B— 524; P- 555 ; D-557; P-568; D-569 ; D-571; D- ■576; Li -577; J~ 578; D- 660; D- 669 ; D-670; D-G71; D-721 ; D-728; j. ■ •766; D' -895; D- 899; D— 900; D- 949 ; D-958; D-977; D-9 79 ; P-980; D- ■1042 « 3 3-1085 • 3 D-1107; D-1129 3 -1157; B -1163; D-1164 & 1165; ■1182 3 5-1212 3 B-1224; B-1230 • T), 3 J ' -1234; R -1235; D-1236 • Respondent ordered by the Secretary to cease and desist from establishing, demanding, or collecting any rate or charge for the service of vaccinating hogs, in excess of 37/ per head in a.ddition to the actual cost to respondent of the necessary scrum and virus; further ordered that, pursuant to the pro¬ visions of Section 313 of the Act, the order shall take effect eat the expiration of ton days from the date thereof; further ordered that a copy of the order bo delivered,' either personally or by registered mail, to the respondent. E-84 Market agency ordered to coarse and desist from continuing the violation of tho Act and of Rule 12 thereunder, by failing to disclose to shippers or consignors, whose livestock ho sells to purchasers in whose business ho has a pecuniary interest, tho fact of such pecuniary interest. D-86 358 ORDERS III Cooperative market agency ordered to cease and desist from con¬ tinuing the violations of the Act said of Rules 11, 12, and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, in the manner and of the character charged in the complaint, the issuance of the order to be understood not to preclude other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and law may warrant; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, D-88 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from continuing the violations of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the Rules and Regulations thereunder, as charged in the complaint, the issuance of the order not to be understood as precluding other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and law may warrant; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be trans¬ mitted by registered mail. D-89 Complaint against cooperative association dismissed. D-92 Cooperative market agency ordered to cease and desist from continuing violations of the Act by refunding or remitting any portion of its commission charges, determined in accordance with its schedule of rates and charges, except by bona, fide returning to its members on a patronage basis its excess commissions on thoir livestock, the issuance of the order to be understood as not precluding other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and the law mav warrant: the order to toko effect at the «j J termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail, D-95; D-96 The charges contained in paragraphs Nos# 6, 7, and 8 of the complaint dismissed without prejudice. D-96 Ordered that the prayer for the issuance of a cease end desist order be dismissed without prejudice, a copy of said order to bo transmitted by registered mail to the complainant and to the respondent. D-97 359 ORDERS III Respondent ordered and directed to pay to the complainant, Roberts & Oake, Inc., the sum of $35.10 as reparation, on or before Juno 1, 1925, for damages sustained due to the mis¬ delivery of 115 hogs on March 6, 1924, the hogs belonging to and should have been delivered to the complainant. D-97 Respondent ordered to cease and desist from continuing the violations of the Act by disposing of funds in its possession or control so as to endanger the prompt accounting for payment of the proceeds of livestock to owners, by intermingling its personal accounts with shippers’ accounts, by crediting net proceeds of livestock sales to its ”Estray Account”, or other personal account, instead of promptly remitting the some to the shippers, by rendering incorrect accounts sale, and by showing on its books an excess of current liabilities over current assets, the issuance’ of the order not. to be understood as precluding other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and tho law may warrant; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after .receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-98 Respondent ordered to cease and desist from violating Title III of the Act and Rules and Regulations thereunder, in tho manner and of the character complained of in paragraphs 1 and 2 of tho complaint, the issuance of the order to bo understood as not precluding other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and law may warrant; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail, D-99 Proceeding ordered dismissed without prejudice, with the reservation that a notice of inquiry may later be issued in the event respondent opercites as a market agency. D-105 Ordered by the Secretary that paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 of tho order for investigation and hearing be dismissed without prejudice, D-107 360 ORDERS III Market agency ordered to cease and desist from continuing the violation of the Act by charging commissions according to a schedule without filing such schedule with the Packers and Stockyards Administration, and without giving due notice as required by the Act, and by failing to report in writing to the Administration the change in the na.turc of its business from a partnership to a corporation; the issuance of the order to be understood not to preclude other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and the law may warrant; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-107 Paragraph 1 of the complaint dismissed by the Secretary, and respondent ordered to coa.se and desist from continuing the violation of the Act as charged in paragraph 2 of the complaint by soiling livestock at a price contingent upon the price which might be paid for other livestock, the issuance of the order to be understood as not precluding other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and the lav/ may warrant-; the order to t akc effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-113 Respondent B. R. Milkers on ordered by the Secretary to coa.sc and desist from engaging in the business of buying and selling livestock in commerce without first registering as a market agency, the issuance of the order to be understood as not precluding other action, either civil or criminal, that the facts and law nay warrant; the order to take effect at the ter.mina.tion of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-115 Proceeding ordered dismissed without prejudice, subject to be reopened upon order of Sccroteny end due notice thereof to respondent. D-116 361 ORDERS III r Stockyards conpany ordered to cease and desist from continuing violations of the Act by charging patrons for hay and corn not furnished to their livestock, the issuance of the order to be understood as not precluding other action, either civil or criminal, that the fonts and law nay warrant; the order to take effect alt the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail. D-117 Compiler’s Rote: No final order of the Secretary appears to have been filed in Dockets 122, 123, and 124. But see Docket 132, with which those dockets were consolidated. Proceedings ordered discontinued and terminated without pre¬ judice, upon respondent filing a new tariff providing for the sane rates and charges in effect at the tine the proceedings were begun. D-lol Ordered that Dockets Nos. 122, 123, and 124 be consolidated with Docket No. 132, it appearing that the tariffs involved in'all dockets correspond with respect to the sane general classes of service covered. D-132 Proceedings ordered dismissed without prejudice. (Compiler’s Notes The proceedings with respect to Dockets Nos. 122, 123, end 124 were not specifically dismissed by the Secre¬ tary except that they were consolidated with the proceedings in Docket No. 132, and Docket No, 132 was dismissed.) D-132 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from violating the Act by misrepresenting to the purchaser of livestock the price paid for livestock, later refunding the difference between the actual price and the price a.s falsely represented to the purchasing a„gcnts of the purchaser. D-134 362 ORDERS III Proceedings ordered dismissed against certain of the respondent dealers and the National Commission Company (dissolved); provided, however, that the dismissal against such respondents in their capacity as registered traders shall not in any way be construed as a dismissal of the charges against said parties or against any corporation, partner, or partnership with which they are now or were connected and which are registered and doing business as marhot agencies under the Act; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondents, which shall be transmitted by registered mail, D-136 Respondents ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and . using any unfair or unjustly discriminatory practices or devices in connection with the buying and selling of livestock in commerce, as defined in the Act, at the Oklahoma National Stock Yards, in violation of Title III of the Act, the order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of copies thereof by respondents, which shall be transmitted by registered nail • D-136 Dealer ordered suspended from registration for six months for insolvency, with leave during said period of suspension to apply for revocation thereof upon a satisfactory showing of solvency; the order to take effect from the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt by the dealer of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail, D-138; D-139; D-156; D-157; D-276; D-290 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from continuing violation of the Act by changing shippers for more corn and hay than it purchases or procures from the stockyards company for their livestock, and by rendering accounts sale to shippers which are untrue and incorrect in that they do not correctly stale the amount of food purchased or procured for said livestock; the order to take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall be trans¬ mitted by registered mail, D-140 363 ORDERS III dealer for one Dealer ordered suspended from registration as year from the expiration'of the fifth day of the receipt by hin of a copy of the order, which shall be transnitted by registered nail. D-141 to cease end Chicago Producers Commission Association orderei desist from, continuing Adulations of the Act in the manner of inquiry; further ordered that the charged in the order respondent bo suspended fron registration as a narket agenev for a period of thirty days; the order to take effect at the termination of tA/elvo days after receipt by the respondent of a copy of the order, which shall bo transmitted by registered nail. D-142 Ordered that the respondent dealers cease and desist fron continuing the -violation of the Act by engaging in or using any unfair or deceptive practice or device in connection a nth the receiving, marketing, buying, or selling of livestock in commerce a.t a. stockyard bv entering into collusive or other sales purchase agreements or arrangements with the Chicago Producers Commission Association or anv other party, ’./heroin or whcrcbv any undue or unjust prefer one o or advantage is given or received- in buying end selling livestock; further ordered themt certain of the respondent dealers be suspended as registrants for five years; the - order to take effect at the termination of five days alter receipt of a. copy thereof by the respondents, ■which shall bo transmitted by registered nail. b-142 In the proceedings instituted against the respondent dealers and market agencies for alleged corrupt prentices in entering into callusive o-groorments whereby the livestock of producers would not be subject to competitive bidding, but would bo sold to the dealers at prices lower than the prices obtainable therefor, the Secretary Considered the issues involved and gs.ve the parties an opportunity to appear at one hearing, but he ma.de sopara.te orders with respect to the violations as found, one order for tho market agencies and one order for the dealers. D-142 364 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent market agencies, and each and every one of then, on and after the first day of January, 1927, cease and desist from demanding or collecting, for any stock- yard service, the rate or charge shaven thoref'r in the schedule of rates and charges filed with the Secretary on the lGth day of January 1S2S, and designated and kiiov-jn as the "Omaha;. Live¬ stock Exchange Tariff 11. • 2”; further ordered that on and after January 1,' 1927, neither the respondent market agencies nor any .f then shall publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard service in' excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just, reason¬ able, and non-discrininatory for the furnishing of such service; further ordered that at least ten days prior to the first day of January 1927, each and every of the respondent market agencies publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accord¬ ance vath the Act and the regulations thereunder, a schedule effective January 1, 1927, shovdng all rotes and charges for' the stockyards services furnished by such respondent at the Omaha. Union Stock Yards, South Oman a., Nebraska., and a.ll rules and regulations ckan./in . a.f footing, or determinin ; such rates or charges, and that no rate or charge so shown for any such stockyard service be in excess of the rate or charge heroin- before determined to be just, roa.sonr.blc, and nan-discriminatory for such service; further ordered that a. copy of the order bo transmitted by registered mall to each and every of the respond¬ ent market -<_> v D-143 Ordered that Docket No. 143 be reopened for the purpose of affording the petitioners and all other interested parties, including patrons of the petitioners, an opportunity to appear and present such evidence as may be relevant and material to the matters alleged in the petition; further ordered tha.t the matter bo set down for public hearing before an Examiner on March 4, 1940, a.t a place designated by the Secretary; further ordered that the order and notice shall be published in the Federal Register; further ordered that a.- copy of the order and notice of hearing be served upon the Secretary of the Omaha Livestock Exchange by registered mail. D-143 n t/ * -j Dealer ordered suspended from registration for one year for insolvency, with leave during said period of suspension to apply for revocation thereof upon a. sa.tisfa.ctory shoving of solvency; the order to take effect from the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt by the dealer of a copy thereof, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail. D-144 ORDERS III r Market agency ordered to ceo.se and desist fron continuing vio¬ lation of the Act by fraudulently obtaining possession of 1 onbs in the manner charged in the complaint; further ordered that * said respondent Morris Fronson be suspended as a registrant under the Act for one year; the order to take effect a.t the tcrnino.tion of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shc.ll bo transmitted by registered nail* D-146 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair pra.cticc and device of diverting proceeds from livestock, purchased end owned by him as a dealer, to his own use when such proceeds should have been paid directly to the clearing agency financing his dealer operations; the order or a copy thereof • to be transmitted to the respondent by registered nail and to take effect in five dc.ys after receipt by hin of such order or copy. D-148 Respondent livestock commission company ordered suspended from registration a.s a market agency for six months from the expira¬ tion of the fifth da.y from the receipt of a. copy of the order by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-149 C Market a.gency ordered suspended from registration a.s a. market agency for six months from the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt by it of a copy of the order, which shall be transmitted by registered mail, with leave during said period to apply for revocation of the suspension upon a. satisfactory shoving of solvency, D-150; D-292 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from continuing the violation of Title III of the.Act by onga.ging in the unfair and deceptive practices charged in the complaint; further ordered that respondent be suspended, from registration a.s a market agency for one year from the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt by him of a copy of said order, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. . D-154 Ordered that the. order of suspension of the re istration of respondent for one year as a. market agency he revoked and terminated, but that the cease and desist order then in effect shall remain in full force and effect. D-154 ORDERS III Ordered that respondent, within 15 days fron the receipt of the order, execute and maintain a reasonable porfornanco bond in the sun end amount required by the Secretary, and put such bond on file with the Secretary or be suspended fron registration as a dealer unless and until such bond is executed* said order to bo transmitted to respondent by registered nail. 13-159 Respondent ordered to execute end thereafter maintain a reason¬ able bond, in the fern and amount required by the Secretary, to suitable trustees to secure the performance of its obligations incurred as dealer, end to file mth the Secretary a fully executed copy thereof within 15 days fron receipt of the order; a copy of the order to be transmitted to respondent by registered nail". D-160 Market agencies ordered to ccaso and desist fron violations of the Act by refunding or remitting in any manner any portion of the rates or charges specified in their schedule of rates raid charges on file with the Secretary; the order to toko effect at the termination of five days after receipt by respondents of a copy thereof, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail. 73-161 Tho evidence being insufficient to substantiate the allegation of a violation of the Act, the Secretary ordered the inquiry dismissed. D-162 Respondent, ordered to cease and desist from doing business as a market agency and dealer without executing and maintaining and filing with the Adnini strati on a copy of a reasonable porformanc .0 bond, the order to telco effect at tho expiration of tho fifth day from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-165; J-169; ly-171; b-178; b-202; b-205; D-25S; 13-242; D-244; J-251; 13-281; J-284. 567 ORDERS III Dealer ordered, to cease and desist fron doing business as a dealer without executing and maintaining end filing at Washington, D. C., a fully-executed copy of a reasonable performance bond, said order to toko effect at the expiration of the fifth day fron the receipt by respondent of a. copy thereof. which shall be transi .lit ted bv i/ registered . mad 1 • D-167; D-168; D -176; D-201; D- ■203; D-206; D-209; D-210; D-212; D-213; D -215; D-217; —j 218; D-229; D-241; D-247; D-252; D-253; D -254; D-255; D- 256; D-257; D-258; D-260; D-279. D-211; T .'-250; D-263; Market agency ordered to cease and desist fron do in; business as o. narket agency without executing end naintainin,, end filing with the Adrninistration at Washington, D. C., a fully-executed copy of a. reasonable porfornance bond covering his transactions, such order to take effect at the expiration of the fifth day fron the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall bo transnitted by registered nail. J-170; b-179; D-181; D-235; R-237; D-302 Market a goncy end dealer ordered to cease and desist fron doing business as such v/ithout executing and maintaining and filing with the Packers a nu Stockyards Ad. Ini strati on at Washington, Do C., a fully-executed copy of a reasonable porfornance bond; further ordered that said respondent bo suspended fron regis¬ tration as a. narket agency and dealer for two months from the expire.tion of the fifth day from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall bo transmitted by registered nail, with leave during said period to apply for revocation of sus¬ pension upon s-atisfactory showing of havium executed and filed such bond. D-172 Ordered by the Secretary that, effective on and after November 10, 1926, respondent’s suspension from operation a.s a market an one y is revoked, respondent having executed and filed with the Administration a. reasonable performance bond to cover his transactions a.s a. market agency; said order of suspension previously made, however, shall continue in full force and effect with respect to the operations of respondent a.s a. dealer . .j-172 ORDERS III Dealer ordered to cease and desist fron dealer vdtheut executin ' naintainin • raid :om;; ousines s as a filing with the Administration at ’.Yashin a ton, 1. C,, a fully-executed copy of a reasonable performance bond, said order to take effect at the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt of a copy thereof by respondent; further ordered that respondent be suspended fron registration as a dealer for two months from the expiration of the fifth day from receipt of such order, with leave during said period to apply for revocation of such suspension upon a satisfactory showing of haviim, furnished such performance bond; the order to be transmitted to respondent by registered mail. 1-173; :-174 mey ordered to coaso mid desist fron char pin", denar-din: Market ; or collectin' a greater or different compensation for stockyard services than the rates or charaos specified in the schedule • do $ filed and in effect at the tine* 1-177 •182: ■190: LJ* ■195 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from continuing the violations of the Act in the manner end of the character charged in the complaint; further ordered that the respondent be suspended fron registration as a market agency for nine months; further ordered that this order shall take effect at the termination of five days after receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered nail® •180 Market agency ordered suspended fron registration for six months with leave, durin saic. pen or tc pply for revocation -t- J. suspension upon a satisfactory showing to the Secretary of Xj <-J xJ Of Agriculture of having executed and that it is maintaining a reasonable performance bond, and of having filed a fully- executed duplicate of such bond with the Administration at Washington, C,; the order to take effect the ex oir ation of the fifth day fron the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail* ,-181 369 ORDERS III Respondent ordered to coaso and desist from cnqapinp in the unfed3 unjustly discriminatory, end deceptive practices and devices charpod in the complaint; further ordered that its registration as a market aponey he suspended for a period of six months; further ordered that should respondent apain enpa ;o in business as a market aponcy at any stoolbard subject to the Act after sponsion, respondent shall keep ana nei i o r end a p e r t ai n * :v calu tickets of every of the bills rendered the expiration of such su maintain the followinp accounts, records, and inp to his transactions thereon: (l) head of livestock purchased, (2) a cop to him by the sollinp apcncy, (3) a purchase book, (4) a file of accounts purchase, that is, the duplicate thereof, (5) a. complete file of cancelled checks, showing checks issued by the respondent, (6) check stubs corresponding to the chocks issued, and (7) carbon copies of deposit slips shovdnp collections from his customers. Further ordered that -this order sha.ll tpJ.ee effect within six days from the da.tc of service thereof on respondent, a. copy of which shall bo sent by ropistcrod mail. D-184 Dealer ordered suspended from registration for six months from the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt by him of a copy of the order, which shall be transmitted by registered- mail, with leave durinp sold period to apply for revocation of suspension upon a satisfactory shovdnp 'that ho has executed, maintained, and filed a copy of performance bond an required by the let and ro.-ulaliens thereunder. 186; 1-283 Dealers ordered to coa.sc and desist from the unfair end deceptive the weiphi of live- practice or dovice of falsely representing stock and of indueinp or procurinp persons to make or utter false or doccptivc scalo tickets, and of destroying accounts, records, and memoranda pertaininp to their business; further ordered tlia.t respondent tion as a. dealer for and thm-h respondent _ as' a , F. Ulls bo suspended from re Istrc.- period of one yoan frdm May 28, 1927, U. Tja.dcn bo suspended from repi strati on ml or for a. period of 60 days fron May 28, 1927. ■188 370 ORDERS III Ordered that gc.ch market agency respondent shall cease end dosist fron failing or refusing in an unjustly discriminatory manner to permit bona fide buyers, in the usual end regular course.of business, to bid on livestock consigned to respondent market agoncios for sale on commission: from foil in. * or rofusin ; to accept the best bid possible to obtain in the usual and regular course of business and in accordance with established custom; from the practice of purporting to buv or take title to live- A L i. O %i stock consi ’nod to it for sale on a commission basis by the use of a method known as "w r eighing-up"; end from acting in the dual capacity of agent for the shipper and the ultimate purchaser mth respect to the sane, livestock; a copy of the order tc bo served on each of the respondents bv rc.gistored X *J o mail, and the order to be effective on and after May 16, 1927. D-189 The Secretary ordered a revocation of that part of his order, dated April 21, 1927, made in.this case, which ordered the respondent market agencies to cease and dosist fro... the practice of purporting to buy or take title to livestock consigned to them for sale on a commission basis by the use of a method known as "woi ’hing-up", such revocation being O O X 9 effective on ocenbcr 7, 1927, the date of the order of revocation. D-189 The Secretary having found that the yardage resale charges at the Union Stock Yards, San Antonio, Texas, one not unreasonable and discriminatory, ho ordered the complaint and the order of extension in continuation thereof dismissed. D-1S1 Proceedings involving the practice end device of respondent market agency and dealer "weighing-up 11 livestock to itself and acting in the dual capacity of agent for both shipper end buyer, without their prior consent, .dismissed without prejudice. b-194 Dealer ordered to cee.se end desist from engaging in the unfedr and deceptive practice end device of posting false or fictitious bulletins purporting to show tho arrival of livestock. D— 196 371 ORDERS III Respondent ordered to cor.se cold desist fron enganin: in the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practices and devices charged in the complaint; further ordered that respondent be sus- period of four months fron August 20, 1927. D- ) ended for Dealer ordered to cease and desist fron the unfair, unjustly end deceptive practice anci device of placing dis c rl minato r y, his foot upon the stockvard scales end causing then to show a weight greater then the actual weight of livestock which he was selling in commerce and having weighed for the purpose of determining the weight upon the basis of which the selling price thereof should bo for a period of 60 days fron July 25, 1927 determined; further ordered suspended D-198 Market agency ordered to cease and desist fron doing business as c: market an oney without exccutin •s -J 1/ d nadntaining a reason¬ able perfornanco bond to suitable trustees, and without having on file with the Bureau of Anina.1 Industry at Washington, D. C., a fully-executed duplicate thereof; further ordered suspended fron re;’istraction a.s a na.rlact aoency until he executes such bond and files a. copy thereof with said Buroa.u of Aninad Industry; further ordered .that the order sha.ll becono effective upon the expira.tion of the fifth day fron receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered nail. " , D-200; a-243 Deader ordered to cease deader without exccutin and desist fron doin Business as and maintainin': a, reasonable bond coverin e perfomanec liis obligations- incurred as a. deader, and without having filed a fully-executed duplica.tc thereof with the 3uroa.u of Animal Industry at 7/ashin 0 ton, D. C.; further ordered suspended from registraddon as a. deader until such tine as he secures such bond and files such duplica.tc in the manner aforesaid; further ordered tha.t this order shall become effective upon the expiration of the fifth da.y from receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo transmitted'by registered nail. u-204; b-234: )— 214 : ,-238: ■219; ■248 : D-220; D-264. '-222 ■ 223; ‘—231; !32: O' ■233; 197 372 ORDERS III Ordered that the complainant’s claim for reparation against the defendant Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd., for alleged unjustly discriminatory assessments for yardage be dismissed; further ordered that a copy of the order be transmitted by registered mail to the complainant and the defendant. D-207 Ordered that, the evidence failing to sustain the allegations of the amended complaint that the reweigh rates and changes are unjustly discriminatory, and the Secretary having found the complainant not entitled to a reward of reparation, the complaint bo dismissed; further ordered that a copy thereof be transmitted by registered mail to the complainant end the defendant. D-208 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from doing business as a dealer without executing and maintaining a reasonable perform¬ ance bond to secure its obligations as a dealer, and without filing a fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D 0 C.; further ordered sus¬ pended from registration as a dealer for ninety days from the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt by it of a copy of said order, which shall be transmitted by registered mail, with leave during said period to apply for a revocation of suspension upon a satisfactory showing of having obtained sand bond and filed it ns aforesaid, D-221; D-224; D-225; D-227 It appearing to the Acting Secretary of agriculture that respond¬ ent dealer is not engaged in business the jurisdiction of the Secretary of A operated as a. dealer on any such yard the effective date of the amendment to bonds of dealers, he ordered the case at any stockyard under griculture and her not" since November 1, 1924, Regulation 17 requiring dismissed without prejudice. D-226 573 ORDERS III Market agency and dealer ordered to cease and desist from doing business as such without executing and maintaining a reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred in such capacity, and mthout having on file with the Bureau of Animal Industry at T 7ashington, D 0 C., a fully-executed duplicate of such bond; further ordered suspended from registration as a market a.gen.cy and dealer until he executes and maintains and files such bond in the manner aforesaid; also ordered that this order shall become effective upon the expiration of the fifth day from the receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered nail* D-228; D-230; D-239 Proceedings to determine the right of respondent market agency to withhold owner’s proceeds a,s an offset against a prior a.llcgcd indebtedness due the purchaser of the cab tie dismissed without prejudice to the civil rights of the respondent panties, D-245 Acting on the belief gained from a. conference with rcpresentc.- tives of the respondents that respondents would do their utmost to ca.usc tho course of normal trading to be resumed immediately and continued, tho Secrctany ordered thaat no order to coo.sc and desist or of suspension bo issued at this time, in the ca.sc involving boycott activities, but that action bo hold in abey¬ ance until such tine tha.t it appears that assurance thus given will not bo carried out in good faith; ordered, therefore, that the case remain open and that no final disposition thereof bo made unless and until the Secretmy deems further action ad.visable * D-246 It appearing to - the Secrctany that respondent market a.gcncics and dealers did not in good faith endeavor to correct nor coaso and desist from their boycotting activities in the present ca.sc. they haul agreed to o the Secretary suspended the registrar tions of certain of the respondents for a period of fifteen days, with tho provision tha.t such suspension should not become effective until such tine o.s the Secretary may thereafter direct, and with the further provision tha.t the ca.so remain open for such purpose. D-246 9 374 ORDERS III It appearing to the Secretary that the purposes intended to be accomplished by the previous order of suspension for boycott activities will be fully observed if, without modifying the previous cease and desist order, said order of suspension be revoked, the Secretary ordered that effective on and after December 15, 1932, the said, order of suspension be revoked but that said cease and desist order remain in full force and effect, D-24-6 It appearing from the record that respondent had filed a. fully- executed duplicate of the performance bond to cover its obliga¬ ti OHS ClS a dealer with the Bureau of Animal Industry on November 7, 1927, the fact not being known to the Department at the time the inquiry was filed, the Secretary ordered that the cca.se and desist order of the Acting Secretary, dated February 3, 1928, be revoked and tornino.tod. D-253 Market c-gency ordered to cca.sc and desist from doing business as a market agency without executing and maintaining c. reason¬ able performance bond to suitable trustees covering its obli¬ gations incurrod as a market agency or arranging some other form of guaranty satisfactory to the Chief of the Burcc.u of Animal Industry, and without having on file' with said Burco.u a fully-executed duplicate of such bond or notice of such other plan of guaranty; the order to become effective on end after the fifth day from receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which sha.ll be transmitted by registered mail, D-259; D-261; D-277; D-317 Ordered that the defendant stockyards company coc.se end desist from publishing, demanding, or collecting any rc.te or .change in excess of $4 per can for the service furnished to the complain¬ ant in connection with the driving of its livestock from its unloading fiold through the property of the defendant to the plant of the complainant; further ordered that the order shall become effective ton days after its receipt by defendant, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail, D-270 ORDERS III Dealer ordered by the Secretary to keep and naintain the following accounts, records, and memoranda. pertaining to his transactions (l) copies of scale tickets '.s a. registered deader in livestock issued by the stockyards covering purchases and sales by hin, (2) Copies of bills for all purcha.scs of livestock by hin, (3) book, record, or register of each ourchs.se and sale of livestock showing dale, number of head, weight, doclca.ge, if any, amounts, and expenses incidental thereto, (4) a complete file of cancelled checks issued by hin, (5) a check stub corresponding to each check issued, and (6) copies of account sales rendered by market amend os in connection with sales for hin. Further ordered tha.t the order shall talce effect in six do^s from the da.tc of the *> service thereof upon respondent, and that a. copy shall be trans¬ mitted to hin by registered nail. D-271 Conspiracy charges against respondent dealers lack of proper evidence. dismissed for a D-272 Ordered that respondents cease and desist fron combining, conspir¬ ing, and a.grccing to use the unjustly discriminatory and deceptive practices and devices sot forth in the inquiry and notice and further ordered tha.t respondent Conner cca.se and desist from, keeping inadequate records of his transactions; further ordered that the registration of respondent Senior be suspended for a. period of thirty days: further ordered tha.t" respondent Gallagher be suspended for one yean; further ordered that the order talce effect in twenty lays from the receipt of resnondent• copy thereof by oa.ch J. XJ V D-273 Dealer and market agency ordered suspended from registration a.s such for six months from tho expiration of the fifth day fron the receipt by him of a. copy of tho order, which shall bo transmitted by registered nail, with loa.vo to a.pnlv for revocation of suspension during said period upon a. satisfactory shoving of solvency. D-275 376 ORDERS III Defendant Portland Union Stock Yards Company ordered to cease and desist fron publishing, demanding, or charging" a brand inspection service charge on cattle and horses in excess of 5/ per hood, further ordered that the defendant'bo directed, to pa.y to the conplainant on or before July 1, 1929,'the difference between 8/ a head, the rate charged, end 5^ a head, the rate found to be reasonable, on cattle consigned by conplainant to defendant’s stockyard, subsequent.to September 15, 1928, as reparation, pro¬ vided conplainant complies with Regulation 19; further ordered throb the defendant on or before July 1, 1929, cease and desist from publishing, demanding, or charging any rate or charge for the inspection of brands oh cccttle and horses unless spccificcily authorized to do so by the Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that the defendant be notified, and required, upon notice to the Secretary end to the public, to file appropriate anendnent to its tariff complying with the foregoing order; further ordered thc.t the order shall continue in force until, the further order of the Secretary; further ordered that copies of the order shall be transmitted by registered mail to the complainant and the defendant, D-278 Deader ordered to cease and desist fron the unfair end deceptive practice and device of removing hogs or other livestock from pens an signed to others and substituting other animals in their plc.cc; further ordered that the registration of respondent be suspended for a. period of one yca.r; the order to toko effect in fifteen days fron the date of service of a copy thereof upon respondent, which shall bo sent by registered mail. D-280 Market agency ordered suspended fron registration as a market agency for one ye an fron the expiration of the fifth day upon receipt by him of a copy of the order, which shall bo trans¬ mitted by registered na.il, with lcc.vo to e.pply for revocation of suspension during sai period upon a. satisfactory showing solvency. D-285 Ordered to make the complaint for reparation more lofinite and certain. D-286 377 I ORDERS III Market agency ordered to cease and desist from the unfair, unjust, and unreasonable practice and device charpel in the inquiry, and ordered to keep and maintain the foil Mn,; accounts, records, and memoranda pertaining to its tronsa'ctions: (l) cony of scale tickets issued by the stockyards company covering purchases end sa.los by respondent, (2) copy of bills for all purchases ml sales of livestock by respondent, (3) book, record, or register of each purchase and sale of livestock shoving date, number of head, weight, dockage, if any, amount due consignor or to bo paid by purchaser, and expenses incidental thereto, (4) a complete file of cancelled checks issued by respondent and vouchors supporting then, (5) a check stub corresponding to every chock issued or complete cash receipts or disbursements journal with segregation of proceeds and general bank account, (6) copy of credit accounts salo rendered by respondent in connection with sales of consignments and copies of credit accounts purchr.se, and (7) a general ledger for accounts pay¬ able, a. ledger for accounts receivable, ledger either separate Further ordered that this order shall take effect from the date of service thereof upon respondent and that a. copy whereof shall bo sent to rcs'oondcnt by registered nail. ’ D-287 n combined. in fifteen dams Ordered by the Secretary that repanation be complaint be denied and that the dismissed; further ordered that copies of the order € be sent to complainant and defendants by registered nail D-288 Ordered thc.t the respondent Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., on and after the 16th day of August, 1929, shall not publish, demand, or collect any r-atc or charge for the furnishing, of any suocKvara service m coco css the rates and char ;es herein¬ before determined to be just end reasonable for the furnishing of such services; further ordered that on day of August, nd of ter the 16 th 1929, the respondent publish, give notice of, end filo with the Secretary of Agriculture in accor knee with the Act an" the regulations thereunder a schedule effective the 16th den of August, 1929, showing all ra.tcs and changes for the stockyand services furnished by the respondent a.t the Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee, and a.ll rules and regulations changing, a.ffccting, or determining such rates or changes, and that no rate or change so shown bo in excess of the rc.tc or change horoinbeforo determined to bo just and reasonable for such services; further ordered that a. copy of the order be transmitted by registered nail to the respondent. D-291 378 ORDERS III Market agency ordered suspended fron registration for six months from, the expiration of the sixth day fron the receipt by hin of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered nail, with leave to apply for revocation of suspension during such period upon a satisfactory showing of solvency; to cease end desist fron the deceptive practice end device of. diverting trust funds in his possession to unlawful 'uses, to maintain end keep certain accounts, records, end memoranda pertaining to his transactions; further ordered that the order shall take effect within the tine specified in the first paragraph of the order. D-292 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from-doing business as a dealer without executing and maintaining and filing with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D„ C., a fully-exe- cubed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as a dealer, the order to become effective on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted.by registered mail. D-2S5; D-321; D-32Z; D-323; D-324; D-376; D-462; D-467; D-739 o Market agency ordered to cease and desist from doing business as a market agency without executing and maintaining a reason¬ able performance bond covering its obligations incurred as a market agency and without having on file with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., a fully-oxccutcd duplicate thereof; the order to become effective on end after the expira¬ tion of tho sixth day from receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which sho.ll bo transmitted by registorod mail. D-296; D-317; D-349; D-391; D-406; D-422; D-426; D-466; D-515. Dealer ordered suspended from registration as a dealer for six months from the expiration of the sixth day from tho receipt by him of a copy of the order, which shall be transmitted by registered mail, with leave during said period to apply for revocation of suspension upon a satisfactory shornng of solvency. D-297; D-313; D-320; D-332^ D-471; D-1039; D-1160. 379 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent stockyards company, on end after thirty days from the date of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for yardage, feed, or bedding, the rate or rates shown therefor, in the schedule of rates end charges filed with the Secretary of Agriculture on the 30th day of September, 1929, end designated end known as St. Joseph Stock Yards Tariff No. 5; further ordered that the respondent on and after 30 days from the date of the order shall not publish, demand, or collect any'rate or charge for the furnishing of eny stockyard service in excess of the rc.tcs end charges herein¬ before found and determined to be just and reasonable for the furnishing of such service; further ordered tha.t e,t leant ten da.ys prior to the 30th day from the date of the order the respondent publish, give notice of, and file with the Secre¬ tary of Agriculture, in accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder, a schedule effective on the 30th day from the date of the order showing all rc.tcs and charges for stockyards services furnished by respondent at the St. Joseph Stock Yards, St. Joseph, Missouri, and all rules and regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates or charges and that no rate or charge so shown for any such stockyard service be in excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just and rea.sdna.blo for such' service; further ordered that for the reasons stated respondent’s petition for a rehearing in this matter be denied; further ordered tha.t a. copy of the order be transmitted by registered mail to respondent. D-298 (Upon rehearing) 380 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent, on and after 45 days from the date of the order, cease and desist frora demanding or collecting for yar cl e, feed, or bedding, the rate or rates shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges filed with the Secretary of Agriculture on the 30th day of September, 1929, end designated and known as St. Joseph Stock Yards Company Tariff No. 5; further ordered that the respondent, on and attar 45 days from the date of the order, shall not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of aaay stockyard service in excess of re„tes and charges hereinbefore found and deter¬ mined to be just and reasonable for the furnishing of such services: further ordered that, at leant ten days prior to the 45th' day from the date of the order, the respondent publish, give notice of, end file with the Secretary of Agriculture, in accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder, a schedule effective on the 45th day from, the date of the order, showing all ro.tes and charges for stockyards services furnished by respondent a.t the St. Joseph Stock Yards, St. Joseph, Missouri, and ail rules and regulations changing, .affecting, or determin¬ ing such rates or charges, and that no rate or charge so shown for any such stockyards service bo in excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just and reasonable for such services; further ordered that the petition for a reopen¬ ing of tho proceeding and a. rehearing, filed by respondent on February 11, 1931, having been considered, be denied; further ordered that a. copy of the order be transmitted by registered mail to tho respondent. D-298 Market agency ordered suspended from registration as a market .agency for six months from the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by him of a. copy of the order, which shall bo transmitted by registered na.il, with leave to apply for revocation of suspension during sa.id period upon a satis¬ factory shelving of solvency. D-300; D-307; D-328; D-339; D-367; D-369; D-370; D-374; D-382; D-428; D-433; D-45S; D-468; D-4-G9; D-602; D-619; D-806; D-853; D-1166; D-1214. f 381 ORDERS III Respondent ordered, :>n and after 45 days from' July 28, 1951, to ceaso and desist from and bedding, the rate or rates shown therefor in the schedule of demanding or collecting for yardage, feed, CO . O U eu J J rates and charges filed with the Secretary on the 22nd day of January 1939, designated and known as Denver Union Stock Yards Tariff No. 2, end in supplements or amendments filed theretoj further ordered to, on and after 45 days, from the date of the- order, not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge -for the furnishing of any stockyard service in excess of the rates and charges herein found and determined to be just and reason¬ able; further ordered that, at leant ten days prior to the 45th day from the date of this order, the respondent publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder, a. schedule effective 45 days from the date of the order, showing all rates and changes for stockyard services furnished by respondent at the Denver Union Stock Ycnds, and all rules and regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates and charges; further ordered that a, copy of the order bo transmitted by registered nail to respondent. D-301 Market agency and dealer business as such without ordered to ccaso and desist from doing executing end maintaining a reasonable performance bond to suitable trustees covering its obligations incurred a.s such, end without filim. a. fully-executed duplicate thereof or some other satisfactory plan of guaranty with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., the order to become effective on and after the expiration of the' sixth day from the receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-303; D-346; D-392; D-403; D-404; D-416; D-430; D-438; D-452; D-460; D-463; D-486; D-512; D-517; D-538. Dealer ordered suspended from registration an a dealer for six months from the expiration of tho sixth day from receipt by him of a copy of the order, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail, with 1 oave to apply for rovoca.tion of suspension during said period upon showing of having obtained a. reasonable per¬ formance bond covering his obligations as a. dealer and of having filed Cl fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C. D-504 ORDERS III Proceedings to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of the schedule of rates and charges for stockyard services of the Kansas City Stock Yards Conpany disnissed without prejudice, by the Secre¬ tary, and vdthout comment. D-305 Proceedings to deternino r c as on ab1oness and lawfulness of respond¬ ent St. Louis National Stock Yards’ schedule of rates and charges for stockyard, services dismissed by the Secretary vdthout prejudice end without coimcnt. D-306 The Secretary ordered that the respondent market agencies end each of then, on end after 30 days from the date of the order, cease end desist from demanding or collecting for any stockyard service the rate or charge shown therefor in tho schedule of ratos and charges then on file with the Secretary! further ordered that on and after 30 da^s from tho date of tho order none of tho respondent market agencies shall publish, demand, or collect any rate or change for tho furnishing of any stock- yard service in excess of tho rato or change therein determined by the Secretary to be just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory! further ordered that at least ten days prior to the date upon which the order becomes effective each .and every of the respondent market agencies publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder, a. schedule showing all rates and charges for stock- end charges c.t the Sioux City Stock Yards, Sioux and all rules end regulations changing, affecting, end determining such ratos and charges, arid that no rate or charge so shorn for any such stockyard service be in excess of the rrabo or change a.s determined by the Secretary to be just, reasonable, and non-discrinina.tory 3 * further ordered that a. cop 3 r Ci D-308 yard ratos t/ Citv, Iowa, (y ^ J of the order be transmitted to each of the respondent market agencies by registered nail. Ordered that the decree dated July 25, 1931, bo amendea to fix new selling changes and now buying changes for cattle, calves, and swine, to be used by commission men at the Sioux City Stock Yards, Sioux City, Iowa. The ndor was dnfccd November 19, 1937. " D-308 383 ORDERS III C Proceedings to determine the insolvency of respondent dismissed ■without prejudice, the Socrctany ordering a copy of the order to,bo transmitted to respondent by registered nail. D-309> D-354; D-371; D-387 Ordered that the respondent market agencies, and each and every one of then, on and after thirty days from the date of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for any stockyard service the rate or charge shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges now on file with the Secretary: further ordered that, on and after thirty days from the date of the order, neither the respondent market agencies nor any of them shall publish, demand, or collect any rate or change for the furnishing of any stockyard service in excess of the ra.tc or charge hereinbefore determined to be iust, rea.senable, and nonvdi. s c rdmina.tor y for the furnishing of such service j further ordered that, at loa.st ten days prior to the date upon which the order becomes effective, csich and every of the respondent nanket agencies publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder, a. schedule showing aJLl rates and changes for stock- yand services furnished Stock Yards, Kansas Git changing, affecting, or that no rate or char e VJ by such respondent at the Kcnsa.s City y, IfLssouri, and all rules and regulations determining such rates or changes, and so shown for any such stockyard service be in excess of the rate or change hereinbefore determined to be just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory for such service; further ordered that a. copy of the order be transmitted by registered na.il to ca.ch and every one of the respondent market agenciesi. D-oll; D-311 (First Rohoaning) C 384 ORDERS III Ordered thevb tho proceedings in the case be reopened; further ordered that the "Proceedings, Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Order", as issued by the Secretary on June 14, 1933, be served upon the respondent market agencies as the tentative findings of fact, conclusion and order of the Secretary in this proceeding; further ordered that said respondent market agencies be given thirty days from the date of service hereof within which to file exceptions to said tentative findings of fact, conclusion and order, in accordance with the rules of practice adopted by the Secretary governing tho procedure in such eases, end within which to make any appropriate motions or objections with respect to further proceedings in tho cane; further orderod that said market agencies, if they file exceptions to said tentative findings of fact, conclusion and order and desire to make an oral argument on the exceptions, may, if they wish to do so, request that such oral argument be'held before tho Secretary or Assistant Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that tho order bo served by mailing a. true copy thereof by registered nail to tho attorneys of record representing th'c market agencies who filed tho appeals from the Secretary's order of June 14, 1933, D-311 Ordered that the respondent market agencies, and ca.ch and every one of them, on and•after thirty days from the date of the order, cease and desist from charging, collecting, demanding, or retain¬ ing for any stockyard service rendered by them during tho period from July 23, 1933 to November 1, 1937 any rate, charge, or revenue in excess of the rates and charges heroin found to be reasonable; further ordered tha.t the order of October 14, 1937, issued in this proceeding, sha.ll remain in full force and effect until tho further order of the Secretary, in ac cor dene e with the stipulation contained therein; further ordered that a copy of tho order bo served by rcgistcrod mail or in person on each of tho respondents, D-311 (Second Rehearing) 4 385 ORDERS III The Secrctany determined that commission rates not in excess of the rates contained in the schedule prescribed by him in his order at the second rehearing in the case wore just and reasonable rates for stockyard services rendered by the respondent market agencies during the period from July 23, 1933 to November 1, 1937, said determination being necessary to furnish a proper basis for the distribution or other disposition of the funds impounded in the Registry of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, in the case of Morgan otal. v. United States of America end the Secretary of Agriculture in Equity, Ho. 2328, D-311 (Second Rchcaning) Ordered that the notion of the respondent market agencies to suppress the report and recommendations of the Examiner in the Kansan City Stockyard commission rate case, dated January 19, 1939, and for a. rehearing, bo denied; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the attorneys of record for the respondent market agencies by registered mail. D-311 Deader ordered to cea.se and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of removing livestock from pens assigned to others and substituting other animals in their plane; further ordered tha.t the registration of respondent a.s a. dealer be suspended for one yean; further ordered that the order shall take effect on and a.fter the expiration- of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a. copy .thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-314; D-341 386 ORDERS III Ordered- that the proceedings in the case be reopened; further ordered that the "Proceedings. Findings of Fact,- Conclusion and Order", as issued by the Secretary on June 14, 1933, bo served upon the respondent market agencies as the tentative findings of fact, conclusion and order of the Secretary in this proceeding; further ordered that said respondent market agencies be given thirty days from the date of service hereof within which to file exceptions to said tentative findings of fact, conclusion end order, in accordance with the rules practice adopted by the Secretary governing the procedure such ca.ses, and within which to make any appropriate motions objections with respect to further proceedings in the ca.sc; further ordered that said market agencies, if they file exceptions to said tentative findings of fa.ct, conclusion and order and desire to nrj.ee an oral argument on the exceptions, nay, if they wish to do so, request that such oral argument be held before the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that the order be served by nailing a. true copy thereof by registered noil to the attorneys of record representing the market cogencies who filed the appeals from the Secretary's order of June 14, 1933, of m or D-311 Ordered that the respondent market agencies, and each and every one of them, on and after thirty days from the date of the order, 7 c/ U 7 coa.se and desist from charging, collecting, demanding, or retain¬ ing for any stockyard service rendered by then during the period from July 23, 1933 to November 1, 1937 any rate, charge, or rovonuo in excess of tho ra.tcs and charges herein found to be reasonable; further ordered that the order of October 14, 1937, issued in this proceeding, sha.ll remain in full force and effect until tho further order of the Secretary, in a.ccordancc with the stipul at:’ on contained therein; further ordoro Cl *fcj.. CX"fc Cl copy of tho order So served by registered nail or in person on each of tho respondents, D-311 (Second Rehearing) \ 385 ORDERS III The Secretory determined that commission rotes not in excess of the re.tcs contained in the schedule prescribed by hin in his order at the second rehearing in the case were just end reasonable rates for stockyard services rendered by the respondent market agencies during the period from July 23, 1933 to November .1, 1937, said determination being necessary to furnish a proper basis for the distribution or other disposition of the funds impounded in the Registry of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, in the case of Morgan ct al. v. Uni ted States of Amer ica end the Secretary of Agriculture in Equity, Ho. 2328. D-311 (Second Rehearing) Ordered tha.t the notion of the respondent market agencies to suppress the report end recommendations of the Examiner in the Kansas City Stockyard commission rate case, dated January 19, 1939, end for a rehearing, be denied; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the attorneys of record for the respondent market agencies by registered nail. D-311 Dealer ordered to cee.se end desist from the unfed.r end deceptive prentice end device of removing livestock fron pens assigned to others end substituting other animals in their ple.ee; further ordered that the registration of respondent e.s a dealer be suspended for one year; further ordered that the order shall take effect on and a.fter the expiration of the sixth day fron the receipt by respondent of a. copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. r D-314; D-341 386 ORDERS III Market agency and dealer ordered to cease and desist from doing business in such capacity without executing and maintaining a reasonable performance bond covering its obligations incurred in such capacity, and without filing a fully-executed duplicate thereof or some other satisfactory plan'of guaranty with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C.; further ordered that respondent be suspended from registration as a dealer and market agency for a period of six months, with leave during such period to apply for revocation of suspension upon satis¬ factory compliance with the order; the order to become effective on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-315; D-381; D-400; D-409; D-413; D-414; D-415; D-427; D-429; D-434; D-441; D-444; D-473; B-522. It appearing to the Secretary that respondent has filed a reasonable performance bond as required by the Secretary in his previous order and that a fully-executed duplicate thereof has been placed on file with the Bureau of Animal Industry, the Secretary ordered that the order of suspension bo revoked and terminated. D-315; D-316 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from doing business as a market agency without executing and maintaining a reason¬ able performance bond covering its obligations incurred as a. market agency and without filing a fully-executed copy thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C.; further ordered suspended from registration as a market agency for six months, with leave during said period to apply for revocation of suspension, upon satisfactory showing to the Secretary that it has complied with the Act; further ordered that the order shall become effective on end after the expira¬ tion of the sixth day from receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered modi. D-316; D-326; D-401; D-417; D-424; D-443; D-455; D-540; D-556. 387 ORDERS * III It appearing from the records that respondent market agency arranged on August 12, 1930 to clear his business through another market agency in lieu of filing a. performance bond, which arrangement for clearance is on file with the Bureau of Animal Industry, the Secretary, nevertheless, ordered respond¬ ent to cease and desist from doing business as a market regency without executing end maintaining a reasonable bond end filing a fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry in accordance with the Act, the order to become effective on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a. copy thereof, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail, - D-317 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from doing business an a dealer without executing and maintaining and filing a. fully- executed duplicate thereof with the Buroan of AnimeA Industry eat Washington, D„ C., a. reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as c. dealer; further ordered suspended from registration a.s a dealer for six months, with leave to apply for revocation during said period upon shoving of satis¬ factory compliance with the Act; further ordered that the order shell become effective on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shell bo transmitted by registered mall • D-318; D-319; D-329; D-336; D-340; D-377; D-378; D-386; D-405; D-423; D-439; D-535; D-539; D-565; D-579; D-695. Market agency ordered to cca.sc and desist from d oing business as a market agency without executing and maintaining a. reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred a.s such and without filing a fully-executed duplicate thereof or some other satisfactory plan of guaranty with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, Do C., the order to become effective on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mall, D-325; D-498; D-541 ORDERS III Market agency and dealer ordered to cease and desist from, con¬ tinuing the violation of the Act by engaging in and using unfair and deceptive trade practices, and suspended fron registration as a market agency and dealer for six months from the first day of December 1930, the order to be transmitted by registered nail. D-327 Market agency and dealer ordered to cea.se and desist fron con¬ tinuing the violation of Title III of the Act by using unfair and deceptive tramie practices in the conduct of its commission business; further ordered that the registration of respondent as a market agency and dealer bo suspended for a period of one year; further ordored that the order shall tadcc effect fron and alter the sixth day from the receipt of a. copy thereof by respondents, which shall bo transmitted by registered nail. D-327; D-333 Ordered that respondents market a.gcncies and dealers cease and desist from ongaging in boycott activities a.gainst complainants; further ordored tha.t the rogistra.tion of each respondent a.gainst when the cease and desist order is issued is suspended for ninety days; further ordered that the cca.sc and desist orders shall become effective in five days fron the rccoipt of a copy thereof by respondents, and tha.t the orders suspending the registrations shall become effective in 20 dc.ys fron the date of the order; further ordored that a copy of the order be served by transmittal to each respondent by registered nail; further ordered tho„t the Socretany reserves the right to modify or set aside the suspension provisions of the order or to suspend the effective da.tc of said provisions with respect to any respondent who shall establish to the satisfaction of the Sccrotmy that he is complying and will continue to comply in good faith with the cca.sc and desist provisions of the order. D-330 Market agency and dealer ordered suspended fron registration a.s a dealer and market agency for six months fron the expira¬ tion of the sixth day after receipt by it of a. copy of the order, with lea.vc to apply for revocation of suspension upon satisfactory showing of solvency. D-331; D-343; D-345; D-348; D-351; D-375; D-379; D-478; D-696; D-908. ORDERS III Proceeding to determine the rca.sqna.bl ones s of respondent market agencies' commission rates raid charges ordered dismissed -without prejudice; further ordered that a copy of the order be served by registered nail upon each of the respondents named in the original order. D-334; D-347 Ordered that respondent partnership be suspended from regis- trati m as a dealer and market agency for six months from the expiration of the sixth day after receipt by respondent of a copy of the order, with leave to apply for revocation of sus¬ pension upon satisfactory proof of solvency; further ordered that respondent Hinckle Bros. & Company cease and desist from doing business as a market agency until it shows satisfactory proof of solvency. D-335 Deader ordered suspended an a. deader for one year; further ordered to cca.sc and desist from engaging in and using the unfadr, unjustly discrinina.tory, and deceptive practice and device of representing to purchasers of cadvcs or other live¬ stock that said cadvcs or livestock arc of a better gra.de than they actucdly arc; further ordered tha.t the order shadl become effective on and. after the expiration of the sixth day from receipt by respondent of a. copy thereof, which shadl be trans¬ mitted by registered nail. D-337; D-338 Ordered that defendant market agencies and dealers be antherized and directed to pay to the complainant the sum of $1,024.85 as ropa.ra.tion on or before May 1, 1931, on a.ccount of damages sustained by complainant due to the refused of defendants to an c opt steers o.t 12^ per pound, in a.c cor dance with a. contra.ct between the panties; a. copy of the order to bo transmitted by registered mail to the complainant end to the defendants. D-342 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd., on and after 45 days from the date of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for yardage, feed, and bedding, the rate or rates shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges filed with the Secretary of Agriculture and now effective; further ordered that the respondent, on and’ after 45 days from the date of the order shall not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard service in excess of the rates and ch caI* ^ O S hereinbefore found and determined to be just and reasonable for the furnishing of such services; further ordered that at least ten days prior to the 45th day from the date of the order the respondent publish, give notice of, and file 'with the Secretary a schedule effective 45 days from the date of the order, showing all rates and charges for the stockyard services furnished by respondents at the Union Stock Yards at Omaha, Nebraska, and all -rules end regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates and changes, and that no rate or change so shown for any such stockyard service be in excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just and reasonable for such service; further ordered that a copy of the order be transmitted to respondent by registered mail. D-344 Market a.gency ordered suspended from registration as a. market agency for one year bcca.usc of its insolvency and because of its having diverted end used shippers ' proceeds so as to bo unable to promptly account for livestock sales to its prin- cipals; further ordered that respondent cease and desist from doing business as a. market agency while insolvent and while practicing the devices aforementioned; further ordered that the order shall .toko effect on and after the expiration of’ the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail. D-350 391 ORDERS III Dealer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and .device of weighing to a purchaser of livestock, with a view of obtaining payment therefor, other livestock not bought by such purchaser; respondent further ordered suspended from registration as a dealer for six months; the order to take effect on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be trans¬ mitted by registered mail. D-353 Bond proceedings ordered dismissed without prejudice; further ordered that a copy of the order bo transmitted to respondents by registered mo.il. D-355; D-358; D-433; D-535; D-56-o; D-569; D-57G; D' -577; D- 578 D-660; D-669; D-370; D-671; D-95S; D-1107 • Market agency ordered to cc as o and desist from the unfalr and deceptive practice and device of rendering false and fictitious accounts sale or otherwise violating the Act in the conduct of his business o.s a market agency; further ordered that the rogistration of respondent bo suspended for a period of six months; further ordered that the order shall take effect on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a. copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mall. D-357 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from doing business c.s a dealer without executing and maintaining and filing with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., a fully-exe¬ cuted duplicate of a. reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as a dealer; further ordered suspended from registration a.s a dealer for six months for not having complied with the Act a.s af or os aid; further ordered that the order shall become effective on and a.ftcr the expira.tion of tho sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a. copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-359 392 ORDERS III Market agency ordered to cease and desist from the unfair, unjust, and unreasonable practice and device of failing to account or remit to shippers after deducting all legitimate expenses, of failing to keep and maintain proper accounts and records of his business transactions; further ordered suspended from registration as a market agency for six months; further ordered that the order shall become effective on and a.fter the' expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-360 Market a.gency ordered suspended for six months from registration as a market agency, vdth leave to apply for revocation of sus¬ pension during said period upon satisfactory proof of solvency; further ordered to cease and desist from doing business as a market agency while insolvent; further 'ordered that the order shell take effect on and alter the expiration of the sixth da.y from the receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-361 Market agencies ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and unjustly discriminatory practices and devices of refusing to sell livestock to Ben Sheppard or to any ano else who is in a. position to buy livestock and pa.y the market values of same; further ordered that the order shall take effect in ton days from the date of the service of the copy thereof upon respond¬ ents, which shall be sent by registered mail. D-362; D-363; D-364; D-3S5; D-366 Respondent ordered to coaso and desist from the unfair and unjustly discriminatory pra.ctico and device of accounting to shippers at less than the net proceeds derived from the sale of livestock; to keep and maintain accounts, records, and memoranda which will fully and correctly disclose all transactions' involved in its business; further ordered that respondent be suspended for a period of one year; the order to take effect in ten days from the dale of service of a copy thereof upon respondent, which• shall be sent by registered mail', D-368 Insolvency proceedings a.gainst respondent n died after the proceedings were instituted. Secretary• arket di siil s s c by who the D-372 393 ORDERS III Market agency and. dealer ordered to cease and desist fron doing business as a market agency and dealer v/ithout executing or maintaining or filing with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D, C., a. fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond covering its obligations incurred as such market agency and dealer or some other plan of guaranty satis¬ factory to the Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that respondent bo suspended from registration a.s a market agency and dealer for a period of six months for non-compliance with the Act, as amended, an aforesaid, with leave during said period to apply for revocation of suspension- upon a. satis¬ factory shoving of compliance as aforesaid; further ordered that the suspension provision shall not bo construed as preventing respondent fron engaging in business of buying live¬ stock for packers or others' on a commission basis or otherwise, if, in each instance, no credit bo extended to respondent; further ordered that the order shall become effective on wind alter the tenth day from receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mall. D-380 Ordered that the respondent market a.gcncios, and each and every one of then, on and alter thirty days fron the date of the order, cca.se and desist fron demanding or collecting for any stockyard scrl.cc the rale or charge shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges now on file with the Secretary of Agriculture which is In excess of the rale hereinbefore found to be just, rea.sonablo, and non-discrininatory; further ordered that on and alter thirty days fron the dale of the order neither the respondent market agencies nor any of then shall publish, demand, or collect any ra.tc or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard service in excess of the rale or charge hereinbefore determined to bo just, reasonable, and non- discriminalory for the furnishing of such service; further ordered that a.t least ten days prior to the date upon which the order becomes effective each and every of the respondent market agencies publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the Act and rogulelions there¬ under, a. schedule shoving all rales and charges for the stock- yard services furnished by such respondent at the stockyard, and all rules and regula.tions changing, affecting, or determin¬ ing such rates or charges, and that no rale or charge so shown for any such stockyard service be in excess of the rale or charge hereinbefore determined to be just, roa.sona.ble, and non-discrininalorv for such service; further ordered that a. copy of the order bo transmitted by registered mail to each and every one of the respondent market agencies. D-383 394 ORDERS III Dealer ordered to cease end desist fro:.i the unfair end deceptive practice end device of selling lives to cl: purchased through a cleaning agency ’.without directly end correctly accounting to such agency therefor, end of misrepresenting, in his inventory or othendsc. to such agency, the nuLiber of livestock sold by hin and the number in his possession; further ordered suspended for six months. f'ron the effective date of the order; further ordered that the order shall take effect in ton days from. the date of service of a copy thereof upon respondent by registered nail. - - - p-384 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from violating the Act by changing, demanding, or collecting less commissions than those required by its schedule of rates.and changes on file and in effect; the order to become effective on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of copy thereof, vdiich shall bo transmitted by registered mail. D-335 Market agency ordered to cea.se and desist from the unfair and a.ccou?itin •: to o unjustly discriminatory'prentice and device o: shippers act less than net •proceeds derived from the sale of livestock handled by respondent in commerce on a commission ba.sis; further ordered tha.t respondent bo suspended one year; further ordered tha.t the order shall tadac effect in ten days from the da.tc of the service of a. copy thereof upon respondent, v/hich shall be sent by registered mail, D-388 Ma.rket agency and deader ordered to c.asc and desist from the unfair practice and device of accounting to shippers a.t loss than the net proceeds- derived from the saic of livestock handled by respondents in commerce on a commission basio; further- , or dcr od- to keep and maintain accounts, records, and memoranda, "which mil--fully and correctly disclose a.ll trans¬ actions ..involved. in their business', and- to keep their books posted currently so tha.t all transa.'ctions. Y-jill be properly reflected; further ordered suspended'for one year; further ordered that the order shall telco..of feet in'ten days from the date of service thereof upon respondents of a. copy of the order, v/hich shall be sent by registered mail. D- ■385 395 ORDERS III Ordered that the proceedings respondent market agency and performance bond bo dismissed to determine the insolvency of dealer and to require of hiu a 'witheut pr o j udic e. D-390 Haricot aaency ordered to cease raid desist from the unfair end deceptive practice and device of giving or offering to give money or any part of the comission to the livestock trucker for the purpose of inducing the trucker to deliver the live¬ stock to respondent for sale in commerce; the order to trice effect in ten days from' the date of the service of a copy thereof upon respondent, which shall be sent by registered nail. * D-393; D-395 Proceedings in ease involvin'; :ifts to truckers di amis set D-394 Proceedin'' in ease involving paynont or offers of nonev to O O x *j *j truckers dismissed. D-396; D-399 Ordered that that part of the notice and inquiry involving the offers alleged to have boun made by respondent to truckers Dixon and Pedersen be dismissed; further ordered that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice*'and device, of giving or offering to give money or 'any part of the commissions to a livestock trucker for the purpose of inducing said trucker to deliver to respondent livestock transported by him to a stocky ends for sale in commerce; the order to take effect in ten days from the date of service of a. copy thereof upon respondent, which shall bo sent by registered mail, D-397 C:dared that that part of the notice and inquiry involving the offers and pcaymants alleged to heave been mde by respondent to witness' George A. Poltz be dismissed; further ordered that the respondent cca.se and desist from the- unfair and deceptive practice and device of paying or offering to pay money or any part of the commissions to a.livestock trucker for the purpose o'" inducing such trucker to deliver to respondent livestock transported by him to a stockyards for sale in commerce; the • order to’take effect ton* days from the service of a copy thereof on respondent, which shall be sent by registered mail. D-398 396 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent market agencies and each and every one of then, on raid after thirty days from the date of the order, cease raid desist from demanding or collecting for cmy stockyard service the rate or charge shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges now on file with the Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that on and after thirty days fron the date hereof neither the respondent market agencies nor any of then shall publish, demand, or collect ary rate or charge for the furnishing of ary stockyard service in excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just, reasonable, ard non-discriminatory for the furnishing of such service; further ordered that at least ton days prior to the date upon which this order becomes effective each ard every of the respondent market agencies publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the Act ard regulations thereunder. a schedule showing all ra.tes ard charges for stockyards services furnished by such respondent at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Illinois, ard a.ll rules ard regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates of charges, and that no rate or charge so shown for any such stockyard service bo in excess of the rate of charge hereinbefore determined to be just, rca.sona.ble, ard non- discriminatory for such service; further ordered that a copy of the order bo transi.iltted by registered ma.il to ea.ch ard every one of the respondent market agencies. D-402 Ordered that Docket No. 402 be reopened for the purpose of affording the petitioners and a.ll other interested parties, including patrons of the petitioners, ar opportunity to a.ppcar ard present such evidence as may be relevant ard material to the matters alleged in the petition; further ordered that the matter bo set down for public hearing before ar Examiner on January 22, 1940, at Washington, D. C.; further ordered that the order ard notice of hearing be published in the Fcdcra.l Register; further ordered that a copy of the order ard notice of hearing be served upon the Chicago Livestock Exchange by registered mail• D-402 397 ORDERS I'll Ordered that respondent be suspended fron registration as a market agency and dealer for a period of six months; further ordered that respondent cco.sc end desist from engaging in the deceptive practices and. devices of reporting to purchasers of livestock on order that ho obtained livestock at different weights and prices end from firms other then e.s ste.tcd; further ordered that respondent keep end maintain certain e,ccounts, records, and momorenda pertaining to his trense.ctions; further ordered the.t the order shall become effective on end e.fter the expire.tion of the sixth day from receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail* D-407 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive prentice and device of selling and disposing of livestock, pay¬ ment for which was made by a. clearing e„gcnt without truly and correctly accounting to such a.gcnt therefor; further ordered to cease and desist from doing business an a deader without execut¬ ing and maintaining a. reasonable performance bond and filing with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., a. fully- executed duplica.tc thereof, covering his obliga.tions incurred as a dealer, or without submitting some other form of indemnity affording substantially equivalent protection; further ordered suspended for six months; further ordered that the order shall telco effect in ten days from the dale of service of a. copy thereof upon respondent, which shall be sent by registered mail. D-408 Market agency ordered to cea.se and desist from the unfair and deceptive pra.ctico and device of rendering false and fraudulent a.ccounts sale and remitting, to consignors of livestock sums other than those a.ctua.llv received; . further ordered tha.t the order shall take effect on and alter the expire.tion of the sixth day from receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-410 Complaint for reparation, for the alleged failure of respondent market agency to remit proceeds from the sale of ca.ttlo to complainant, denied; further ordered tha.t a. copy of the order denying the award of repan alien be served upon complainants and upon respondent by registered mail. D-411 ORDERS III It appearing to the satisfaction of the Secretary that respond¬ ent market agency and dealer has arranged a satisfactory method of securing his obligations incurred as a.dealer, by agreeing to clear his goods under the bond' of another, the Secretary ordered that, effective at once, the order of suspension dated May 51, 1953 bo revoked and terminated. , D-414 The Depart:lent having been officially advised that the respond¬ ent market agency had, prior to the date of the order of inquiry, furnished an. acceptable bond to the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., the Secretary ordered the bond proceedings -O dismissed. D-421 Ordered that the respondent stockyards company, on and after thirty days from the date of the order, cease and desist from dchanding or collecting for yardage, food, or bedding, the rate or rates shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges filed with the Secretary on February 6, 1932, and effective on February 6, 1932, and supplements thereunder, designated and known as the Sioux City Stockyards Company Tariff III; further ordered that the respondent on end after thirty days from the date of the order shall not publish, lemond, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stnekvard service in excess of the rates end charges hereinbefore found end determined to bo just and reasonable for the furnishing of such service; further ordered that, at least ten days prior to the thirtieth day from the date of the order, the respondent publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder, a schedule effective on the thirtieth day from the date of the order of all rates and' charges for the stockyard services offered by the respondent at the Sioux City Stockyards, Sioux City, Iowa, end all rules and regulations changing, affecting, or dotomining such rates or charges and that no rate or charge so shown for any such stockyard service bo in excess of the rate or charge herein¬ before determined to bo just further order o XL -Kh - •ji. i c i or ro i reasonable for such service; as stated, the respondent’s petition for a rehearing be denied; further ordered that a copy of the order bo transmitted by registered nail to the respondent * D-425 The Secretary having found that respondent market agency has voluntarily retired from business, he ordered the bond proceed¬ ings dismissed without prejudice* D-432 399 ORDERS III The Department having been officially a.dvised that the respond¬ ent market agency and dealer has furnished appropriate bond coverage in the form of clearing service frou mother livestock coi mission coup any end ha.s requested that the order of suspension be revoked by reason thereof, the Secretary ordered the order of revoked. D-434 suspend ~n dated January 24, 1934, Ordered that the respondent narket agencies, and each end every one of then, on end after tliirtv days from the date of the order, cease end desist fron demanding or collecting for any stockyard sorvice the rate or charge shorn therefor in the schedule of rates and charges nor; on file rath the Secretary of Agriculture: further ordered that on end after thirty days from the date of the order neither the respondent market agencies nor anv of then shall publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stocky end sorvice in excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just, reasonable, end non¬ disc riuinat or y for the furnishing of such service; further ordered that at least ten days prior to the date upon which the irder bcconos effective each rnd overv of the respondent market o agencies publish, give notice of, and file mth the Sccretorv of Agriculture, in accordance mth the provisions of the Act and regulations thereunder, a schedule shoving all rates and changes for stockyard services furnished by such respondent at the Deliver Union Stockyards, and all rules and regulations changing ing, or determining such ra.tcs or charges. and that no 05 rate charge so shorn for anv such stockyard service be in excos O v . r collecting for yardage, feed, and bed¬ ding, the rate or rates shown therefor in tho schedule of rates and., charges filed with tho Secretary of Agriculture to become effective July 5, 1931, and • designated and known as the Denver Union Stock Yard Company Tariff No, 3, and all supplements and amendments thereto; further ordered that tho respondent, on and after thirty days from the date of the order, shall not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard services in excess of tho rates and charges hereinbefore found and determined to be just and reasonable for tho furnishing of such service; further ordered that, at least ten days prior to tho thirtieth day from the date of the order, tho respondent publish, give notice of, and file with the Secre¬ tary of Agriculture, in accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder, a schedule effective on the thirtieth day from the date of tho order, showing all rates and charges for tho stock- yards services furnished by the respondent at the Denver Union Stock Yards, Denver, Colorado, and all rules end regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates or charges and that no rate or charge so shown for any such stockyard service be in excess of tho rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just and reasonable for such services; further ordered that a copy of the order be transmitted by rogistcrcc. ma.il to tnc ^ r o s p ondent • D—1- 5 0 ORDERS III It appearing to the* Secrotary that no further purpose would be served by the filing of quarterly reports of unloading operations by the Denver Union Stock Yard Company, in accordance with their stipulation end agreement of March 21, 1938, ho ordered that the order requiring the filing of such reports bo revoked, D-450 III L-17 Ordered that the respondent Denver Union Stock Yard Company, on and after the fifteenth day of April 1940, shall not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard service covered by Paragraph 210, Section 1 of the order of the Secretary dated February 17, 1937, other then the rates and charges as modified by this order; furthor ordered that a copy of this order bo transmitted by registered nail to the respondent, D-450 Ordered that respondent stockyards company cease and desist from demanding or collecting for yardage on drought cattle, thereto¬ fore or thereafter handled, a rate in excess of 25^ per head; further ordered that Supplement No, 11 to Tariff No, 2 issued by respondent on September 26, 1934, which increased the yardage charges on drought cattle, be vacated; furthor ordered that a copy of the order be served upon complainant end respondent by registered mail, * D-451 404 ORDERS III Ordered that respondent cease and desist from continuing the violation of Title III of the Act in publishing, demanding, or collecting the charges provided for in the portion of Section 1 of respondent’s Tariff Do, 5, reading as follows: "In addition to above yardage charges the following charges will be made for each subsequent weighing of all livestock: Cattle 17 per head Calves 12d / tl 1! Hogs tt t! (f Sheep or Goats tl Tl 11 This charge will not apply on livestock going to the country when weighed on certain assigned scales. Order buyers will not be assessed the above charge in connection with shaping slaughter stock for shipment provided such stock is weighed on certain assigned scales; further ordered that respondent cease and desist from the unjustly discriminatory practico of assigning scales to some patrons upon terms and conditions different than the terms and conditions upon which it assigns scales to other patrons; further provided that respondent’s schedule Ho• 6, which removes the discrimination complained of, bo accepted for filing; further ordered that the order shall become effective thirty days from the date thereof. D-453 Unsuccessful efforts having been ma.de to serve the order of inquiry upon respondent dealers for the reason that the respondents have left Springfield, Missouri, and their present address cannot bo a.sccrtained, it was ordered that the inquiry be dismissed -without prejudice. D-454 405 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent market agency, and each and every one of them, on and after thirty days from the date of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for any stockyard service the rate or charge shown therefore in the schedule of rates and charges then on file with the Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that, on end after thirty days from the date: of the order, neither respondent market agency nor any of them shall publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard service in excess of the rate or charge determined,by-the Secretary in the proceeding to. be just, reasonable, and lion-discriminatory for the furnishing of such service;'further ordered that, at least ton' days prior to the date upon which the order becomes effective, each and every one of the respondent market agencies publish, give notice of, and file with the Secrotarv in accordance-with the Act end regulations thereunder, a schedule showing all rates and charges for stockyard services furnished by such respondent at the Ogdon Stock Yards end the forth Salt Lake Stock Yards, Salt Lake, Utah, and all rules end regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates or charges, end that no rate or charge so fiown for any suen slocicyc.ru service in excess of the rate or charge as determined by the Secretary in the proceedings to be just, reasonable, and non-disc-riminatory for such service; further ordered that a. copy of the order be transmitted by registered mail to each end every one. of, the respondent marlcot agencies. • *• Dn456 & 457 • » • ' . Ordered that the respondent be suspended from registration as a market agency until such tine as he con show the Secretary satisfactory proof of solvency, with lee.vc to apply for a revocation of suspension upon such showing; further ordered that respondent cease and desist from doing business while, the suspension is in effect; further ordered that the order shall . become effective; on land after tho expiration if the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of acopy. thereof, .which' shc,ll be transmitted bv registered mail. D-458 no The respondent having submitted statements showing that he has paid or con pay all outstanding obligations end now has his business operations cleared by a. duly registered market agency, the Sceroto.ry ordered that the order of suspension do.tcd March 7, 1935, bo revoked, that the order should become effective imnediatelv, and that a copv thereof should be transmitted to respondent by registered nail. D-458 406 ORDERS III Ordered that respondent stockyards and respondent market agency cease cold desist from failing to render reasonable stockyards services in connection with the delivering of livestock received by then at a public stockyard; further ordered that the order shall become effective on end after the expiration of the tenth day upon receipt by respondents of a copy thereof, 'Thick, shall bo transmitted by registered nail. D-4S1 Haricot agency ordered to cease and desist fron engaging in and using the unfair and deceptive practices and devices alleged in the inquiry and amended inquiry; further ordered that respondent pay to the assignee of livestock owners the sun. of 4806.73 with interest at 6% per annum from Fovender 5, 1934, until paid; further ordered that respondent be suspended from engaging in business as a market agency or dealer for a period of one year fron the effective date of the order; further orucrod that the order shall become effective thirty days from the date thereof, end that a. copy of the sane be served upon respondent bv regis¬ tered mail• D-434 It appearing upon petition from respondent that if the Secre¬ tary’s prior order of suspension becomes effective it mil destroy the business of respondent, that respondent mil find it difficult to establish himself in anv other lino of business, that if suspended fron business it mil be necessary for respond¬ ent to discharge employees who arc now dependent upon it for livelihood, that the respondent now understands the requirements of the Act and mil henceforth observe them, and that respondent will make restitution to the producers of livestock who wore damaged rvn < to when roperation wax oraorou m scad prior ornor. and satisfactory evidence having produced showing that the respondent has complied fully with the order of reparation, the Secretary ordered the order of suspension revoked, to bo restored upon thirty -Rays’ notice without further hearing if respondent should fail to comply with any other condition of the order; said order to become effective when respondent has agreed in writing to the entrv thereof upon the conditions therein named, and a copy of the consent has been transmitted to the Secretary. D-464 I 407 ORDERS III I.t appearing to the Sec rebury that the respondent has sold his intorost in the commission basin,: has sold his hone in Seattle, Washington,' and has moved to another vicinity and docs not contempiate engaging in handling livestock at any stockyard, and it would bo to no useful purpose to hold a hearing on the order to show cause, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice; further ordered that the order be transmitted to respondent by registered nail* D-464 Market agency ordered to cease aid desist from engaging in and using the unfair end deceptive practice and device of holding out and permitting any person to drew drafts on it for livestock purchased by such persons and consigned to it, end then refusing to honor the drafts so drawn; further ordered that the order shall become effective on and after the expiration of the tenth day from the receipt by respondent of a c o py thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered nail, D-465 No order was issued in this case but a letter appears in the docket addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture from the Union Stock Yard end Transit Company of Chicago, respondent, who submitted a now schedule of rates and charges No, 11, which made certain reductions m previous rates ant. charges. lU-lC. asked the Secretary to accept then on condition (l) that the elate filing exceptions to the Examiner’s report and the hearing be postponed indefinitely, (2) the.t the company will not file schedules containing advanced rates without first conferring i/ith the Department and submitting justification therefor, (3) that a till'- will not be set for f’ilin^ exceptions to the Examiner’s report in Docket 472 except on sixty days’ notice to respondent, (4) that the action shall be without prejudice to either party in any future proceeding. for accept; by the See ret any of Agriculture, (N: proposal was to given.) o, - U, D*472 m 408 ORDERS III Market agency ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair, deceptive practice end device of refusing to pay drafts drawn an hi a by country buyers who are authorized by respondent to buy stock for shipment and who arc authorized by respondent to draw drafts on bin in payment for such live¬ stock; further ordered to cor.se and desist from engaging in and using the unfair, deceptive device and pra.ctice of paying for livestock shipped to bin for sale when, onth knowledge that such drafts had been drawn, he sells such livestock on a commission basis; further ordered to pay to Henry B. Smith the sun of 1^463.95 with interest at 6% per annum from August 28, 1935 until padd; further ordered that the order shall become effective thirty days from the date of receipt thereof by respondent and that a. copy of the order shall be served upon respondent by registered mail• D-474 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair end deceptive practice and device of refusing to pay drafts drawn upon then by buyers who are authorized by respondents to buy livestock for shipment to respondent and who arc authorized by respondents to draw drafts on then in payment for such livestock; further ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair and deceptive practice end device of refusing to pay drafts drawn on then in payment for livestock shipped to then for sale when, with knowledge tha.t such drafts had boon drawn, he accepts and sells such livestock on a commission ba.sis; further ordered to p or sellers of amount of the drafts and the proceeds from the sale of the cattle, which had thcrotofor been remitted, with interest at Q% -per annum from the date of the dishonoring of the draft by the respondent; further ordered that the order shall becono effective twenty days from the date thereof, and tha.t a copy thereof be served upon respondents by registered nail* D-475 pay to the shippers said livestock the difference between the face Bond proceeding dismissed by the Socrotc.ry, and the Union Stock Yards, Grand Island, Nebraska, ordered deppstod; further ordered that a. copy of the order bo served upon respondent by registered nail • D-501 409 ORDERS III Ordered that J. E. Gannon, Fred M. Gammon, and S. V. Egan cease and desist from. engaging in and using the unfair and deceptive practice and device if employing the trade name of "Fanners Union Livestock Commission Company" or any trade name contrdn- in 0 the words "Farmers Union"; further ordered that respondents be allowed approximately three months ir. which to comply with the cease and desist order; further ordered that a. copy of the order bo served upon respondents by registered mil* D-513 Mamkot agency and dealer ordered to coasc and desist from paying drafts drawn on shippers’ proceeds account'.when the persons drawing such dra.fts had no interest in the account; further ordered to cease and desist from charging less commission then the schedules on file require; further ordered that the changes in paragraphs IV and V of the inquiry and notice alleging that respondent refunded or remitted a portion of tho rates and charges assessed end collected under its tariff bo dismissed further ordered tha.t the order becono effective 15 davs from tho da.tc thereof and that copy of tho respondent by registered ma.il * seme bo served upon D-514 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using tho unfair and deceptive practice and device of refusing to pay for livestock purchased by country buyers who arc authorized by respondent to buy livestock for respondent for shipment to him, and who are authorized by respondent to draw dra.fts on him in payment therefor; further ordered to pa.y to complainant tho sun of (147.50 with’ interest at 6% ’from August 10, 1935 until paid; further ordered tha.t this order become effective 30 dc.ys fron the date of the receipt thereof by respondent, a copy of which shall bo served by registered nail* D-516 410 ORDERS III haricot agency ordered to cease and desist froi: the unfair. un¬ justly di s cri.ninatorv. and ( leeoptivo practice and device (a) of collectin’; from the shipper a sun of money for a sellinr: con U Mission mere no selling comissions c.ro porforned, and (b) of .here no sell failing to report to the shipper all of the facts material to the transaction- further ordered to coaso and desist fron refunding or remitting any part or portion of its comission charges for its services in soiling livestock at a posted stockyard; further ordered to coasc and desist from paying to truckers sums of money for the purpose of inducing them to deliver consignments to the respondent for sale on commission; further ordered, that respondent, on its admission of insolvency, bo suspended for six months, with leave to agg, 1 y for revocation satisfactory shoving D-521 of suspension during such per of solvency. upon If and dealer o appearing to the Secretary that the respondent market agency S ^ o ilCwO complied with the Secretary’s previous order and has furnished a satisfactory bond covering its operations u'kct agency iS dealer and has applied for a revocation of suspension of its registration, the Secretary ordered that the suspension of registration of respondent be revoked effective from the date of the order; further ordered that a. copy of the order bo sent to respondent by registered, nail. D-522 Market agency ordered by the Secretary to pay complainant Arthur Jobs on, a.s roporati on, the sun of gS.OG with interest at 6% per annum from December 1, 1935; further ordered that respondent pay to the complainant N. L. Hayes the six: of v 230 as reparation, with interest at 6* per annum from December 1, 1935; further cl that the ordered tnrec tno resp,^.-^..^ sum of ')40 .as reparation, with interest at 6% per annum fron December 1, 1955; further ordered that such payments shall be undent nay to tho complainant trucker the made on or before 30 d; fron the %j r~\ ^ .cV to of the order; further ordered that respondent coa.sc and desist from engaging in tho unfair practice and device of holding out a.s agent and permitting any person so held out to draw drafts on it for livestock pur¬ chased by such person and consigned to it and then refusing to honor the drafts so drawn; further ordered that tho order shall become effective in 30 days from the date of issuing thereof. D-523 411 ORDERS III Complaint for reparation ordered clismissed because the alleged damages were too speculative; further ordered.' that the order shall become effective on raid after the tenth day from the date of the order and that a copy thereof should be transmitted to the complainant and the respondent by registered nail, D-524 Petition by the complainant for rehearing in a reparation case ordered denied; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant and res ■■.on dent by registered mail, X X X V O D-524 Ordered that the respondent market agencies, and each and every one of 'then, on end after thirty days from the date of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for any stockyard service the rate or charge shown therefor in the schedule of ra.tcs and changes now on file with the Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that on and after thirty days from the date of the order neither the respondent market agencies nor any of then shall publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard service in excess of the rate or change hereinbefore determined to bo just, reasonable, and non¬ disc riminatory for the furnishing of such service; further ordered that at least ten days prior to the date upon which this order becomes effective each and every of the respondent market agencies publish. give notice if, and file with the Secretary of Agriculture, in a.cc or dance with the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, and the regulations if the Secretary thereunder, a schedule showing ail rates and charges for the stockyard services furnished by s-uch respondents and or.ch of then at the Now Orleans Stock Yards, Arab!, Louisiana, and all rules and regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates or charges, and that no rate or charge so shown for any such stockyard service be in excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore determined to be just, reasonable, and non-dis- criminatory for such service; further ordered that a copy of the order bo transmitted by registered mail to each and every one of the respondent market agencies• D-534 412 ORDERS III Market agency ordered to cease and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of giving or offering to give any money or any part ; of any commission to any livestock trucker or shipper for the purpose of inducing said trucker or shipper to deliver livestock to respondent-for sale in commerce as defined by the Act, or because of any such delivery having been made* further ordered that the order shall take effect in ten days from the date thereof, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail, D-536 It appearing to the Secretary that the respondent market agency is now clearing his business through another market agency, which is satisfactory, the Secretary ordered that his previous order of* suspension, dated May 15, 193G, be modified so as to permit the respondent to engage in business again, the remainder of the previous order to remain in full force and effect, and a. copy of the present order to be served on respondent by registered mail, D-540; D-556 Ordered that the complainant, the Oklahoma Livestock Commission Company, be awarded damages against respondents in the sum of '^507,05, with interest thereon at the rate of Q% per annum from February 1, 1936 until paid; thact such amount shall bo po.id as repara.tion within thirty days from the date of the signing of the order; that the respondents cease and desist from failing to pay drafts for livestock in all canes where their agents or employees agree to pay such drafts; that a. copy of the order be served upon respondents by registered mail* D-548 Ordered that the proceeding to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of respondent’s proposed insurance changes to* cover livestock losses be dismissed without prejudice, D-557 Ordered thaat the prior suspension of the registra.tion of respondent be revoked, effective upon receipt of the order; further ordered that a copy of the order be sent to respondent by registered nail, D-565 413 ORDERS III Respondent ordered to cease and desist from the unfair practice and 'device of remitting to any trucker the net proceeds arising from the sa.le of livestock known by the respondent to belong to any person other than such trucker, unless upon specific o.uthority from such person; further ordered thc.t the order shall be effective on and after five days from the receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall be served by regis¬ tered mail• D-566 proceedings to determine if respondent engaged in an unfair practice end device in handling livestock by remitting the proceeds of the sale of livestock to a trucking company ordered dismissed; further ordered that a. copy of the order be served upon respondent bv registered mail, D-5S7 j- i. t/ eo Market agency ordered to cea.sc and desist from engaging in and using the unfair end deceptive pro.ctice and device of refusing to pay drafts drawn on it by country buyers who arc anthorizod by it to buy livestock for shipment to respondent and who arc authorized by respondent to draw drafts on it in payment for such livestock; further ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair practice and device of refusing to pay drafts drown on it in payment for livestock sold to it, when, with knowledge that such dre.fts had been drawn, it accepted and sold the livestock on a commission basis; further ordered to pay rcparc,tion to certain individuals, representing the difference between the fane amounts of each draft dishonored and the remittance made by the respondent to the shipper, to¬ gether with interest o.t 6% from the date of the refusal of the respondent to honor the dra.fts; further ordered that the order become effective thirty days from and after the receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo served by registered mail. , " D-570 Proceedings to determine if the respondent s was unfairly discriminating against a market assignment of certain pons ordered dismissed to ckyc.r ds c omp any a.gency by refusing D-571 Respondent having furnished satisfactory proof of its present solvency end having applied for a. rovoccvtion of the Secretary T s previous suspension order, the Secretary ordered that the sus¬ pension of the registrant ion of respondent as a. market age.ncy be revoked, effective from the date of the order, and that a. copy of the order be sent to respondent by registered mail. D-602 414 ORDERS III Packer ordered to cease and desist fron engagin' in and using the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of agreeing to purchase livestock and thereafter refusing to consummate the sale without legal cause thereof; further ordered to cease and desist fron conspiring, combining, agreeing, and arranging to engage in and use the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device in commerce of concealing fron a shipper the facts pertaining to a sale; further ordered that respondent market agency cease end desist fron engaging in end using the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of selling livestock in commerce and thereafter fail¬ ing to render a correct account sale; further ordered that respond¬ ent market agency cease and desist from conspiring, agreeing, and arranging to engage in said unfair practice; further ordered that the order shall take effect in thirty days from date of receipt thereof by respondent. D-603 Respondent ordered to cease and desist from the unfair practice of engaging in business as a dealer at a stockyard mthout executing and maintaining a rcr.s on able performance bond or some other form of indemnity satisfactory to the Department, as required by the Act and supplements and regulations thereto; further ordered that respondent be suspended from operations as a deader for one year unless the order of suspension shall be revoked upon a showing that the respondent has complied with the Act a.s a.foresaid; further ordered that the order become effective ton days fron receipt thereof by respondent, a copy of which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-655 Market agency and deader ordered suspended from registration as such for a period of six months, with lcavo to have said suspension sot aside during said period upon the filing of an adequate bond as required by tho Act, as amended, and the regu¬ lations pursuant thereto; further ordered to cease and desist fron engaging in business as a market agency and deader at any stockyard without filing a bond a.s required by the Act and the regulations thereunder; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served;upon the respondent by registered mail. D-S89 415 ORDERS III Dealer ordered to cease end desist fron the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of engaging in business at a. stockyards without having filed, a bond or other satisfactory form. of indennity; further ordered that the registraction of respondent be suspended for six months, with lea.ve to apply for a, revoca.tion of suspension upon a. showing that a. suitable bond or other satisfe,ctory surety has boon executed and filed; further ordered throt a, copy of the order shall be served upon the respondent by registered, nail and. that the order shall take effect in ton days fron receipt of the notice thereof, D-711; D-722; D-959; D-1130; D-1188; D-1201 Proceedings to deterr.iinc the fairness of the requirement of the respondent stockyards company that market agencies handling livestock at respondent’s stockyards enter into an agreement to not handle livestock except at posted stockyards dismissed without prejudice; further ordered that a, copy of the order be served upon the petitioners and respondent by registered mail. JL «L -L D-721 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from the unfa.ir and unjustly discriminatory practice and device of paying truck drivers any commission or compensation whatsoever in addition to the regular trucking charges for delivering livestock to respondent; further ordered that the order shall ta,kc effect a.ftor the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt by respondent of a, copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-735; D-746 Ordered that the respondent Wertheimer Cattle Company pay, on or before twenty-five days from the date of the order, to respondent or any person holding a recorded lien upon the cattle, the sum of p27,120.82 with .interest thereon fron the date of the delivery of the cattle by the complainant to the respondent, the amount of reparation being based on the original weights of the cattle; further, ordered that a, copy of the order be served by registered mail upon the respondent and its attorney. D-754 416 ORDERS III Market agency and dealer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and unjustly discriminatory practice and device of report¬ ing to the purchaser a price higher than the actual price paid for livestock and of reporting to the purchaser a weight greater than the actual weight thereof, and of giving incomplete and incorrect information respecting his transactions as a market agency and dealer .to any other registrants at the stockyards; further ordered suspended from registration as a market agency and dealer for one year; further ordered that the order shall take effect after the expiration of the fifteenth day from receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be trans¬ mitted by registered mail. D-756; D-758 Ordered tha.t the registration of the respondent market agency be suspended for a period of two yeans; further ordered tha.t respondent coa.se and desist from the unfair, unjustly dis¬ criminant or y, and deceptive practice and device of (l) diverting shippers’ proceeds from the shippers ’ proceeds account to its own account for its own use, and (2) loaning money to truckers to induce them to deliver livestock to the respondent; further ordered that the order take effect on and a.ftcr ton days from the date of its execution and that a copy b^-* served upon the respondent. D-759 Ordered that the complainant should be awarded 045 against the respondents, together with interest thereon from the date of the delivery of the livestock to the resoondent until paid; further ordered that a. copy of the order be served upon the parties by registered mail and tha.t said urn of money with interest thereon be paid to complainant on or before thirty days from the date of the order. D-767 Ordered tha.t the registration of respondent dealer bo suspended for one year; further ordered that tide respondent, upon resuming business as a registrant under the Act, shall keep certain books of ascount; further ordered that the order shall take effect on and a.ftcr ten days from the da.tc of its execution, and that a copy thereof shall be served by registered mail upon tho respond¬ ent at his pla.ee of business. D-807 417 ORDERS III Market agency and dealer ordered to cease and desist fron the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of substituting one animal for another without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser, when making delivery of livestock to the purchaser; further ordered that the order shall become effective on and after twenty days fron the date of the order, and that a copy of the order shall bo served by registered mail upon the counsel of record for the respondent. D-894 Ordered that the complaint for reparation for proceeds fron the sale of stolen livestock be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant and defendant by registered mail. D-895 Ordered, that the complaint for reparation and inquiry with respect to an alleged unfair pra.cticc of the respondent market agency in under-weighing dead livestock be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant end defendant by registered mail. D-899 Ordered that the proceedings for reparation for the alleged failure of the defendant market agency to properly account for tho sale of said dead .-livestock be dismissed without prejudice, and..that a copy of the order bo served, upon tho counsel of record for respondent by registered nail. D-900 Dealer ordered suspended from registration as a dealer- for one yean; further ordered that the respondent cca.so and desist fron the unfair, unjustly discriminatory prifccticc and device of reporting incorrectly to-a clcaring^agoncy the number or-value of or any other essential information concerning livestock which the cleaning agency may handle for him* further ordered that respondent pc.y to his clearing agency reparation for live¬ stock sold but not reported, with interest from the date of the sales; further ordered that the order shall tadco effect after the expiration of tho. fifteenth day fron receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered nail,. D-912 ORDERS III Ordered thr.t the respondent market agency cease andddesist from, the unfair practice and device of refusing to pay drafts which have been drawn on hin and given in payment for the purchase prico of livestock the purchase of which ho has authorized, and in payment for which he has authorized drafts to be dr aim on hin; further ordered that the order become effective ton da.ys from the receipt of a copy thereof by the respondent, which shall be served by registered na.il* D-927 Ordered tha,t the respondent market agency coa.se and desist from the unfair pra.ctico of refusing to honor drafts drawn upon hin by anyone authorized by hin to draw dra.fts upon hin in payment for the purchase of livestock shipped to and sold by hin a.t the Fort Worth Stock Yards, Fort Worth, Texas; further ordered that the ord.cr become effective ton days from the date of receipt of a. copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo served by registered nail* . D-929 Dealer ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business of buying and selling livestock on the Port City Stock Yards, Houston, Texas, without executing end maintaining a bond to cover his obligations as a dealer a.s required by the Act, supplenents thereto, and the regulations pronulge.tod thereunder; further ordered that the order bee one effective ten da.ys from the receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be served by registered no.il* , D-930 Mankot agency suspended for six months fron the effective date of the order, with lcaavo to apply to the Secretary for revoca¬ tion of suspension upon a. showing of solvency; further ordcrod that the order shall boconc effective cat the expiration of ton days after tRc receipt by respondent of a copy thereof, which shall bo served by registered nail. D-950 l ORDERS III Fort Worth Stock Yards Company ordorod to coa.sc and dosist from engaging in and using the unfair and unjustly discriminatory practice of denying to the complainant market agency and to its po.trons the use of its facilities end services, including the delivery and weighing of livestock, upon the sane terns and conditions as those facilities and services arc nade available to others at the Fort Worth Stock Yards; further ordered tha.t the order shall become effective ton days after the receipt thereof by respondent and that copies of the order shall be served upon the complainant and the respondent by registered ncdl. * D-956 Ordered tha.t the complaint against the Peoria. Union Stock Yards Company for refusing to 'admit the complainant market .agency to . the use of its stockyard privileges be dismissed, end that a copy of the order be served upon complainant and respondent by registered mail. D-979 Ordered that the registration of tho respondent market agency bo suspended for a. period of two years; further ordered tha.t the order shall take effect in ten days from' tho da.to of tho receipt of a. copy of tho order by respondent, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail. - D-980 Market agency ordorod suspended fron registration for eighteen months, and ordered to coa.se and desist fron the unfair, unjustly discriminatory pro.ctico and device of diverting and converting to its own use the proceeds e.rising fron the sale of livestock on commission, end fron failing to remit the proceeds or tho equivalent thereof to the consignors; further ordered to keep such an counts, records, and memoranda, a.s fully and correctly disclose all the transa.ctions involved in its business; further ordered that the order shall become effective ton days fron and after the date of tho receipt of a^ copy thereof by the respondent, which shall be sorved by registered nail* D-983 420 ORDERS III Market agency and dealer ordered to cease end desist fron the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, end- deceptive practice end device of oinking use of, for personal reasons, end disposing of shippers’ proceeds funds: further ordered that the rogistration of respond- ents be suspended for one year fron the effective date of the order; further ordered that to keep such accounts, records, and nonor on da as mil fully .and correctly disclose all transactions involved in the business; further ordered that the order shall boconc effective at the expiration of fifteen days fron the receipt of a copy thereof, which shall be served by registered nail • D-1017 Ordered that the order of suspension against respondent dealer, heretofore entered, be revoked, and that this order of revoca¬ tion shall beeone effective on and after five days fron receipt by respondent of a copy of the order, which shall'be transmitted by registered nail. D-1039 Dealer ordered to cease and desist fron the unfair practice of engaging in business as a dealer without executing end maintain¬ ing a bond or other satisfactory fern of indemnity to cover his financial obligations as such a dealer as required by the Act, supplements thereto, and regulations promulgated thereunder; further ordered that the order become effective ton days from the receipt of a copv thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered mail. D-1040; D-1145 Orvm-f- -'-..rkot agency ordered to cot unfair and deceptive pr^ Respondent no 10 and desist from the cticc and devi.ee of entering into secret agreement to sell livestock.to anyone with the under¬ standing that the profits of the resale of such livestock should bo divided between the commission company or its employee end the purchaser; further ordered that respondent dealer cea.sc and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of entering into an agreement with a. market agency or its representative to purchase livestock with the under¬ standing that the profits of the livestock should be divided by the commission company or its employee and himself; further ordered that the respondent market agency cease and desist from the unfair, deceptive practice and device of representing to shippers that his livestock was sold to anyone other then the actual purchaser thereof; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the parties by registered nail end she.ll become effective fifteen days from the date of the order. D-1041 421 ORDERS III Market agency ordered to make reparation to the shipper of live¬ stock by payment to the latter of the proceeds from the sale thereof, together with interest thereon from the date of the purchase of the livestock by the country buyer of the respond¬ ent; further ordered to cease and desist from the unjust and unfair practice of appropriating to his own account, in satis¬ faction of an indebtedness due him from a consignor, any part of the proceeds arising from the sale of livestock sold by the respondent on consignment when the respondent knows that the consignor has not paid for the livestock or has not ma.de arrangements satisfactory to the owner for payment, and when ' respondent knows that the proceeds from the sale of livestock legally belong to one other than tho consignor. D-1043 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from the unfair practice of engaging in business as a market agency without executing and maintaining a bond or other satisfactory form of indemnity to cover its financial obligations as a market agency as required by the Packers and Stockyards Act, supple¬ ments thereto, and regulations promulgated thereunder; further ordered that a copy of the order bo transmitted by registered mail to the respondents and that the order become effective ten days after the receipt thereof. D-1065; D-1203; D-1241 Ordered that tho respondent market agency cease and desist from using a. fictitious name in reporting the sale of livestock to shippers; further ordered that tho allegation that the respond¬ ent used a fictitious name in accounting to the purchaser be dismissed; further ordered that a copy of tho order be served upon the respondent by registered mail and that the order shall toko effect ton days after such service. D-1108 422 ORDERS III .. Motion to dismiss, made by the rospondont market agency, denied; further ordered that the complainant be awarded nominal damages of §1. against the respondents and that said sum shall be paid as reparation on or before thirty days after the service of the order; further ordered that the respondents cease and desist from, the unfair and deceptive practice and device of refusing to pay a draft drawn upon it by a duly authorized agent in part payment of the purchase price of livestock and of refusing to atcccpt the delivery of livestock purchased by such agent; further ordered that a. copy of the order bo served upon the parties by registered mail or in person, and tha.t the order, other than the order for the payment of reparation, become effective ten days alter date of the service. D-1109 Ordered that the respondent market a.goncy cea.se and desist from engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice and device charged in the notice of hearing; further ordered that the respondent shall horcaitor keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as will fully end correctly disclose all transactions in its business including inventories, details with respect to ail adjustments in income and expenses and any disbursements relating to its business; further ordered that the respondent be suspended a.s a market agency for a period of one year from the effective date of the order, during which time said respond¬ ent shail cease and desist from engaging in the business of buying end selling livestock on the commission basis; further ordered that a copy of tho order bo served upon the respondents by registered mail or in person, and that the order shall become effective thirty days from receipt thereof by respondents. D-1117 V 423 ORDERS III % Ordered that the eonplainant bo awarded reparation for the differ¬ ence between the agreed contract price for the purchase of sheep and the amount he was compelled to sell said livestock for upon refusal of the respondent to take delivery thereof, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the refusal to accept delivery; further ordered that the respondent market agency cease and desist from the unfair practice and device of refusing to honor drafts drawn by his agent.who is authorized to make purchases of live¬ stock and to draw said drafts upon him in payment therefor; further ordered that the proceedings against a partner of the respondent who is a non-registrant under the Act be dismissed; further ordered that copy of tho order be served upon tho complainant and counsel for record of the respondents and that the order become effective thirty days from the date thereof. D-1131 Market agency ordered to coaso and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of using proceeds duo to shippers arising from tho sale of live¬ stock in clearing or financing the operation of dealers or employees; further ordered that the order shall take effect fifteen days from the date thereof, and that a copy thereof shall be served upon counsel of record for the respondent by registered mail. D-1132 Ordered that tho complaint seeking reparation for failure of the respondent market agency to render reasonable stockyard servico and for soiling stoers for less than the market value be dismissed; further ordered that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of 'reporting to a shipper that his livestock was sold to anyone other than the actual shipper; further ordered that tho order be served upon tho panties by registered mail and shall become effective fifteen days from the date of tho order. D-1143 * 424 ORDERS III Ordered that the respondent market agency, while acting in the capacity of an agent buying livestock on a commission basis, cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of rendering accounts purchase showing the purchase price for the livestock in excess of that actually paid for the livestock; further ordered that the respondent shall keep accounts, records, and memoranda fully end clearly disclosing all transactions involved in its business; further ordered that the respondent’s registration as a market agoncv be suspended for a period of one year, effective twenty days' after the date of receipt of a copy of the order, which shall be served by registered mail. D-1158 Ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the respondent market agency in the sum of §3,738.38 with interest thereon at the rate of Q% per annum from the date of the issuance of the account sale covering the livestock in question by the respondent; further ordered that the respondent pay said sum with interest thereon within thirty days from the date of the order; further ordered that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice and device of obtaining the net proceeds or any part thereof, derived from the sale of livestock which had been consigned to it for sale at a stockyard, and refusing to make good the check drawn in payment for such livestock by one authorized by the respondent to buy livestock and draw checks in payment therefor under an agreement, expressed or implied, whereby the respondent under¬ takes to provj.de funds to cover the chocks so drown; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent and other parties represented at the hearing by registered mail or in person and that, except as to the date of payment of reparation, the order shall become effective thirty days from and after such completed.service, D-1159 Ordered that the petition for modification of the final order in the case be denied, and that a copy of the order bo served upon the counsel for the respondent. D-1159 425 ORDERS III Dealer ordered to cease raid desist from the unfair Laid deceptive practice and device .of appropriating without authority, to his own uses end purposes, livestock belonging to another; further ordered that the registration of the respondent bo suspended for a period of one year; further ordered that the order take effect twenty days from the signing thereof, and that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person, D-1161 Market agency ordered to cea.se and desist from the unfair v practices as charged in the inquiry; further ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business as a dealer without having registered with the Secretary in accordance with the requirements of the Act; further ordered to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as will fully and cleanly disclose all transactions involved in its business, including a. record of all purchases ma.de by. him for the account of others end the amount received by him as compensation for such services; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mall and that the order shall become effective ton da.ys after the receipt thereof, D-1162 Ordered that the complaints for reparation be dismissed, that the order take effect twenty days from the date it is signed, and that a copy of the order be served upon counsel of record by registered mail, D-1164 & 1165 Ordered that the respondent market agency cca.se and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device a.s changed in the order of inquiry; further ordered that the registration of the respondent market agency be suspended for a period of thirty days; further ordered that the order take effect on and alter ten days from the signing thereof and that a copy of the order be served upon tho respondents by registered mail, D-1169 426 ORDERS III Dealers ordered to ,ceaso and desist from engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice and,.device of appropriating blank scale tickets and using said tickets for the purpose of representing to persons purchasing livestock from them that the livestock had been weighed by. the stockyards company; further ordered that the registration of the respondents as a dealer be sus¬ pended for a period of one year; further ordered that the respondents cease and desist from engaging in business as a. deader within such period of suspension, and that the order take effect on end after ten days from the signing thereof, and that a copy of the order be served upon tho respondents by registered ma.il* D-1174 The petition by the respondent dealer requesting the Secretary to suspend the order of suspension of the registration of tho respondent for a period of one year, previously made, by tho Secretary, on the grounds that (l) the public interest would bo protected by the cease and desist order, (2) the suspension order could bo reinstated if the respondents violated the .conditions upon which the suspension had been lifted, (3) tho order of suspension was unduly harsh and severe, since it -deprived the .respondent of a. means of earning ’a livelihood for a period of one year and would result in the loss of customers and the respondents could not establish themselves in a now line of endeavor, was denied by the Secretary,; in view of all the circumstances and in view of the need of impressing the livestock industry generally with the. seriousness of tho offense of stealing scale tickets and counterfeiting them. D-1174 Market agency and packer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of reporting false or incorrect weights of livestock or making false reports of crippled animals to carriers cr others; further ordered that the order shall take effect 20 days from the date thereof, and that a copy of the order shall be served by registered mail on counsel of record for each of the respondents. D-1175 ORDERS III 0 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and , deceptive practices and devices charged in tho complaint; further ordered that the registration of the respondent be suspended for a period of six months, to take effect within ten days from the receipt of a copy of the order by the respond¬ ent, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail; further ordered that tho cease.and desist portions of the order shall be effective during any time that tho respondent engages in business as a market agency. D-1181 Ordered that tho complaint for reparation bo dismissed; further ordered that the respondent cease and desist from tho unfair and deceptive practices end devices changed in tho order of inquiry; further ordered that the respondent keep certain accounts, records, and memoranda; further, ordered that a copy of tho order shall bo served upon the respondent in person or by registered mail, and that the order shall become effective ton days from and after such service. D-1182 Stockyards company ordered to cease and desist from the unfair practice of refusing to render reasonable stockyard services to any person upon request without just cause; further ordered to cease and desist from the violation of tho Act by refunding or remitting a part of its rates and charges sot forth in its duly filed tariff; further ordered that the proceedings against tho respondent market agency be dismissed; further ordered that a copy of the order shall bo served upon the market agency and tho stockyards company by registered mail, and that the order shall take effect at the expiration of ten days from the time of service. D-1186 & 1193 ♦ 428 ORDERS III Market agency and dealer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of entering into cn agreement or arrangement whereby (a) losses on the purchase and sale of livestock will, in whole or in part, bo passed on to another person without his knowledge or consent, and (b) a. clearing agency which is engaged in financing the operations of others will bo caused, without its knowledge, to assume losses not within the contemplation of the clearing arrange¬ ment; further ordered to cease and desist from the unfair pra.ctico of making such use of the proceeds from the sale of livestock, which he has sold for tho account of others, cn will endanger prompt and faithful accounting to the owners of such livestock; further ordered suspended for a period of one hundred twenty days, effective twenty days after the receipt of the order; provided, however, that the suspension shall not become effective unless and until tho respondents again teigago in cither practice prohibited by the order or a similar practice; further ordered that a copy of tho order be served upon tho respondents by registered mail or in person. D-1187 Market agency end dealer ordered to cease and desist from tho unfair and deceptive practice and device of engaging in business without executing and maintaining a bond or other satisfactory form of indemnity meeting the requirements of the Act, supple¬ ments thereto, and regulations promulgated thereunder; further ordered that tho registration of tho respondent as a market agency and dealer bo suspended for a period of ono year; further ordered to keep certain books of account, records, and memoranda pertaining to his transactions as a dealer; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person and that the order become effective ten days from and alter such completed service. D-1199 Complainant shipper awarded reparation a.galnst the defendant market .agency in tho sum of 03,446.83, with interest thereon at the rate of '6^ per annum from October 10, 1938 until paid; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served upon the parties by registered mail, and that tho ordor become, effective fifteen days from tho date of the order. D-1200 429 ORDERS III Market agency suspended from registration as a market agency for six months, with leave to apply for revocation of suspension upon satisfactory proof to the Secretary of solvency; further ordered to cease and desist from making such use or disposition of funds in its possession or control, arising from the sale of livestock handled by it as a. market agency, as mil endanger or impair prompt and faithful accounting for the payment of such portion thereof as nay be due the owner or consignor of such livestock or other person having an interest therein, and to cease and desist from so handling funds arising from the sale of such livestock as to cause then to be intermingled or confused with other accounts or funds; further ordered that the order shall take effect on and after the oxpiration of the sixth day from receipt by the respondent of a copy thereof, which shall be transmitted by registered mail, D-1202 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair and deceptive practices and devi c e s chan p: o d in the inquiry and notice; further ordered to make and deliver to the owner of livestock and his duly authorized agent a. true written account sale of livestock consigned to the respondent for scio on a commission basis, showing, among other things, the name of the actual purchaser; further ordered that the registration of the respondent be revoked for a period of six months, provided that such order shall not become effective so long as the respondent shall comply with the terns and provisions of the coa.sc and desist order issued, herein, and. provided tha.t, whenever the Secretary has sa.tisfa.ctory proof that the terns and conditions of the order have boon violated, the order of revocation shall become effective upon ton days’ notice to the respondent; further ordered that the order of revocation shall become effective within ten days from the receipt of a copy of the order which sha.ll bo sent to respondent by registered nail, .D-1213 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices and devices as charged in the inquiry; further ordered to keep accounts, records, and memoranda, necessary to fully and cgrroctly disclose ail transactions involved in his business; further ordered tha.t the order sha.ll take effect on and after the expiration of the sixth day from the receipt of a. copy of tho order by the respondent, which shall bo served by registered mail. D-1222 ORDERS III Union Stock Yard & Transit Company of Chicago ordered to cease and desist from incorrectly weighing livestock at its stock- yards end fron keeping inadequate accounts of its weight records; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon counsel of record for the respondent and that the order shall becono effective five days fron the date it is signed* D-1232 Ordered that the complaint for reparation for the loss of one hog bo dismissed, and that copy of the order be served upon the complainant and on the defendant by registered mail or in person. D-1234 Market agency ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair, unjustly discriminatory end deceptive practice and device of (l) using procoods belonging to shippers of livestock with which to honor drafts drawn against the respondent by country buyers to cover the purchase of livestock, and (2) making such uso of procoods belonging to shippers of livestock as will endanger and impair the faithful and prompt an counting to said shippers; further ordered to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda nocoosany to fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in its business; further ordered that tho order shall take effect on and after tho expiration of the sixth day fron the rocoipt by respondent of a copy of tho order. shall bo served by registered mail or in person. dii ch D-1237 431 ORDERS III Dealer ordered to cease and desist fron the unfair and deceptive practice and device of engaging in business as a dealer at a stockyard -without executing and maintaining a bond or other satisfactory form of indemnity to cover his financial obligations as such dealer, as required by the Act, supplements thereto, and regulations promulgated thereunder. Dealer further ordered sus¬ pended from registration as a dealer for six months, with leave to apply for revocation of suspension upon satisfactory proof to the Secretary that he has furnished a bond or other satis¬ factory form of indemnity, as aforesaid; further ordered that the order become effective ton days fron the receipt of a copy thereof by the respondent, vdiich shall be transmitted by regis¬ tered mail. D-1250 Ordered that the proceedings to determine if the respondent market agency unlawfully refused to honor drafts of a livestock buyer bo dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by .registered nail or in person. D-1266 Ordered that the proceeding for reparation bo dismissed and that a copy of the order be served on counsel of record for the com¬ plainant and upon the defendant by registered mail. D-1273 Ordered that the complaint for reparation be dismissed and that a copy of the order be served on the complainant and defendant, or their attorneys, at their place of business. D-1276 432 ORDERS III Amendments to Petition by tho respondent stockyards conpany for a tonporary modification of the Secretary’s order of Juno 30, 1924, in- creasing yardage charges, partially allowed by the Secretary upon agreement of the petitioner that, if the petition for modification should be granted, it v/ould be for the period from May 15, 1938 to and including December 31, 1938 and for such time thereafter as the Secretary may need for the con¬ sideration of the reports submitted by tho respondent, and upon further agreement by the respondent that the Secretary night, without further hearing, make such further modifications of tho order as he deems proper, provided that no reduction should be made below the rates and charges fixed by tho original order vdthout the petitioner’s consent, except after a hearing pursuant to the Act, end upon further agreement that the petitioner would submit to the Secretary, not latter than fifteen days. a.fter the end of ea.ch quarter of its fiscal year, an item¬ ized statement of revenues and expenses of tho preceding quarter* Upon this basis, the Secretary on June 2, 1938, modified the original order to allow a temporary increase in yardage charges* D-5 Ordered that tho previous order entered bo amended by striking the vrords "within 15 days from receipt.of this order" and substituting therefor "on or before July 16, 1928 "; further ordered that a copy of this order be transmitted by registered nail to the respondent* D-159; D-160 It appearing to the Secretary to be in the interest of good administration, he ordered the modifying of the previous order in the present case, which ordered respondent market agencies to "cease and desist from acting in tho dual capacity for the shipper and the ultimate purchaser with respect to the some livestock", by adding after the word "livestock" the following: "Unless the market agencies (respondents) shall fully inform the shipper and purchaser that they did so act and that com¬ missions were charged to both"; this modification to be effective on and a.fter 10 days from January 9, 1932. D-189 433 ORDERS III Amendments to Upon petition by tho respondent for a temporary modification of the order made by the Secretary on May 4, 1934, prescribing a schodulo of rates and charges for sorvicos rendered by the respondent at its stockyard at St. Joseph, Missouri, and upon further agreement by the respondent that if the petition for modification of the order for increase in certain rates and charges is granted by the Secretary, the Secretary nay, without further hearing, order reductions of said rates whenever he finds from investigations that such reductions are warranted, provided the reductions made will not be below the rates and charges fixed by tho order of May 4, 1934, without the peti¬ tioner's consent, except after a hearing pursuant to tho Act, as amended; the petitioner further agreeing to submit to the Secretary not later than the fifteenth of each month an item¬ ized statement of revenues and expenses of the preceding month and to notify tho Secretary of any change or changes in tho scale of wages and salaries paid to stockyard employees and officials, tho Secretary modified tho order on April 14, 1936, and again on April- 13, 1938. . D-298 * 434 ORDERS III Amendments to Upon petition of the respondent market agencies operating at the Kansas City livestock market for an amendment to the Secretary’s order of June 14, 1933, fixing commission rates and charges, the Secretary made certain modifications to said order by adding and changing definitions of cattlo and by increasing the buying charges thereof in certain instances, end the respondents stip¬ ulated that, pending the final determination of the actions in the case ponding before the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to the validity of sc.id order of June 14, 1933, the Secretary might, without further hearing, malee such further noCdfications of the order as he should deem proper in the circumstances, provided that no reduction would be made below the rates and charges fixed by said order of Juno 14, 1933, without the consent of the respondents, except after a hearing pursuant to tho Act; and the petitioners further agreed that they would submit to the Secretary quarterly itemized state¬ ments of thoir business operations, and the petitioners and the Secretary further agreed that tho grantin'’' of tho modification of tho order by the Secretary should bo without prejudice to either tho petitioners or the defendants in said actions pond¬ ing and that tho stipulation should not be considered in evidence or as a part of the record or used in any way by any of tho parties vith respect to the- actions pending for the purpose of affecting tho fined, dctcrminc.tion thereof. This stipulation was entered into on October 14, 1937, between the Secretary and osnondonts certain of the respondents and was extended to other on November. 13, 1937 raid November 19, 1937, D-311 The order of tho Secretory dated February 24, 1931, further amended to provide thc.t the suspension provision thereof shall not be effective as to the respondent Farmers Livestock Com¬ mission Company, a corporation, so long as.it complies fully and in dcta.il with the provisions of- said order, but in tho event of its failure to do so, said suspension provision shall become effective’immediately as to it, , D-330 435 ORDERS III Alien Orients to The order of the Secretary entered on February 24, 1931, further emended to provide that the suspension provision thereof shall not be effective so lone as the respondents affected thereby conply fully and in detail with, ail and singular, the provisions of said order, but upon failure of any or all of said respondents so to conply, the suspension provision nay, at the direction of the Secretary, becono effective inncdiatcly as to each and every respondent so failing. D-330 The cease and desist order entered by the Secretary in this dated February 24, 1931, amended by the Secretary to become effective ten days from the receipt of a copy thereof by respondents• The cea.se and desist order against respondents na.de by the Sec¬ retary on February 24, 1931, a.s amended, further amended by the Secretary to be postponed to March 17, 1931. D-330 case, D-330 The respondent commission agencies stipulated with the Secretary on October 26, 1936, and amain on November 23, 1937, that if the Secretary would grant their petitions for'modifications of certain of the commission rates and charges prescribed by him in his order of February 28, 1933, due to conditions set forth in the petition, the Secretary might order reductions of such rates and charges without further hearing, provided that no reduction would be made below the rates an; ch nr r os fi xcd bv sold order without petitioners' consent, except after, a hearing •pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The petitioners further agreed to submit to the Secretary at the close -of the year 1936 and quarterly thercc.fter an itemized statement of the number of head of hogs sold in each class and group end the charges collected thereon, according to the provision of the tariff a.s modified by the stipulation. Pursuant to such stipulation, the Secretary modified the selling charges on-pigs, and hogs on November 5, 1936, and onhogs on December 6, 1937* D-383 436 ORDERS III Amendments to On March 11, 1937, September 1, 1937, March 15, 1938, and April 22, 1938, the Secretary made certain modifications of his order proscribing certain commission rates and charges at the Chicago Union Stock Yards, dated January 6, 1934, upon stipulation by the petitioners that, if such modifications were made by the Secretary, the Secretary eight, without further hearing, melee further modifications of the order as he might deem proper in the circumstances, provided that such modifications would not be male below the rates rood char ges fixed by the Secretary’s supplemental order dated March 12, 1934, without the peti¬ tioners ’ consent, except alter a hearing pursuant to the Act; the petitioners further stipulated to submit to the Secretary, quarterly, on itemized statement of their business operations, and agreed that the Secretary night use such information as a. basis for considering further modifications without a. hearing. D-402 The petition for a rehearing in the Chicago Union Stock Yards commission rate ease, on the ground that the Secretary's order of January 8, 1934, fixing the commission rates end charges, will cause certain reductions in revenues which will make it impossible for the petitioners to pay necessary operating expenses, that there have boon certain increases in expenses resulting from the National Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, that the schedule of rates Llv L charres is inequitable and not consistent with the level of cost,or the trend of cost, tha.t all of the petitioners operated at a loss in 1933, end for other reasons, was denied by tho Socrotary upon consideration of all tho evidence and data, submitted agid upon a reconsideration of the ontiro record in the proceedings, but the Socrotary made certain modifications with respect to tho schedule of rates and charges. D-402 437 ORDERS III Anondnonts to Upon an agreement between the Sioux City Stock Yards Company and the Secretary of Agriculture. to the effect that if a petition by the stockyards company to increase its rates-and charges above the schedule prescribed by the Secretary in his order of December 13, 1934, but not beyond the rates and charges in effect at the Omaha Stockyards end prescribed in Docket 344, should be allowed by the Secretary, the Secretary might without further hearing order reductions of such rates end charges from tine to time whenever he finds from such investigations as he deems proper under the circumstances that such reductions aro warranted, provided, however, that such reductions should not be made below the ra.tcs prescribed by the Secretary in'the order of December 13, 1934, without the parties’ consent, except after a hearing pursuant to the Act; further that the petitioner would submit to the Secretary, not later than the tenth of each month, an itemized statement of revenues and statements of the preceding month, including details as to volume of livestock receipts handled and quantity of feed and bedding sold end an to changes in the scale of wages and salaries paid by the respondent, the Secretary, on August 15, 1935, ma.de certain modifications to his order of December 13, 1934,' A similar modification of the order of December 13, 1934, a.s modified on August 15, 1935, under a. similar stipulation, was ma.de by tho Secretary on November 6, 1937; and a similar petition for modification, filed by tho respondent on March 18, 1937, wa.s denied by the Secretary on April 7, 1937, D-425 # A petition by the respondent stockyards company for permission to substitute a. tariff in lieu of the ra.tcs and charges pro- scribed in Paragraph 235 of tho Secretary’s order of December 13, 1934, having been subject to vigorous protests by pra.cti- ccAly -all market agencies, doing business at the stockyards and by many others who would be affected by it, and in view of the further fa.cts tha.t there ha.s yet been n) opportunity for practical application for the ra.tcs and charges proscribed by said order to demonstrate their effect, was ordered dis¬ missed by tho Secretary and the proposed substitute tariff was rejected* D-425 438 ORDERS III Amendments to Upon petition of the respondents in the Auer icon C 01 . 11 . 1 i s si on Coup any ease where the Secretary proscribed certain rates and charges for the soiling of livestock at the Denver Union Stock Yards, the Secretary modified his first order modifying the original order by providing that the preparation and. filing of quarterly reports with the Secrotary by tho respondents would no longer be required, it appearing that to continue, to require tho filing of such reports for longer than tho two-year period already elapsed since tho making of the modified order would servo no useful purpose, D-435 It appearing to the Secretary.from a petition made by the respondent, and an investigation made by the Department, that the tariff rate ordered by the Secretary on July 18, 1954 to become effective on August 1, 1954 should be modified to allow respondent'Cleveland Union Stock Yards Company to increase its rate or charge for weighing drafts of livestock from IQft per droft-to 20^ per draft, the Secretary ordered that said order of July 18, 1.954 be modified accordingly and that from and after- the effective date of said tariff, as so amended, the respondent shall not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any stockyard service in excess of tho rate or charge stated in said amended tariff; further ordered that a copy of tho order bo transmitted by registered mail to tho respondent and that tho order be offcctivo on the date of the filing of the amended tariff to respondent’s tariff provided for herein, D-442 Upon petition by tho Denver Union Stock Yards Company, tho Secretary, after having considered the petition and all of tho facts submitted, modified his order of February 17, 1937, prescribing stockyards rates and charges in certain particulars on April 15, 1939’ and July 25, 1938. " D-450 Ordered that the ordor and stipulation of March 21, 1938 bo modified and that tho last paragraph of page two thereof, providing for the filing of reports with the Secretary, bo revoked, D-450 \ ORDERS III Amendments to On the nineteenth day of June 1937, the Socrotary ordered that an amendment be made to the order dated April 8, 1937, fixing commission rales end charges at the New Orleans Stock Yards by amending Article III so as to strike out the words "per head” and the ditto marks appealing thereunder* D-534 Ordered by the Secretary that his previous order, da.ted May 15, 1936, bo amended by revoking that part of it prohibiting the. respondent from doing business as a dealer without a bond, provided that all purchases of livestock ma.de by respondent shall be paid for in cash or by certified check; further ordered tha.t all other provisions of the previous order remain in force mid effect; further ordered tha.t a copy of this order be served upon respondent by registered mail. D-535 The petition of the respondent market agency for an order modifying the order entered in the cane awarding reparation against the respondent manket agency, on the ground that the evidence adduced at the homing required a. finding and conclusion to the effect that the complainant ha.d recourse only against the country buyer and that the matter docs not involve the respondent in any wa.y, was denied by the Secretory, the respondent having not cited any facts in its petition which would alter the con¬ clusions reached* D-1159 The Secretary hawing given further consideration to a. plead of the respondent dealer for a reduction of the period of suspension, previously ordered for stealing and counterfeiting scale tickets, and it appearing to the Secretary that the ends of justice will be subserved and good administration of the Act will not be impaired by modifying the period of suspension, the Secretary ordered that the period of suspension of one year be reduced to terminate on December 22, 1939 instead of April 22, 1940, D-1174 440 ORDERS III ) Cease and Desist The method of complying with the cea.se and desist order previously issued by the Secretary against the respondent stockyards company, prohibiting it from making certain reweigh charges, was that of removing the discrimination, found by the Secretary, by filing a new tariff incorporating a lower service, and weighing charge. Postponement of Effective Date of The Secretary ordered that the effective date of his order of June 30, 1924 be extended for a period of thirty days from July 16, 1924. ' ‘ D-5 It appearing to the Secretary that further time should be granted to the respondent stockyards company to prepare and file a, new tariff amending the tariff now On file and found to be discrimi¬ natory, the Secretary ordered that the effective date of the order be extended from the tenth day of July 1923 to August 1, 1923. 1 ” D-6 Two days before the effective date of the order requiring the respondent stockyards company to coa.so and desist from making certain reweigh charges, the Secretary, at the request of the respondent, extended the, effective date of the order for twenty-one days. D-7 The order of the Secretary, made in this case on November 19, 1926, was amended by the Secretary to make the effective date of the order February 1, 1927 instead of January 1, 1927. D-143 On May 16, 1934, the Secretary made an order extending the effective date of the reasonable rates end changes prescribed by him for the St. Joseph Stock Yards Company upon rehearing, to permit the respondent time to file in the District Court for the Tie stern District of Missouri a. petition praying in¬ junctions, temporary and permanent, against the enforcement of the order. D-298 441 ORDERS III Postponement of Effective Date of Ordered tho.t the effective date of the order of the Acting Secre¬ tary, dated July 28, 1931, be extended 15 days. D-301 On June 10, 1932, the Secretary extended the effective date of his order of May 18, 1932, in which he fixed certain commission rales and charges at the Kansas City Stock Yards, for a period of thirty days. D-311 On July 8, 1933, the Secretary ordered that petitions for ro- investigation and rehearing, filed on behalf of the respondent market agencies operating at the Kansas City livestock market, be denied, and that the effective dale of his order uppn the first rehearing, dated June 14, 1933, bo extended for a period of ten days. D-311 The effective dale of the order of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, dated February 24, 1931, an amended, extended by the Secretary to March 26, 1931. D-330 The Secretary ordered that the effective dale for filing tariffs of rates and charges and the effective date of the order entered by the Secretary in the case, on February 28, 1933, be extended for a. period of sixty days. D-385 The Secretary ma.de orders postponing the. effective dale of his order fixing reasonable rales and charges for market agencies at the Chica.go Union Stock Yards, dated January 8, 1934, on four different occasions, the last order postponing the effective date, of the original order to April 20, 1934. D-402 442 ORDERS III Postponement of Effective Date of Upon petition of one of the respondent market agencies for c. postponement of the effective date of the order of the Secre¬ tary finding certain rates raid charges for commission men operating at the Denver Union Stock Yards to be lawful and rcasona.blo, for additional time-to propane a petition for repeal from the Secretary f s decision to tho Fedoral Court, the Secretary postponed the effective date of the order for ton days* D-435 The effective date of tho order fixing rea.sona.blc commission rates and changes at tho Now Orleans Stock Yands was postponed by the Secretary from Hay 8 to June 14, 1937, and again from June 14 to June 21, 1937. No reason for such postponement was given. D-534 443 Packers and stockyards act Constitutionality of The question of the Packers one! Stockyards Act being unconstitu¬ tional because it is vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and fixes no standard of guilt, has been before the courts and argued at length in the ease of U. S. v. J. P. R iley , Unroportod, arising in the U. S. Court, sitting at Chicago, and in three other eases presented to the Court at the same time, all arising under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The entire subject of trade prac¬ tices is considered in American Liv estock Commission. Company v. U. S., 279 U. S. 435. See also Farmers Livestoc k Comm is sion Co mpany v. U. S. , 54 Fed. (2d) 375. Purpose of The Packers and Stockyards Act is not to bo understood a*s treat¬ ing financial success in the stockyard business, no matter how obtained, as an evil which it must seek to prevent. The Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, condemns discrimination in rates or charges, but it contemplates not every discrimina.- tion but only 'legal discrimination. The establishment of an open competitive market is one of the prime essentials fer which the Packers and Stockyards Act was designed to accomplish and perpetuate. The establishment of an open competitive market is one of the prime essentials whieh the Packers and Stockyards Act (1921) was designed to accomplish and perpetuate. Ill D-398 D-116 D-208 D-246 D-330 packers aw stockyards act hi Purpose of Tho purpose of the Act is to safeguard tho interests of all, end, although a narlcct agency borrows money to place in tho shippers ’ proceeds account to melee that particulen account solvent, the market agency is still insolvent within the moaning of tho Act of Congress approved Juno 29, 1937, entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture *** and for other purposes", end operates in jeopardy of the interests of those shippers who ship livestock to it for sale on a commission basis so long as the market agency is unable to meet its financial obligations as they become due in the regular course of business, and the registration of such market agency is subject to suspen¬ sion by the Secretary for a reasonable specified period* D-1117 445 PACKERS AND SDOCKYARDS ACT III Rules and Regulations Promulgated under ■ i ‘ - *... - .' , - i'. • • , \ * . 1 .■/••■■■ * r ' ’ Market agencies and stockyard owners have not, . prior to July 18, 1927, been'required to file a tariff showing rates and. charges covering insurance. . . D-193 November 1, 1924 was the' effective date of the Amendment to Regulation 17 i>f the General Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Act which required bonds of dealers-.to cover their obligations incurred as such dealers, D-226 * 4 • . ;/ f' . *’! i. ' ' " ■ Amended Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regulations providing for the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended, was duly made and promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture on September 23, 1924, D-303 The Packers.and Stockyards Act, 1921, contains certain provisions governing the conduct of market agencies engaged in buying end selling livestock on a commission basis at public markets. Under this law, the Secretary of Agriculture has promulgated certain regulations, one of which makes a provision requiring respondents to file bonds to secure the faithful performance of their obliga¬ tions as market agencies. D-445 44 S PAYMENTS TO TRUCKERS III In the ease of truck consignments, a commission firm at the Sioux City Stock Yards usually gives the truck driver a check for his services and deducts the amount from the sale price of the live¬ stock, ■. • D-308 Unless the trucker of livestock obtains from the commission firm his check covering the truck charges at the tine ho is at the market, it is necessary for the commission firm to mail- the check to him, • D-435 Sometimes truck drivers ask for their charges in cash. Often the truck driver does not wait until the sale is consummated and it becomes necessary to mail a special check to him covering his charges, D-445 Sometimes the truck drivers aro paid their truck charges while they are at the market. In other instances, the firm remits to the truck driver by check, D-456 & 457 Chapter 543, Lows of 1935 (Wisconsin), does not spedfically make the trucker of livestock the agent for the shipper, and no decision interpreting the statute to that effect has been called to the attention of the Secretary, D-566 Respondent market agency which received part of a split shipment of livestock from another market agency, but received no informa¬ tion from the other market agency with respect to who owned the cattle in the shipment, except that the only nemo that appeared was the name of the trucking company which transported the live¬ stock to the market, was negligent in remitting the proceeds of the sale of the livestock to the trucking company, it appearing from the evidence that the respondent knew that the trucking company did not own the livestock, but, under the circumstances, the Secretary was of the belief that an unfair practice was not shown by the record, and the Secretary dismissed the case, D-567 447 PRACTICES xJvTD DEVICES III •Boycott Commission non, members of the St* Louis Livestock Exchange, violated Section 304 of the Act by refusing to trade with the interveners, and Section 312 of tho Act by discriminating against the interveners in their dealings in commerce with others, even though said commission men vrcrc abiding by by¬ laws of the exchange. D-2 Market agencies end dealers at a stockyard, who observe a rule or by-law of a livestock exchange of which they ore members, by combining or agreeing among themselves or with others to hinder or prevent other market agencies and dealers from engag¬ ing in si mi lan business at tho stockyards, violate Sections 304 and 312 of the Act as amended and make themselves subject to cease and desist or suspension orders by the Socretany. D-2 Dealers named in the complaint engaged in or used an unfair or unjustly discriminalory .practice in commerce in livestock in the Kansan City Stock Yards, to the prejudice and disadvantage of the complainant, by falling and refusing to buy cattle from complainant in the ordinary course of business, and the respond¬ ent market agencies likewise for having caused such dealers to fail or refuse to buy cattle from the complainant. D-39 Market agoncies and dealers at the Oklahoma. National Stock Yards, Oklahoma. City, Oklahoma, vi el clod Title III of the Act by entering into a boycott agreement or combination by which they agreed to refuse to do business, and by virtue of whieh they did persistently refrain from doing business with, either in buying or selling livestock from or to, the Oklahoma Producers Commission Association .and tho Bollinger & Spencer Livestock Commission Company, thereby unfairly discriminating against said narlget agencies to their prejudice and disadvantage. D-136 Irregularities the record, ere of respondents, alleged boycott on tho part of tho complainant, as disclosed by not material in an inquiry on alleged violaliens since such irregularities do not justify tho violo.tions of respondents. D-136 448 PRACTICES AND DEVICES III Boycott .*• 'i Dealers who, either individually or by concerted action or under coercion from market agencies and without just cause, refused end refrained from buying livestock from the Record Livestock Commission Company for the sole reason that send company or its proprietor was not a member of the Omaha. Livestock Exchange engaged in and used unfair and unjustly discriminatory practices end devices in buying livestock in commerce, in violation of tho Act, D-246 No personal hostility toward a market agency can excuse a. boycott, neither can it be excused by the fa.ct tha.t a. market' agency either does not wish to belong to an exchange or may be ineligible for membership therein, Tho courts have censured and condemned in unmistakable language a secondary boycott as being equally * reprehensible and, under some circumstances, oven more repre¬ hensible than a. primary or direct boycott, * D-246 am 0 - o oncies who, acting individually and in concert, dire ctly Market and indirectly caused other registrants to refuse and refrain from buying livestock from the Record Livestock Commission Company, a duly registered market, agency, in an attempt to deny said market agency the advantages of an open competitive market because said market agency was not 'a. member of the Omaha Live¬ stock Exchange, did grave injustice to the shipper and to tho agency and engaged in unfair and unjustly di'scriminatory prac¬ tices and devices in buying livestock in commerce, in violation of the Act, D-246 Upon consideration of tho allegations of the order of inquiry, tho evidence a.dducod at tho hearing and tho arguments of counsel, with respect to the alleged activities of the respondent dealers in conspiring, combining, and agreeing to have no business relations at tho Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Illinois, with Jos, C. Coaitcs, a registered dealer thereat, the Secretary concluded that the allegations were not sustained end dismissed the proceedings• D-299 PRACTICES AND DEVICES III Boycott Evidence that every respondent or his agont had not traded with complainants since August 4, 1930,woulc not trade, and did not intend to trade with then in the future because-of reasons not justifying their actions, that their actions in ceasing to trade mth cohplrincjit wrerc • simultaneous* that the president of the livestock exchange of which respondents wore raenbers, 'or dealers through which said members worked, addressed a letter to all nenbers expressing the view that the conplainant National Order Buying Company did not contribute to the success of the open competitive narlcct, that all of the respondents went down on the crucial day, nooning August 4, the date the National Order Buying Company opened for business on the market, to see what was going to happen, and other ..substantial evidence in the case, was sufficient for the Secretory to find that respondents had entered into a boycott c mspiracy or combination against coiaplainroots . D-330 The fact that the complainant Producers Livestock Commission Association indulged in the practice of weighing or selling livestock to a purchaser without a definite price being nonod therefor, end, with the consent of tho purchaser, narking the ticket later on in the day at what the salesman believed to be the market price for the day, that certain order buyers had preferential rights with the complainant Producers Livestock Commission Association, that tho Producers Livestock Commission Association owned one-eighth of. the capital stock of the National Order Buying Company, was no valid reason and constituted no defense for the respondents’ attempted boycott of complainants. D-330 It cannot bo stated too strongly that no hostility toward a market agency can excuse an unjust Iscrimination against such apevOy, mr can such unjust discrininati m or unfair practice be excused by the fact that tho agency discriminated against is or may be operating with a buyer in which it has a disclosed and known financial interest or has or nay, have received loans of money under an ^ct of Congress. D-330 450 practices and devices III 0 Boycott Market aycncios and dealers ordered by the Secretary to cea.se and desist from cn'-arinq in boycott activities ara.inst complainants, in violation of the Act, 'and suspended from registration a.s market agencies and dealers for a. period of ninety days. D-33 Credit Extension Market apency which extends credit to purchasers of livestock, in violation of one of its rules and regulations filed rath the Department, violates Title III of the Act. D-53 There is no provision of the Packers and Stockyards Act or any public policy that precludes the organization of market arcncics for mutual advantage and protection for the promotion of their common trade interests and for the facilitating of their business transactions with one another, and it would seen entirely reason¬ able for market agencies as members of the Exchange, who by reason of their common membership therein have established a relationship of trust and confidence in one another, to adopt in advance rules for the extension of credit to fellow members on the preferential ba.sis of that membership and to safe uard this extension of credit to non-members by the imposition of proper and roasonablo conditions. D-288 From the standpoint of na.turr! ripht and equity, no ri dot adheres in a purchaser of livestock to buy on credit. The very essence of the contract of sale is the exchange of the commodity for the payment of a, price. Deferred payment or credit on the part of the purchaser is an indulgence or privilege. The dopriva.tion thereof can hardly bo said to be an injustice. On the other hand, a.s at. matter of strict justice, the market agencies as individuals > they see fit. D-288 arc free to extend or withhold credit 451 PRACTICES AND DEVICES III Credit Extension Some of the respondent firms engage in making loans to livestock producers. These firms may possess sufficient capital to carry the loans, or they may endorse the paper at the bank. The making of loans on livestock requires considerable time and attention of some of the members and the employees of the firms who engage in that kind of business. D-308 Usually the commission firms receive payment for livestock sold by check given either at the time of the purchase or some days later. Considerable time may elapse before the commission firms actually realize on these sales. Even though they could require cash payment or the equivalent of cash payment on such purchases, the respondent firms seem disposed to make concessions to customers in order to get and hold their patronage, D-308 A distinct service rendered by some of the respondent market agencies at the Kens as City market is that of m;. Icing loans on livestock. There arc those firms which loan their own money, while, in other cases, the commission firms mil negotiate the loan through a. bank md may act as endorser of the paper. D-311 Sometimes the country buyer docs not pay for the livestock until it is delivered end he can got a loan on it. During this interval, a commission firm must have the cash or the credit to carry the transaction. The matter of cash or credit is much more important in the buying end than in the selling end of the business as it is conducted at Kansas City. If the order buyer draws a draft against a customer, it may require from two to ten days to clear. D-311 452 PRACTICES AND DEVICES III Credit Extension In some instances, commission firms sell to country men who give their checks in payment for the livestock, and several days will be required before credit can be had on those checks. Funds ere also necessary in the buying' of livestock on order. The rules of the trade require that livestock purchased by the agencies located on the market shall be paid for promptly. The commission man or order buyer, 'acting as agent, makes the payment end then bills his customer for the money. In all of these instances, cash or its equivalent in the form of bank credit is necessary to the conduct of the business* D-383 The loaning of money is not a part of the business of buying end selling livestock on a commission basis at the market, end the hazards involved c.ro not incident to the commission business e.s such. B-402 In cases where purchases of livestock to go to the countrv are made, some time may elapse before the money is paid by the customer. .Under such conditions, credit may bo extended to the buyer for a short period. D-402 7/hen..an order buyer purchases livestock, he sends a telegram to the customer advising him of the purche.se end giving him the average weight end cost. A draft is drawn on the customer and deposited with the bank for collection unless the customer has made other arrangements for the payment of the livestock pur- che.scd for him. The order buyer is given • credit by the bank Cs.s soon e.s the draft is deposited. D-402 It may be presumed that the rate of interest charged by market agencies in making livestock loans is sufficiently high to cover losses sustained on account of their losses. D-435 The loaning of money is engaged in by some firms. In some instances, the firm nay loan its own money and in others it nay- discount the paper with the bank. The making of loans involves a certain amount of office work and frequently some -work in the country. • D-445 453 PRACTICES AND DEVICES III Credit Extension Sometimes: the owner is present and wants sene noncy as soon as the sale of livestock is made or even on advance before sale* In such instances, the coons si on finis usually accommodate the owners, and the mount advanced is deducted when determining the mount to be remitted* D-456 & 457 Some of the respondent firms loon noncy on livestock. This typo of business is not engaged in extensively* Those, firms who hc.vc adequato capital frequently loon money on livestock as a courtesy to their psstrons. D-456 & 457 Business in the section of Louisiana at the New Orleans Stock Yards o.ccommodates operators quite extensively on a. credit basis. Rather liberal credit is extended to all packers, butcher buyers, and others. Testimony in the co.se is that the price asked for livestock takes into consideration the credit expected to be extended. D-534 As o. genero.l rule end. in the absence of long-established custom, the Secretary docs not doom it fair to the shipper to cover into the commission re.tcs end charges of the commission men amounts of money sufficient to pay interest on the capital required for the extension of credit, but it wa.s allowed o.t the New Orleans Stock Yards only because of the long-established custom, end on the basis of testimony tho.t the market could, not function successfully without a. credit system, D-534 It wo.s generally conceded by the market agencies at the New Orleans Stock Yards that the producers end owners of livestock should not be expected to pay the costs of unlimited credit extension. D-534 Under the sta.tuto of -Louisiana, a. sale of livestock nay bo voided in seventy-two hours for certain vices unknown to the purchaser. The practical effect of this is to postpone payment for livestock until post-mortem examination has been completed, usually seventy-two hours alter the sale. Respondent market agencies often a.dvemcc owners the appraised value of the live¬ stock at the tine of the sale. This occasionally results in unadjusted sales, either over or under the post-mortem values, D-534 454 PRACTICES AND DEVICES III Credit Extension A market agency violates Title III of the Act when it diverts shippers ’ proceeds from shippers entitled thereto, for use in making advances or loans to the livestock buyers and shippers, thereby endangering and impairing the faithful and prompt accounting and payment for livestock sold by it on commission. D-1213 A market agency violates Title III of the Act, as amended, by making loans or payments to truckers of livestock to induce then to deliver livestock to the market agency for sale on commission* D-1213 Destruction of Documents Market agency violated Title III of the Act and Rule 10 of the Rules and Regulations thereunder by destroying scale tickets covering livestock it sold end purchased in the capc,city of a. market agency without the consent of the Officer in Charge of Packers and Stockyards Admini strati on, D-4-6 Market agency which did not keep copies of one emits sale rendered to the shippers, in order to fully raid correctly disclose all transactions involved in its business, violated Title III of the Act. D-89 of c ortain tr ans acti ons, -1 Market agency which destroyed rec >rd£ in which it purchased livestock from shippers end others and sold such livestock to packers and others for the account of its shareholders end employees, without having obtained the consent, in writing, of the Officer in Charge of the Packers and Stockyards Administration to destroy said records, violated Title III of the Act. D-102 455 practices md devices III Destruction of Documents Market agency violated Title III of the Act when it destroyed its records covering its woigh-up account for those hogs sold to itself or "weighed-up” to itself, prior to May 20, 1923, without the consent, in writing, of the Officer in Charge of the Packers and Stockyards Administration at Washington, D, C. D-120 It appearing from the evidence that respondent Tjadcn was not equally culpable with respondent Wells in misrepresenting the woicht of hogs sold by them as dealers in commerce and did not ■enow of or participate in the destruction of the records, ho was ordered suspended by the Secretary from registration as a dealer for a period of 60 days instead, of one year, D-188 i. o *J Dealers who, through collusion with tho woighnastor at Sioux Falls Stock Yards, Sioux Falls, South Dalcota., increased tho weight of hog shipments and charged such false increase in weight to the purchaser of the hogs, thorcolter destroying the scale tickets and other a.ccounts, records, and memoranda pertaining to tho transactions, used unfair and deceptive practices and devices in handling livestock in commerce Cut stockyards under tho jurisdic¬ tion of tho Secretary, were ordered to coa.se and desist from the use of such practices and wore suspended from registration as dealers for a period one year D-188 Engaging in Business without Sufficient Financial Requirements Market agency violated Title III of the Act by showing on its books or records, on or about December 21, 1923, an excess of current liabilities over current onsets. D-98 \ 456 PRACTICES A1TD DEVICES III False Food Charges Market agency violated Title III of the Act and PluIgs 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder by rendering an account sale showing that it paid more for corn to feed the livestock at the stockyards than it actually paid therefor. D-47 Market agency which charged the shipper 75/ per head per for feeding horses end mules, while the charge specified schedules filed end in effect at the tine was )1.00 per per day, violated the Act. day in the head D-80 Stockyards company which, during tho year 1923, charged patrons for 154,310 pounds i.ioro of hay end 473i§- bushels noro of corn then it actually purchased during said year violated Title III of the Act. . D-117 A market agency which overpaid a stockyards company for feed for livestock consigned to it for sale on conoids si on end then later attempted to "make up" or offset all such shortage in its food account by rendering accounts s;JLc to shippers which wore untrue and incorrect in that they showed the amount of feed purchased by the narkot agency for the shippers r livestock to bo norc then it actually was, collecting on the basis of the account sale, violated Title III of the Act and Rule 17(a) of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder. D-140 The practice of a market agency of charging shippers and con¬ signors of livestock amounts for hay purported to have been fed. to the livestock which wero greater them the-actual cost of tho hay to tho narkot agency, and of diminishing its operating salary expenses and diminishing tho proper amount of the hay credit on the hay account so that tho hay account would not show a largo profit "in order to cover up" such overcharges, violated Section 512 of Title III of tho Act. (7 U.S.C.A. 213 a) D-1117 \ 457 PRACTICES AMD DEVICES III Fcilso Reports Market agency violated Title III of the Act ml Rule 24 -if the General Rules and Regulations thereunder by filing an erroneous quarterly report with the Packers ml of the condition of its business. Stockyards Adninistration D-53; D-58 Market agency which filed with the Secretary of Agriculture a written report of its .financial condition, as required by the Act, which purported to show its true financial condition as of a. certain date but which was, in fact, incorrect and untrue in tha.t it stashed ca.sh on hand in the amount of 03,000, whereas no ca.sh was on hand and there wa.s an overdraft on said date of 1440.01, and sand report was also incorrect in tha.t it stated no accounts recciva.ble on hand, whereas, in fact, there were a.ccounts receivable mounting to .„;3,024.89, violated the Act. D-94 Market .agency which filed a. written report. Act, on September 30, 1923, which purported as required to ♦ show its condition but which was incorrect and untrue in tha.t it by the f inane i ad purported to show more ca.sh on hand than wa.s a.ctua.lly on hand, listing overdue notes receivable a.s cash, in which was included amounts due from the individual partners of respondent to respondent partnership, violasted Title III of the Act. D-103 Respondent market agency violc.tod Title III of the Act when it submitted a. financial report tc the Secretary of Agriculture which wa.s incorrect and untrue in that it did not disclose tha.t $4,452, used in the commission business, wa.s borrowed money end an outstanding obligr.tion of respondent. D-125 A market agency which reported to common carriers that crippled hogs ha.d arrived in a. shipment when there actually were no crippled hogs in said shipment, and in other cases reported a. greater number of crippled hogs than there a.ctua.lly 'were in the shipment, viol rated Title III of the Act. D-1175 458 PRACTICES AND DEVICES III Fcilso Reports Market agency who knowingly received incorrect weights of hogs fron a packer and reported these incorrect weights to common carriers, thereby paying the carriers less than the published tariff charges for such shipments and thereby causing the common carriers to assess less freight charges than were actually due for transporting* such hogs, violated Title III of the Act. D-1175 The Secretary issued cease and desist orders against the respond¬ ents market agency and packer for having reported either to or for common carriers, for the purpose of influencing freight charges, that some of the livestock weighed less than mtually or that there were cripples in shipments when, in fact, there were no cripples, or that there were more cripples than there actually were, even though the evidence showed that such unfair practices had been ■discontinued prior to the filing of the complaint against the respondents by the Secretary, the evidence showing that the unfair practices were not voluntarily discon¬ tinued by the respondents but wore not stopped until they were discovered. D-1175 Filling Orders from Consignments o o No rules or regulations of the Secretary have been promulgated nor findings mado by him in ary proceedings heretofore instituted with regard to the lawfulness of such practices as "weighing-up”, filling orders from consignments, and charging, demanding, and collecting two commissions while acting in the dual capacity of agent for both the shipper or owner and the ultimate purchaser of the livestock. D-189 459 practices anp devices III Secret Agreements Respondent market agency which, together with two if its employees, entered into an agreement or understanding with one D. B. Wade of St, Joseph, Missouri, under which agreement respondent was to fictitiously ’’weigh up” hogs received by it for sale in the name of Wade, resell then for its own account end remit to Wade for the use of his name l/5 of the profits derived from such trans¬ actions, end operated under such agreement without disclosure to the owners or shippers of livestock handled by respondent, violated Title III of the ^ct. D-104 agenev under O O A contract between Henry Fox, registered as a market the Act, end the Gr oenwald Packing Connanv, in which Henry Fox had a pecuiiary interest whereby Henry Fox received 03 00 per week fron the packing company as salary for buying cattle for it, the contract covering purchases of cattle made cither in the country or at the stockyards, was found by the Secretary to be lawful, D-125 When respondent market agency entered into an agreement with respondent’s son, unknown to the shippers of livestock, by which the livestock was sold to a packing corporation in which respond¬ ent had a pecuniary interest, at prices higher than the prices paid for the livestock by respondent, raid the difference was carried into an account on respondent’s books for the benefit of respondent’s son who was president of the packing corporation, such practice was unfair and contrary to the Act, even though the testimony ad.lucod at the hearing indicated that the shippers were satisfied with the prices received for their livestock, D-125 Market agencies raid dealers at a stockyard who enter into collusive and secret arrangements whereby the livestock of producers is not exposed to competitive bid but is sold by the market agencies to dealers at prices below the true raid known market value jf the livestock, raid the dealer’s scale tickets, after cons uniat i on of the sales, aro changed to cover up the transaction from the con¬ signors if the livestock, flagrantly violated Title III of the .mt, raid the Secretary ordered then suspended from registration, D-142 460 PRACTICES A1TD DEVICES III Secret Agreements Respondent market agency which received and accepted for sale on commission 445 head of cattle under a custom mid implied agreement to sell the cattle to the highest bidder on the open market but, instead, sold 35 cows of the shipment to one Ben Argyle. under a collusive agreement whereby, upon the resale of the cattle, the profits, if any, would be divided between the respondent and Argyle and, thereafter, said cattle were sold at a profit which was divided between respondent and Argyle, violated Title III of the Act by using an unfair end deceptive practice end device, D-197 Respondent dealers who entered into an agreement or arrangement whereby respondent G-allaghcr purported to purchase from respond¬ ent Sonner for his employer certain lots of cattl'o, and remitted on the basis of the purported purcha.scs, while in font the cattle purchased did not actuadly amount to the sane number remitted for but were less in number, and respondent Sonner remitted the difference by check to respondent Gallagher personally or divided the difference with respondent Galla.gh.or, wore found by the Secretary to have violated Title III of the Act bv practicing unfair and deceptive trade devices. D-273 A market agency and deader who entered into -a secret agreement whereby the deader would purchase the ca.ttle from the market cogency and split the profits of the rosedo with the market e-gency, or divide the losses, violated Title III of the Act even though the evidence indicated that the shipper had no objection to such an agreement n.fter he was told a.bout it. D-1041 461 Secret Agreements PRACTICES AND DEVICES III The respondents market agency and. dealer entered into a secret agreement whereby the dealer would purchase livestock in the country, consign the livestock to the market agency for sale, and draw a draft upon the market agency for the payment thereof. The market agency would sell the livestock on commission and credit the net proceeds of the sale to the dealer’s account. On the account sale rendered by the market agency, it was represented that the clearing agent of the dealer was the pur¬ chaser of the cattle and the purchase price would be charged by the market agency to the clearing agent under the number used to designate the dealer’s account on the clearing agent’s books. The market agency, upon receipt of payment from the clearing agent for the purchase price of the cattle, would debit the dealer’s account. By this method of financing, the dealer would obtain financial clearance from the clearing agency, without the knowledge of the clearing agency, on all livestock transactions made for livestock purchased in the country, whereas, the clear¬ ing agent had agreed to clear only the transactions of tho dealer at the stockyards. The Secretary held that this arrangement between the respondent market agency and the dealer violated Title III of the Act, and suspended tho registration of the market agency and dealer for ono hundred twenty days. D-1187 Weirhino The Union Stock Yard end Transit Company of Chicago was found by tho Secretary to he responsible for the acts of its employee in incorrectly weighing livestock in certain instances. D-1232 462 Ill PRACTICES AND DEVICES Weighing In the proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the weighing services rendered by the respondent Union Stock Yard & Transit Conpanv of Chicago, the respondent, in order to save expense of long litigation that would result from the continuance of the proceeding, consented to the entry of a. cease and desist order and admitted the correctness of the allegations that it had. failed, in certain instances, to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as would fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in its business, in thc.t such records did not show tho true weights of the livestock weighed by it, such admissions being solely for the purpose of tho entry of tho cease and desist order and subsequent proceedings for any allegod violations thereof, end the Secretary accordingly found that, for such purposes, said allegations wore correct, and issued a cease and desist order, D-1232 "Weighing-up" by Market Agencies to Themselves No rules or regulations of the Secretary have been promulgated nor findings ma.de by him in any proceedings heretofore instituted mth regard to tho lawfulness of such prentices as "weighing-up”, filling orders from consignments, and char :in ", demandin ', and collecting two commissions while anting, in tho dual ca.pacity of agent for both the shipper or owner and tho ultimate purchaser of the livestock. D-189 v Looking toward the betterment of public stockyards marketing conditions, tho Secretary ordered the respondent market a.gencies herein to coa.so and desist from the practice of purporting to buy or take title to livestock consigned to it for sale on a commission basis by the use of a. method known as "weighing-up", D-189 463 PitaCTICES AND DEVICES III "Wei gliing-up" by Market Agencies to Thcnsclves The Secretary ordered a revocation of that part of his order dated April 21, 1927, made in this case, which ordered the respondent market agencies to cease and desist from, the practice of purport¬ ing to buy or take title to livestock consigned to them for sale on a commission basis bv the use of a method known as ’kraithing- up”, such revocation being effective on December 7, 1927, the U. ate of the order of revocation. D-189 It appearing to the Secretary that the practices and devices complained of against respondent, to wit: of "weighing-up" livestock to itself and of acting in the dual capacity of agent for both the shipper and the purchaser vdthout the consent of both parties having been previously obtained were discontinued in good faith prior to the appearance of respondent before the Secretory in this hearing, end it appeoring further that for the Secretory to sot this docket down for hearing with the ultimate result of a possible order to ceo.se and desist would accomplish nothing more than that which ho.s been already attained by the voluntary act of respondent, but would probably renew those trade controvcrsi os which operate, to the den ore of the livestock industry, the Secretory ordered the proceedings dis¬ missed without o prejudice, D-194 Market agency which received a shipment of livestock under an inpli od agreement raid custom to sell said' livestock to the highest bidder, end did not do so but "weighed-up" the livestock to itself, engaged in ond used an unfair and deceptive tro.de practice in vioLntion of Title III of the Act. D-197 464 PROCEDURE III Abandonment of Complaint or Proceedings Complainant Farmers Union Livestock Commission, having stipulated an agreement with respondents, formally abandoned the complaint which it had filed, and did not participate further in the hearings. B-39 At the opening of the hearing, it developed that the Indianapolis Livestock Exchange and the Traders * Exchange ha.d withdrawn as parties to the informal complaint, leaving the Producers’ Commis¬ sion Association as the sole complainant. D-84 Adopting Complaint of Another Although the complaint setting forth charges e.gainst respondents was filed by certain complainants, the hearings held were based upon the complaint issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, and not on the complaint filed by the associations, with the consent and acquiescence of the original complainants. D-39 Amended and Supplemental Answers Respondent’s request to amend the original answer by adding a. paragraph thereto allowed by the Secretary, it appearing that such amendment did not broaden the issues involved.- D-81 The defendant filed an answer with the Secretary to the complainant ’s amended and supplemental complaint. D-208 At the request of respondent’s attorney at the hearing, the answer and supplemental answer filed by the respondent vero considered as a part of the record in the case. D-368 465 PROCEDURE III Amended and Supplomental Ansv/ers Iho respondent filed a third communication with the Secretary, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Secretary over the reparation matter involved, which the Secretary considered as a supplemental answer, D-1131 Amended and Supplemental Complaints, etc. Compla.int amended by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, by adding certain further charges based upon testimony thereto¬ fore introduced, D-27 Inquiry emended to include Harry E, Carnes as a party respondent to the seme extent as though ho had been named in the original c om.pl ad nt • D -4 7 Ordered by the Secretary that the case bo hoard as if the amendment to the complaint end the amendment to the answer had been ma.de a. pant of the complsdnt and of the answer- at the time they were filed, D-81 Request by complainant to amend the last panagraph of page 2 of the complaint allowed by the Secretary, it appearing the.t such amendment did not substantially change the complaint or broaden the issues involved, except a.s to the period of time covered thereby, D-81 The Secretary having instituted an order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness and roasona.blenoss of the proposed new schedule of respondent's stockyard feeding charge on corn sold, and having thereafter determined that a proceeding should be had for the purpose of determining the lawfulness of all rates or charges made by the respondent, the original order of inquiry and notice of hearing were amended to embrace the broader inquiry. D-87 466 PROCEDURE III Amended find Supplemental Complaints, etc. Ordered by the Secretary that the inquiry and notice be emended to strike out paragraphs Nos, 3, 4, and 5 thereof, the order to take effect upon the receipt thereof by respondent. D-99 Second amended complaint allowed to be filed, the original complaint having been filod as Docket No. 81, and the first amended complaint, containing new matter, having been filed as the present docket. D-101 Secretary ordered the second paragraph of the order of inquiry amended, • > D-148 Inquiry and notice issued by the Secretary on March 11, 1926 amended, with respect to the second paragraph thereof, by the Secrotary upon his own motion, D-150 » The Acting Secretary of Agriculture amended the notice of inquiry by tologram. D-162 The Secretary ordered the original inquiry and notice, alleging certain deceptive practices acid devices on.the part of respond¬ ent market agency, amended to slid allegations of certain new and different alleged deceptive and unfair practices, D-180 Inquiry amended by the Secretory by adding an a.dditional allegation. D-182 On objection by counsel for respondent that the complaints theretofore filed wore not sufficient to raise an issue in regard to resales, counsel for complainants requested leave to file an amended petition. This request was granted. D-191 Complainant filed an amended and supplemental complaint with the Secretary. D-208 After the hearing hod. proceeded for a. few days, the notice of inquiry was amended by the Secretary to join a largo number of dealers a<.s respondents. D-246 467 PROCEDURE III Amended rind Supplemental Complaints, etc. The Secretary amended the inquiry and notice to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agencies’ and dealers’ boycott activities by omitting the names of certain respondents, by adding the names of other respondents, and by changing the- names of still other respondents. , D-330 Order of inquiry to determine the reasonableness of respondents market agencies’ commission rates and changes amended by the Secretary to include additional respondents. D-347 The Secretary, on his own notion, ordered that the order of inquiry to determine the reasonableness and■lawfulness of commission rates and changes at the Chicago Union Stock Yards be amended, on two different occasions, to include additional respondent market agencies. D-402 An amendment was nc.de by the Secretary to the original order of inquiry to determine tho reasonableness and lawfulness Of the rates and changes of commission men operating a.t the Union Stock Yands, Denver, Colorado, to permit the inclusion of additional respondents. D-4-35 9 Inquiry, instituted to determine if respondent market agency is responsible for the actions of an apparent field agent, was amended by the Secretary prior to the date of the hearing by adding four additional paragraphs of changes against respondent. D-464 At the hcaning, with the consent of the defendant, the complaint for reparation for the alleged false weighing of cecttlo was amended so a.s to include interest at the re. to of 6% per annum from the date of the alleged improper weighing operations. D-1224 In the proceedings to determine if the respondent Union Stock Yard and Transit Company of Chicago is rendering rco.sona.blo . weighing services, the Secretary amended the inquiry and notice adding parties end certain other particulars, and set tho case down for hearing a.t a. date over two months subsequent to tho do.tc originally sot for the hccring. D-1232 468 PROCEDURE III Answer Although the original order of the Secretary required that the respondent stockyards company appear at a hearing set for June 26, 1922, to show cause why an order in respect to the yardage rate in question should not be made by the Secretary, the respondent filed an answer on October 4, 1922, it having been stipulated by counsel for both parties that, subject to approval of the Secretary, late answer could be filed* D-7 Market agency ordered to cease end desist from violations of the Act even though it filed an answer stating that its custom prior to the passage of the Act had been to pursue the practices complained of by the Secretary, that it had continued to pursue this custom after the passage of the Act only because no one had explained the provisions of the Act ta it, that it had overlooked the fact that it was violating provisions of the Act in continuing to pursue the practices complained of, and that it would at once conform to the requirements of the law. D-80 Defendant allowed on extension of 25 days for the filing of an answer to the complaint of Minnesota Pig & Cattle Company. D-101 The respondent market agency having satisfactorily explained, in an answer filed in the proceedings, that the violations alleged in the complaint of underpayments to shippers, failure to correctly describe the names of the purchasers, and failure to charge and collect from the shipper tho rate of commission specified in the schedule of rates and charges filed by the agency and in effect at the time of the transaction, were the result of errors, and said explanation having boon corroborated by further investigation of the Secretary, the Secretary ordered tho proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-126 Respondent market agency having filed an an si rer to the complaint, in which it explained that the alleged refunds of portions of its commissions were not to the owners of livestock but were to persons who were virtually employees of respondent, and a sub¬ sequent investigation made by the Secretary having disclosed facts substantiating■tho answer, tho Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-127 469 PROCEDURE III Answer Market agencies and dealers given 20 days to file an answer to the Secretary’s coinplaint to show cause why a. coa.se and desist order should, not be entered against them. D-136 The tine for filing an answer by respondents extended by the Secretary fron June 6 to Juno 29, 1925. D-136 Acknowledgnent of the receipt of notice of inquiry instituted by the Secretary filed by respondent, which admitted the truth of the changes alleged in the complaint, waived an oral hearing, and was accompanied by statement of explanation. D-149 In proceedin' s wherein complainant seeks reparation against nit for a.lloged unreasonable and discriminatory re weigh charges, the complaint filed with the Secretary is served upon respondent, and respondent is called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer it in writing on or before a specified tine, D-166 Twenty days a.ftcr the time allowed, respondent within which to answer the amended order of inquiry, a letter was received by the Secretary from counsel for the respondent, enclosing a 5-pa.gc answer filed by respondent, whieh consisted largely of explanations of the allegations of .the order of inquiry and of the amendment thereto. D-182 The respondent, without satisfying the complaint, answered it in writing and denied its allegations on December 28, 1926, threw- days before the expirati on of the tine allotted’ for answer by tho Secretary. D-191 The respondent filed an answer in the case for reparation, ojw' case was set for hearing before an Examiner of the Dope inert of Agriculture, both tho complainant and the res; valent being present at the hearing, in person, without caenvoi , D-195 470 PROCEDURE III Answer The defendant was given reasonable tine in which to answer or satisfy the clain of complainant for reparation, and the defend¬ ant answered denying the allegations of the complaint, except that lip admitted assessing the rates and charges in question and alleged that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and was too indefinite end- uncertain to put the defendant to the. expense of defending it, D-207 The complaint was served upon the defendant who was given reason¬ able time in which to answer or satisfy the sane and who answered denying the allegations made in the complaint and denying the jurisdiction and authority of the Secretary to make any finding or order for the complainant as stated in the complaint, D-208 Rospondont market agencies filed an answer by their counsel, admitting certain jurisdictional facts but denying generally tho allegations set out in the inquiry and notice, D-246 Answer of defendant, Portland Union Stock Yards Company, received by the Department with letter from defendant’s attorneys, said answer denying in substance that tho brand inspection charge was unreasonable or otherwise unlawful, D-278 At the request of respondent’s attorney at tho hearing, tho answer and supplemental answer filed by tho respondent was considered as a part of tho record in the ca.sc, D-368 A letter of respondent directed to tho Secretary of Agriculture, which in substance denied tho allegations of the complaint, was considered as an answer to the complaint, D-411 \ Tho respondent, tho St, Pa.ul Union Stock Yards Company, filod an answer, to the counter-complaint of tho respondent, tho Livestock Marketing Association, and a counter-complaint to the counter- c omplaint. D-7 2 8 \ 471 PROCEDURE III Answer After the complainants had filed a complaint with the Secretary praying that the respondents be' refused the right to file rates and charges wi'ch the Secretary for operation as a market agency at the St. Paul Union Stock Yards, the respondent filed an answer end a counter-complaint. In the counter-complaint, the respond¬ ents charge that the complaints had conspired with the St. Paul Union Stock Yards Company to - discriminate unjustly against the respondent, D-728 The respondent at the opening stockyards company filed an answer to the complaint of the hearing. D-956 The respondent allegations of -.> letters• market agency’s answer, denying the material the complaint for reparation, consisted of two D-1131 To the, complaint for reparation, the defendant filed an informal emsv\re.r alleging set-off in the following words: ”1 wish to state that the complainant in tho case is indebted to me and whenever ■he is willing to pa.y me, I an really to settle with him.” D-1273 Appeals After the order of the Secretary in this case, denying tho respondent’s petition for a rehearing, the respondent filed in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri a bill alleging, among other things, that the order of tho Secretary in denying a rehearing and in prescribing a. schedule of maximum r.atos based on tho record ma.de at the hearing in December 1929, without consideration of the charges alleged in respondent’s petition to have occurred since the hearing, denied to respondent a full hearing and, therefore, constituted a talcing of respond¬ ent’s property without due process of law. The court issued a. temporary injunction and, o.fter hearing tho evidence in support of tho allegations respecting changed economic conditions, made tho injunction permanent and expressed tho opinion that the Secretary erred in denying tho prayer of tho respondent for a rehearing. The court based its opinion upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the ca.se of A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 284 U. S. 248. D-298 472 PROCEDURE III Arbitr ation Complainants and respondents agreed to subnit issues raised in the complaint to two representatives of the Packers and Stockyards Administration for arbitration. D-9 to 14 Incl, Award of arbitrators approved by order of Secretary, July 27, 1923. D-9 to 14 Incl. An adoption of a schedule of commission rates and charges by market agencies by arbitration, in lieu of a rate proceeding as provided in the Packers and Stockyards Act, does not preclude the Secretary from thereafter making an inquiry to determine whether or not such rates end charges are unlawful or unreason¬ able. D-3li An objection to the right of the Secretary to hold a hearing to determine the reasonableness end lawfulness of commission rates end charges, on the ground that the rates end charges in question were put into effect in 1923 as a result of arbitration, that it is to be presumed that they were then reasonable and. If so, they arc not now unreasonable because such changes as have taken plc.ce in the meantime would tend to make them too low rather than too high, was overruled by the Secretary, since the rates end charges put into effect as the result of such arbitra¬ tion wore not based upon an inquiry and finding of the Secretary and may not, therefore, have conformed to the bases of "generally accepted standards of reasonableness. D-311 Briefs end Written Arguments o Respondent was accorded en opportunity of arguing the case orally before the Secretary or filing a written brief. He later wrote a letter to the Secretory stating that no written brief would bo filed, but submitted some points for the consider¬ ation of the Department, citing several authorities in support thereof. " D-177 Before the Secretory me.de his findings of fact and order, the respondent was allowed 12 days to request en oral argument before the Secretory or to file a witten brief, both of which ho declined. D-184 473 PROCEDURE III Briefs and Written Arguments Counsel for both complainant and defendant filed briefs with the Secretary in lieu of oral argument, D-207 Counsel for both panties filed written argument in lieu of oral argument. D-208j D-270 Counsel for both the complainant and the defendant submitted the case, in which complainant asked for a reparation for alleged unlawful brand inspection charges, on written arguments, D-278 Attorney for the respondent stated he would submit a ivritten in lieu of an oral argument and would require three weeks therefor. The time was extended to May 27 but, no argument having been submitted by the 14th of June, the Secretary disposed of the case upon the record, D-280 At the close of the heating, the respondent started that the case could be submitted on the record without cither oral or witton argument before the Secretary, D-287 The case for reparation, for alleged illegal enforcement of a rule of defendant's livestock exchange, was argued orally for the defendant and the defendant also submitted a written memorandum, D-288 At the close of the hearing upon the reasonableness of respond¬ ent’s stocky ends services rates and charges, the respondent requested an opportunity to file a written brief and to appear before the Secretary for oral argument. The request was granted, D-291 In the proceedings to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of the schedule of rates and charges posted by the respondent for its services as a stockyards owner, oral argument was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, the respondent submitted a brief, and the matter was then before the Secretary for a decision, D-298; D-301 474 PROCEDURE III Briefs and Written Arguments Oral argument concerning the fixing of rates and charges for commission men at the Sioux City Stock Yards was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on September 23, 1930, end respondent’s counsel submitted a brief on December 1, 1930. D-308 In the original proceedings to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of commission rates and changes at the Kansas City Stock Yards, oral argument was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on March 27, 1931, and respondents’ counsel submitted a brief on behalf of the members of the Kansas City Livestock Exchange* D-311 In the Kansas City Stockyards commission rate-case, oral argument, on the bc.sis of the record made at the original hearing and at the first rehearing, was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on March 24, 1933. Respondents’ counsel was given until April 18, 1933 to file a brief. D-311 In a proceeding to determine if respondent dealer is violating the Act by failing and refusing to maintain and file a reasonable performance bond, counsel for respondent submitted a written brief. D-318 Oral argument, in the proceedings to determine the reasonable¬ ness of respondents stockyards’ rates and charges, was had beforo the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, and respondents’- counsel submitted a. brief. D-344 At the hearing to determine the lawfulness of .respondent dealer’s trade practices, the attorney for the respondent was given 30 days in which to file a brief. D-384 Conns el for respondent;, in the case alleging illegal payments or attempted payments- to truck' drivers, argued orally beforo the Acting Secretary of Agriculture and also filed a brief on behalf of respondent*- D-393; D-399 PROCEDURE III Briefs and Written Arguments In the proceedings to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agency’s action in offering articles or money to truck drivers, counsel for respondent filed a.' brief which was given coneful consideration by the Secretary, D-394; D-39'5; D-396 Counsel for respondent market agency waived oral argument end filed a written brief with the Secretary, in the case involving payments to truckers. D-398 Since the hearing on the insolvency of respondent market agency, the attorney for respondent has written a letter to the Depart-* ment which may be, considered in the nature of an argument in- behalf of respondent. He made a request that if a decision is rendered against respondent, respondent bo permitted to bring facts to the attention of the Secretary with the view of- having the suspension later removed if he should become solvent. D-428 The hearing to determine the liability of respondent market agency with respect to payment of a draft drawn by a country buyer upon respondent was completed, on October 22, 1925, and the respondent was given until November 30th to file a brief. D-474 In a proceeding to determine-the liability of respondent commis¬ sion firm for the payment of drafts drawn upon it by.a country buyer, the hearing was completed on October 25, 1935, and the complainants and rosponcicnt wore given until November 30, 1935 'to file briefs. D-475 Opportunity was given to respondent and to the Farmers Educational and Co-Operative Union of America to file briefs, which was taken advantage of by the latter but not by the respondent. D-513 The argument of the respondent was considered by the Secretary even though it was filed with the Secretary after the three weeks ’ time allowed to respondent to file it. D~548 476 PROCEDURE III Briefs and Written Arguments In addition to his oral argument, counsel for the respondent stockyards company submitted an outline of cases with, extensive quotations therefrom, which he regarded as determinative of the issued in the case* The Secretary gave consideration to the entire record, including the exceptions to the Examiner's find¬ ings and recommendation, the oral argument, and the decisions relied upon by the respondent. D-956 The respondent having not desired to argue the case for repara¬ tion orally before the Secretary, the Secretary considered the brief which he filed to be in the nature of a written argument. D-1131 The brief submitted by counsel for the respondent market agency in this case was regarded by the Secretary as a written argument. The case was also argued orally before the Secretary by Govern¬ ment counsel and counsel for the respondent packer. D-1175 Complaint, Inquiry, Petition At the opening of the hearing to determine, the lawfulness and reasonableness of certain yardage charges against the complain¬ ant dealers, the attorneys for the complainants filed end made a part of the record a formal complaint alleging that the resale charge in question was unreasonable end discriminatory and not based unon anv service rendered in return therefor. D-5 -L %J When it appeared from information at hand that Prouty Commission Company of South St. Paul, Minnesota, had violated Title III of the Act and Rule 17 of the General Rules and Regulations promul¬ gated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture, and that an investigation end proceeding in respect thereto would be in the interest of the public, the Secretary of Agriculture instituted an inquiry as provided by said Act. D-28 477 PROCEDURE III Complaint, Inquiry, Petition It appearing to the Secretary of Agriculture that an investiga¬ tion with respect to the violation of Title III of the Act and Rule 17 of the General Rules cj id Regulations thereunder, by Percy Vittum & Company of South St. Paul, ilinnesota, should be had, the Secretary instituted ail inquiry as provided in said Act. D-29 It appearing to the Secretary that an inquiry should be ordered to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent market agency’s proposed new schedule of rates or charges for its services as a market agency, the Secretary ordered the inquiry. D-122; D-123; D-124 Ytfhon the Secretary hc.s rear on to believe that a dealer registered under the Act has become insolvent, ho issues a complaint against the doa.ler, setting forth the allegations to substantiate his belief, and gives notice thereof to the respondent by transmitting a copy of the complaint and notice to respondent by registered ma.il, to which complaint the respondent may file an answer and appear Cut a hearing set for the purpose, to show cause why an order should not bo issued by the Secretary suspending him for a reasonable, specified time. D-138 A complaint for reparation against the respondent market agencies wan filed with the Secretary by certain livestock associations seeking damages for the payment of commission charges made by the respondent market a.gencies under the proposed new tariff of rates and charges under investige.tion, the tariff having gone into effect after the sixty-day suspension period ordered by the Secretary. D-143 In proceedings wherein complainant seeks reparation against respondent for alleged unrea.sona.blc and discriminatory roweigh charges, the complaint filed with the Secretary is served upon respondent and respondent is ceiled upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer it in writing on or before a specified time. D-166 478 PROCEDURE III Complaint, Inquiry, Petition A copy of the complrdnt filed with tho Secretary by the market agencies and dealers engaged in the business of buying and sell¬ ing livestock in commerce at tho Union Stock Yards, Son Antonio, Texas, protesting against tho imposition of certain resale rates end charges made by respondent, was forwarded to respondent on December 16, 1926, end respondent was called upon to satisfy the complaint or answer it in writing on or before December 31, 1926, D-191 The complaint for reparation, for defendant having improperly accounted to tho complainant for the proceeds from the sale of cattle, was accompanied by on affidavit setting forth tho facts more fully and showing that the shipper ond market agency referred to were the complainant and the respondent, respectively, D-193 On October 1, 1937, the respondent Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd,, petitioned tho Secretary for a temporary modification of his order of March 1, 1933, in which ho prescribed a maximum schedule of rates and charges for stockyards sorvices, which petition for a temporary modification of the order to incrcc.se certain yardage charges was allowed until further order of tho Secretary, it being shown in tho petition that the purposes for which tho increases were desired were not considered in tho original hearing end wore due to conditions arising after tho hearing was hold; it appearing further that the facts submitted in tho petition were checked and corroborated by the accountants of tho Department of Agriculture, D-344 In a reparation proceeding, the complaint is served upon the respondent pursuant to tho provisions of Section 309(a) of the Act, and the respondent is required to satisfy the complaint or make answer thereto. D-927 The complaint in this case was embodied in certain letters addressed to the District Supervisor of tho Bureau of Animal Industry at Fort Worth, Texas, to tho Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D„ C., and to tho attorney for the complainant, D-956 479 PROCEDURE III Consolidation of Dockets and Issues Since; the issue in the cose c.s to the lawfulness and reasonable¬ ness of the service and weighing charge proposed to be made by the respondent stockyards company was involved in the complaint filed by the traders at the stockyard for roperation for the return of the payment of reweigh changes ma.de under protest, the two causes were consolidated, for the purpose of the hearing, into one docket. D-7 Ordered by the Secretary that Dockets Nos, 122, 123, and 124 be consolidated with Docket No, 132, it appearing that the taniffs involved in all dockets correspond with rospcct to the same general cla.ssos of service covered. D-132 It appearing to the Sccrotany that the issues involved in Dockets Nos. 147 and 151, with respect to the reasonableness and lawful¬ ness of proposed new commission rates and charges, a-.ro suffi¬ ciently similar to warrant a. consolidation of the two dockets for the purpose of the hearing, and it further appearing that such consolidation would result in at saving of expenses and time to all concerned, the Secret any ordered the two dockets bo consolidated and hoard at the same time and place, D-147 & 151 Upon request of tho owner, respondent market agency engaged in business at the North Salt Lalce Market, and by a.grcement with the respondents at the Ogden Market, the Examiner, in accordance with the authority granted and the Secretary’s order of April 15, 1935, consolidated the ca.scs. D-456 & 457 Upon consolidation of the cases, fore been given in Docket 456 was to Docket 457, and e.ll testimony considered a.s applicable in both all testimony which ha.d there to¬ te bo considered a.s applicable thereafter given was to be Dockets Nos. 456 and 457. D-456 A 457 480 PROCEDURE III Consolidation of Dockets and Issues « By order of the Secretary, the complaint against the Livestock Marketing Association, the counter-complaint of the Livestock Marketing Association against the complainant and the St, Paul Union Stockyards Company, and the counter-complaint of the St, Paul Union Stockyards Company against the Livestock marketing Association,'were consolidated and all issues were heard at one hearing, • ■ D-728 By agreement of counsel, the hearing in this case and in Docket 900 was held at the same time, the cases being similar in nature, with the understanding between counsel that separate orders would be issued. Both canes included complaints for reparation for the alleged failure of the defendant to properly account for the gross weight of dead livestock sold, D-899 Due to,the similarity of the complaints for reparation and answers in response thereto, it was agreed between the parties at the hearing that the cases would be tried at the same time, D-im & 1165 In Docket 1186, the stockyards company was the respondent for an alleged unfair practice of refusing reasonable stockyards services to a market agency, and, in Docket 1193, the same market agency -ran the respondent for an alleged unfair practice in the refusal, to pay the same stockyards company yardage'charges . At the trial of the cases, each panty was making its defense to the complaint of the other. The cases were so closely related that the evidence adduced at the hearing was germane to both ' proceedings, and the Secretary consolidated the cases. D-1186 & 1193 481 PROCEDURE III Counsel, Effect of No Representation by Although no counsel for respondent was present, full opportunity was afforded by the Examiner to the respondent to testify. D-49 Respondents having not been represented by counsel at the hearing, and having not appeared until approximately 3:00 P.M., at which time both respondents appeared in person, a resume of the testimony alroadv taken was s:ivcn to the respondents by the Examiner. D-150 Although respondent market agency did not appear at the hearing to determine the lawfulness of his trade practices, either in person or through counsel, ho was afforded an opportunity of submitting argument to the Secretary on or before a given date. D-292 C o unt e r - C o hip 1 ai n t After the complainants had filed a complaint with the Secretary praying that the respondents be refused the right to file rates end charges with the Secretary for operation as a market agency at the St. Paul Union Stockyards, the respondent filed an answer and a counter-complaint. In the counter-complaint, the respond¬ ents charge that the complainants had conspired with the St. Paul Union Stockyards Company to discriminate unjustly against the respondent. D-728 The respondent, the St. Pawl Union Stockyards Company, filed an answer to the countor-complaint of the respondent, the Livestock Marketing Association, end a counter-complaint to the counter- c omplaint. D-728 482 PROCEDURE Disqualification for Bias end Prejudice A notion to disqualify the Secretary for bias and x->rcjudicc, in a commission rate ease proceedings, should bo denied as a matter of law end as a matter of expediency, since, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, only the Secretary of Agriculture has any authority to hold hearings or to determine issues, and since any opinion which the Secretary might render in the ease must of necessity be consistent with the mandate of the Supreme Court, the ease having boon appealed to the Supremo Court end returned to the lower tribunals for further proceedings. , D-311 Exceptions, Time for Filing Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in this ease, to the effect that the Secretary’s order of June 14, 1933, fixing certain commission rates and charges at the Kansas City live¬ stock market was invalid because the respondent market agencies were not fairly advised of what the Government proposed -to do and were not given an opportunity to be heard upon such proposals the See ret any ordered that the "Proceedings, Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Order" issued by the Secretary on June 14, 1933, bo served upon said market e.goncics as the tentative findings of font, conclusion, and order of the Secretary in tho proceed¬ ing and that said market agencies be given thirty daiys from tho date of service thereof within which to file exceptions thereto. D-311 Tho time for the respondent, Sioux City Stock Yards Company, to file exceptions to the Examiner’s proposed order was extended from September 4 to September 15, 1934, at tho request of counsel for tho respondent. D-425 PROCEDURE III C Exceptions, Tine for Filing In the case to determine the lawfulness of the trade practices of the respondents market agency and packer, counsel for the market agency did not file any exceptions to the Examiner’s report until a copy of the exceptions had been filed by Government counsel, and apparently takes exception to the recommendation of Government counsel on his recommendation as to suspension. D-1175 The defendant market agency was given twenty days within which to file exceptions to the Examiner’s report upon the hearing in question, even though he had failed to enter an appearance at the hearing. D-1200 Extension of Time to Answer Although the original order of the Secretary required that the respondent stockyards company appear a.t a hearing set for June 26, 1922, to show cause why an order in respect to the yardage rate in question should not be made by the Secretary, the respondent filed an answer on October 4, 1922, it having been stipulated by counsel for both panties that, subject to approval of'the Secretary, late answer could bo filed. D—7 Defendant allowed an extension of 25 days for,the filing of an answer to the complaint of the Ilinncsota Pig A Cattle Company. D-101 The time for filing on answer by respondents extended by the Secretary from June 6 to June 29, 1925. D-136 Twenty days after the time allowed respondent within which to answer the amended order of inquiry, a letter was received by the Secretary, from counsel for the respondent, enclosing a five-page answer filed by respondent, which consisted largely of explanations of the allegations of the order of inquiry and of the amendment thereto. D-182 484 r PROCEDURE III Findings of Fact, and Exceptions to After the hearing was completed, tentative findings of fact were submitted in writing to counsel of record, D-39 At the conclusion of the hearing, tentative findings of fact were submitted in writing to the respondent and to the intervener. D-77 The Examiner having submitted to the respondent a tentative or proposed report in which the allegations in the complaint were found to be sustained by the evidence taken at the hearing, and having fixed a date for the respondent to file exceptions to the report, end recommended to the Secretary that he issue a cea.se and desist order, the Secrcta.ry issued the order, no exceptions to the Examiner's recommendations having been filed within the time specified. , D-80 It was found by the Secretary, but was not ordered, that paragraphs Nos, 7, 11, 15, 16, and 36 of the complaint should bo dismissed, D-98 \ 485 PROCEDURE III Findings of Fact, and Exceptions to A finding cannot be made that the complainant and the respondent intended to take an unfair advantage of the purchaser even though the evidence indicated such fact, since there vans no allegation to that effect in the notice of inquiry. D-162 * Findings of fact in connection with the determination of a commis¬ sion rate base for commission men at the Sioux City Stock Yards, concerning trade territory, facilities and services of the market place, character of organization raid nature of services performed by respondents, the rate then charged by respondents for services rendered, the volume of business handled by respondents, the volume of receipts, and the reasonableness of costs of respondents of carrying on their business, were made by the Secretary in arriving at the determination of the reasonableness of respondents’ commis¬ sion rates* D-308 Pursuant to the decision of the Supremo Court in this co.sc, to the effect tho.t the Secretary’s order of June 14, 1933, fixing certain commission ro.tcs and charges Cut the Kansan City live¬ stock market, va.s invalid because the respondent market agencies were not fairly c.dvised of wheat the Government proposed to do, and were not given an opportunity to bo heard upon such proposals, the Secretary ordered that the "Proceedings, Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Order" issued by the Secretary on June 14, 1933, be served upon said market agencies a.s tentative findings of fo.ct, conclusion, and order of the Secretary in the proceeding and that said market agencies be given thirty days from the da„tc of service thereof within which to file exceptions thereto* D-311 486 PROCEDURE III Findings of Fact, and Exceptions to Upon rehearing, a motion to withdraw tentative findings of fact based upon the prior hearing was denied by the Secretary, since the Secretary’s final findings of fact, upon which tho final order would bo based, would be based upon not only evidence adduced at the prior hearing but also evidence adduced at tho present hearing, and the respondent market agencies would bo given on opportunity to molce exceptions again to the final findings of fact before tho final order is made. The tentative findings of fact of the prior,hearing should be included in the record so that tho Secretary will have tho opportunity, for ratc- making purposes, to compare the trend of operation costs of the respondents. D-311 Representatives of the Government who participated in tho conduct of the case prepared end submitted a draft of proposed Findings of Fact end Order for the consideration of tho Secretary, and served a copy thereof upon the respondents. Counsel for respond¬ ents filed exceptions to the proposed Findings of Fact and Order end thereafter oral argument was had before the Secretary. D-445 General Allegations Subject to Motions General allegations of violations of the Act are not subject to motions to make more definite and certain, or to motions of dismissal, when they are preceded by and can be read in connec¬ tion with specific allegations and charges of similar unfair practices and devices. This position talc on by the Secretary was sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Swift & Company v, U, S. , 276 U. S. 311, 528. D-894 487 PROCEDURE III General Allegations Subject to Motions The vigorous objections of the respondent market agency : the hearing of any testimony under pnragr admissi on to the phs 5 to 9, inclusive, of the complaint, on the ground that the allegations wore so general in character as not to amount to a pleading, and'that, if they could be considered in the nature of a pleading, they must be deemed to relate only to the specific transactions set forth in paragraph 3 of the complaint, the respondent professing its utter inability to meet the said, general allegations on the ground of surprise, verc overruled by the Secretary, it appearing that the evidence of the Government vith respect to the allegations complained of was received, prior -to noon of January 20 and, immediately thereafter, the cane vras adjourned to January 25 in order to give the respondent suffi¬ cient time to prepare a. defense to the Government’s testimony. D-1181 Inter vontion Application for lea.vc to intervene received by Examiner, but action thcroon reserved for the Secretary of Agriculture. D-27 Petition of the National Livestock Exchange to intervene dismissed by Secretary of Agriculture. D-52 During the course of the hearing, the National Livestock Exchange, through its attorney, askedt leave to intervene in the proceeding, and said intervention was tentatively allowed by the Examiner. D-57 Petition for.intervention, filed at the opening of the hearing by J. S. Boyd, Esquire, on behalf of the National Livestock Exchange, granted by the Examiner, subject to revievr by the Secretary and to any shoving of interest that might bo developed in the hearing. D-77 488 PROCEDURE III Inter volition Application for leave to intervene vas denied, but the attorneys representing the petitioners for intervention participated in the conduct of the case as associate counsel representing- the complainants, on notion of the attorney for conplainnnts• D-191 1 7 %J i. . . * Permission to intervene on behalf of the Evansville Producers Commission Association denied. D-274 A petition by various dealers at the Chicago Union Stock Yards to intervene, in the proceedings to determine the reasonable¬ ness and lawfulness of commission rates and charges at said stockyards, was denied by the Secretary for the reason that such intervention is not authorized under Title III of the Act, but the Secretary permitted the dealer interveners and other interested parties to appear at the hearing in person or by counsel and question all witnesses as fully as if tho petition for intervention had been granted. D-402 Motions and Objections Objection in a proceedings for reparation for tho return of the payment of alleged discriminatory reweigh charges, by the defendant to the testimony of individual dealer members of the Traders Livestock Exchange, on the ground that since the indivi¬ dual members were not joined in the complaint or named in the body thereof there was no proceeding in which any trader could bo a participant, was overruled by tho Examiner, and the Examiner’s ruling was sustained by tho Secretary. D-7 A motion, joined in by both parties to the proceedings, that tho hearing bo adjourned until the Secretary could pass Upon the Examiner's rulings with respect to the motion to dismiss and with rospoct to the objection to testimony by any member of tho complainant exchange respecting reparation, was granted by the Secretary. • D-7 PROCEDURE III Motions and Objections Respondent’s motion (l) that the Secretary of Agriculture make a preliminary investigation, as to facts, (2) dismiss the complaint, and' (3) obtain from the Attorney General an opinion as to power of the Secretary of Agriculture on a question of law raised by the complaint, denied by the Secretary. D-81 Defendant’s motion to dismiss a portion of paragraph 2 of the second amended complaint on the grounds that it stated no facts which would entitle the complainant to bring a direct action a.gainst the defendant, that it did not allege any issuable . facts and did not allege or charge anything constituting offense, that it is wholly uncertain, indefinite, and general, and that the defendant is wholly unable, from said paragraph, to know or determine with what it is charged and is wholly unable to prepare an answer thereto, or to defend itself against such change, sustained by the Secretary. D-101 Defendant’s motion to make paragraph No. 2 of the second amended complaint more definite and certain denied, the motion to dis¬ miss the ma.jor portion of said para.gra.ph having been theretofore sustained by the Secretary. D-101 Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, on the ground that it does not constitute a. cense of auction, reserved by the Secretary for further consideration until the expiration of the time allowed the complainant to amend. D-101 Defendant’s motion to require complainant to make the last paragraph’of the first amended complaint more definite and certain allowed by the Secretary, with the understanding that complainant be allowed 10 days to amend. D-101 In view of the decision of the Secretary that the proceeding be dismissed without prejudice, subject to bo reopened upon the order of the Secretary and due notice thereof to the respondent, the Secretary doomed it inaflvisable and unnecessary to enter into a. discussion of the merits of the four motions to dismiss which were filed by respondent. D-116 PROCEDURE III Motions cj id Objections On objection by counsel for respondent that the complaints theretofore filed were not sufficient to raise an issue in regard to resales, counsel for complainants requested leave to file an amended petition. This request was granted. D-191 The defendant’s objections interposed at the opening of the homing, which were, briefly, that the complainant did not file the petition with the Secretary within ninety days after the alleged cause of action accrued, that there were not fonts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant, that the alleged complaint was indefinite and uncertain, and that until complainant files a petition authorized by the law the defendant should not be put to the expense of making a defense, and an application for a. continuance by defendant, were overruled by the Examiner. D-207; D-208 The notion of the respondent thaat complainant bo required to make his complaint more definite and certain by (l) giving the names of the dealers referred to in the complaint as having been cleared and financed by the complainant, (2) stating what livestock, and the names of the purchasers, arc referred to in the first pa.ra.graph of page 2 of the complaint, and (3) stating in what particular and how complainant was damaged, granted by the Secretary, it appearing tha.t to do so will make the issues more definite, mil tend to avoid lost motion on the part of respondent in preparing its defense, will avoid delay end con¬ fusion at the hearing, will tend to avoid much "beating around the bush", end will obvie.tc the necessity of respondent preparing a defense against every possible damage which may flow - from the wrong of the kind complained of; it appearing further that to require complainant to give such information can dp him no harm. D-286 491 PROCEDURE III Motions and Objections At the outset of the hearing on the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent’s schedules of stockyard services, rates, end charges, respondent’s counsel objected to the scope of the inquiry on the ground that the notice of hearing was given pursuant to Section 207(e) of Title VII of the U« S. C. A., and that, therefore, the Secretary was without power and jurisdiction in the hearing to examine into the valuation of properties or into the yardage rates and other natters, except changes for feed. The Examiner overruled the objection* D-301 The notion by the respondent market agencies to vacate the Secretary’s ’’order reopening proceedings” in the Kansas City Stockyard commission rate case was denied by the Secretary, but the Secretary reserved to the respondents the right to renew their notion a.t a. 1 cater stage when the nature and extent of the issues in the cane should become more cleanly defined* D-311 A notion to disqualify the Secretary for bias and prejudice in a. commission rate case proceeding should be denied cc a natter of law and as a, natter of expediency, since, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, only the Secretary of Agriculture has any authority to hold hearings or to determine issues, and since any opinion which the Secretary night render in the ca.sc must of necessity be consistent with the mandate of the Supremo Court, the case having been appealed to the Supreme Court and returned to the lower tribunals for further proceedings. D-311 Motions made by counsel for the respondent market agencies, at the outset of the third hearing in the Kansas City Stockyards commission rate co.se, to strike from the record the tentative findings of font, conclusions, and order made upon the second hearing (l) on the ground that the record and evidence upon which the tentative order is based was staJLe, (2) because the findings, conclusions, and order wore not made in accordance with the rules of practice promulgated by the Secretary, and (3) because counsel for tho respondents claimed thact the find¬ ings were condemned by two judges who sat in the throe-judge court, was denied by tho Examiner, and the Secretary sustained the Examiner’s action. D-311 492 PROCEDURE III Motions and Objections Motions in tho course of the proceedings to determine the boycott activities of respondents were made by respondents to make tho charges contained in the order of inquiry nore definite and certain, to dismiss tho proceedings upon tho grounds of unconstitutionality of the Packers and Stockyards Act, end for insufficiency of the all ogations contained in the order of inquiry to charge a violation of the Act on the part of respondents; part of which notions were overruled by the Examiner, by the Secretary, and tho Examiner’s action was sustained D-330 Objections end attempted defenses to the Agricultural Marketing Act, passed in 1929, arc wholly irrelevant to the issues in boy¬ cott proceedings arising under tho Packers and Stockyards Act, passed in 1921, the place for such objections being before tho Congress 'of tho United States, which alone lias the power to change its torns • D~330 At the close of tho Government’s testimony, counsel for the respondents moved (l) to dismiss the orococdings for lack of evidence to sustain tho allegations of tho order of inquiry, end (2) for the Secretary to disqualify himself from hearing and determining the issues rad sod in tho proceedings. The motion to dismiss the proceedings wan overruled by the Examiner, and the Examiner’s action was sustained by tho Secretary. The motion for the Secretary to disqualify himself was overruled by tho Secretary. D-330 Uo material or prejudicial error being found by tho Secretary to tho rulings of tho Examiner upon tho admission and rejection of testimony, tho rulings wore affirmed by tho Secretary. D-330 493 PROCEDURE III Motions and Objections At the outset of the henring, the Examiner overruled end the Sec¬ retary later sustained the actions of the Examiner, objections by respondent’s counsel to the holding of the hearing end to the introduction of any evidence on the grounds that (l) the Act of Congress known as the Packers end Stockyards Act, 1921, is, on its face, in violation of the Federal Constitution and denies respond¬ ent equal protection of the law, (2) by the terminology of the Act, its provisions apply to some end not to all stockyard companies engaged in interstate commerce, to wit: it does not apply to stockyards of less than 20,000 square feet, (3) that said classi¬ fication is unrea.sono.blo, discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal, (4) that said classification puts an unfair end unlawful burden on interstate commerce, and (5) that said classifica.tion is in violation of those provisions of the Federal Constitution which insure respondents equa.l protection of the law. D-344 Motion to dismiss on the ground of variance between the testimony and the allegations set forth in the order of hearing denied, even though the witness for the Government testified that the offer was na.de to him in 1929, while the order of inquiry alleged that the offer vc.s made in 1930, the witnesses for the respondent having testified that the offer was nc.de in 1930. D-393 Respondent Cleveland Union Stock Yards Company’s request to file a tariff of reduced rates and changes and permit the Secretary to make his conclusions and order thereon, together with other information furnished the Secretary, in order to avoid the expense of a hearing, granted by the Secretary. D-442 Orel Arguments before the Secretary Counsel for complainant and counsel for respondents appccncd before the Secretary of Agriculture and made oral arguments which the Secret any considered. D-39 494 PROCEDURE III Oral Arguments before the Secretary A tentative or proposed report was prepared by the Examiner, served on respondent, exceptions to the Examiner's report were filed by the respondent, and the case was argued orally on behalf of the respondent before the Secretary of Agriculture. D-97 The attorneys for respondent made oral argument before the Secretary on December 13 and 14, 1926. D-116 At request of counsel for the respondents, an oral argument was ma.de before the Secretary of Agriculture vdth respect to the issues involved, after the Examiner’s tentative findings and reconnendations to the Secretary were issued, D-136 I In the proceedings to determine the rea.sonn.bloness and lawful¬ ness of proposed new commission rates and changes at the Omaha Union Stock Yards, counsel for the respondent menket agencies appeared before the Secretary of Agriculture and were given full opportunity for oral argument before him. D-143 On September 27, 1926, after the homing was held before the Examiner on April 30, 1926, an oral argument was made before the"Assistant Secretary by counsel for respondent, D-1.48 After having stipulated with the Secretary of Agriculture as to the truth of the material facts alleged in the inquiry and notice and having vraivod a hearing thereon, respondent had counsel argue the ca.sc orally before the Secretory of Agriculture, D-159; D-160 Opportunity was given respondent to appear before the Secretary to make an oral argument, but he did not avail himself of the opportunity. . D-162 495 PROCEDURE III Oral Arguments before the Secretary Respondent was accorded an opportunity of arguing the ease orally before thp. Secretary, or.filing a written brief. Ho later wrote a letter to the Secretary stating that no written brief would be filed, but submitted some- points for the consideration of the Department,^ citing several authorities in support thereof, D-177 Before the Secretary made his findings of fact end order, the respondent was allowed 12 days to request an oral argument before the Secretary or to file a written brief, both of which ho declined, D-184 Counsel for both•complainant and defendant filed briefs with the Secretory in lieu of oral; argument. D-207 Counsel for both parties filed written argument in lieu of oral argument. D-208 Oral rrgumont in the cc.se involving boycott activities was made before the Secretary by the attorney representing the Government end by the counsel representing the resoondents. D-246 At the close of the hearing, the respondent stated that the ca.so could bo submitted on the record without either oral or written argument before thg Secretary, D-287 The case for reparation for alleged illegal enforcement of c. rule of defendant’s livestock exchange was on mod oro.llv for the defendant and the defendant also submitted a written memo r an dun. D- 2 8 8 At the close of the hearing upon the reasonableness of respondent’s stockyards services, rates, and charges, the respondent requested an opportunity to file a written brief and to appear before the Secretary for oral argument. The request was granted, . D-291 Although respondent market agency did not appear a.t the hearing to determine the lawfulness of his trade pro.cticcs, either in person or through counsel, lie was c.ffordcd an opportunity of submitting argument to the Secretary on or before a ;j ivon date • D-2S2 -i- PROCEDURE III Oral Arguments before the Secretary In the proceedings to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of the schedule of rates and charges posted by the respondent for its services as a stockyards owner, oral argument was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, the respondent submitted a brief, and the matter was then before the Secretary for a decision. D-298 Oral argument was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, and respondents submitted a brief on the matter of the determina¬ tion of the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent’s stock- yards services, rates, and charges. D-301 Oral argument concerning the fixing of rates and charges for commission men at the Sioux City Stock Yards was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on.September 23, 1S30, and respondents’ counsel submitted a brief on December 1, 1930. D-308 In the original proceedings, to determine- the reasonableness and lawfulness of commission rales and charges at the Kansas City Stock Yards, oral argument was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on March 27, 1931, and respondents’ counsel sub¬ mitted a brief on behalf of the members of the Kansas City Livestock Exchange. D-311 In the Kansas City Stock Yards commission rate case, oral argument on the ba.sis of the record ma.de at the original hearing and cl the first rehearing was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on March 24, 1933. Respondents ’ counsel wc.s given until April 18, 1933 to file a. brief. . D-311 After the argument had been ma.de before the Secretary by counsel for the respondent market agencies and counsel for the Government, in the Kansas City Stock Yards commission rate case, both counsel for the respondents and for the Government were given permission to maJke changes in the stenographic report of the argument. The now pa.gcs upon which the changes wore made were substituted, and the removed pa.gcs were preserved in the ribbon copy of the argument. D-311 PROCEDURE III S Oral Arguments before the Secretary At the conclusion of the herring for reparation, both complainant end. respondent agreed to submit the cenc on the record as made at the hearing, thereby waiving argument before the Secretary« D-342 Oral argument in the proceedings to determine the reasonableness of respondents stockyards ’ rates end charges was had before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, and respondents’ counsel sub¬ mitted a brief. D-344 At the hearing, respondents’ counsel indicated that he desired oral argument, end the case we.s set for oral argument, of which respondents’ counsel wen duly notified as to the time and place but did not appear. The attorney for the Government made a brief argument before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture. D-362; D-363j D-364; D-3S5j D-366 At the hearing to determine the lawfulness of respondent market agency’s tre.de pre.cticcs, it was agreed that the case should be submitted on the record without argument before the Secretary. D-368 Counsel for respondent, in the cane alleging illegal payments or attempted payments to truck drivers, argued orally before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture end also filed a brief on behalf of respondent. D-393; D-399 Counsel for respondent market agency waived oral argument and filed a. written brief with the Secretary, in the c'ase involving payments to truckers. D-398 Although the Secretary denied the petition of certain tre.dors at the Chicago Union Stock Yards to intervene in the proceedings to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of commission re.tes and charges at said stockyards, the Secretary permitted counsel for sold parties to give oral argument before him touching upon the issues involved in the ca.se. D-402 498 PROCEDURE III Oro.l Arguments before the Secretary At the hearing to determine the lawfulness of respondent dealer’s trade practices and to deter ..line if respondent should bo required to furnish a reasonable performance bond, the attorneys waived argument and agreed to submit the ease upon the record as made. D-408 Reprosontativos of the Government who participated in the conduct of. the case prepared and submitted a draft of proposed Findings of Fact and Order for the consideration of tho Socrctery, and served a copy thereof upon tho respondents. Counsel for respond¬ ents filed exceptions to tho proposed Findings of Fact and Order, and thereafter ora.l argument was had before the Secretary, D-445 At the tine of the ora.l argument before the. Secretary in tho proceedings to determine the reusone.bloness and lawfulness of stockyards rates and charges, the respondent stockyards company asked and we.s given permission to file certain fa.cts with the Secretary which the Secretary considered, together with other requested information, before mclcing his .decision, D-450 The brief submitted by counsel for tho respondent market agency in this ca.sc was regarded by tho Secretary a.s a written argument, Tho cano was also'argued orally before tho Secretary by Govern¬ ment counsel and counsel for the respondent packer, D-1175 Rules of Practice Under tho rul^s of practice promulgated by the Secretary, governing proceedings under tho Pa.ekcrs and Stockyards Act, a.s .amended, tho Examiner, after hearing argument end additional evidence in the fens a.s City Stock Yards commission rate ca.so was ordered by tho Secretary to prepare and submit to the respondents a. rcoort thereon, D-311 499 PROCEDURE III Service of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. Service of the order of inquiry, consolidation of dockets, and notice of hearing made by transmitting a true copy thereof by registered mail to each of the respondents. D-132 Service of the inquiry and order to show cause, in insolvency proceedings, made upon respondent by forwarding a true copy thereof to his last known address. D-144 Order of change of date of hearing served upon respondents by registered mail. D-147j D-151 Service of the order consolidating Dockets Eos. 147 mid 151 made by transmitting a true copy thereof by registered mall to each of the respondents named in cither docket. D-147 & 151 The Secretary ordered that a true copy of the amended complaint be served forthwith by registered mail upon respondent. D-148 Ordered by the Secretary that service of a true copy of the amendment to the original inquiry and notice be served upon the respondents forthwith by registered mail. Dr-150 Service of a true copy of the order to respondent dealer to satisfactorily explain the allegations in the inquiry and notice pertaining to his refusal to execute a bond ordered by the Secretary to be made upon respondent forthwith by registered mail. D-159 Amendment to inquiry raid notice under Title III of the Act, with respect to certain alleged unfair and deceptive practices of respondent market agency, served on respondent by serving a true copy of the amendment by registered moll. D~180j D-182 A copy of the complaint for reparation was served on the respondent in due course, with the request that it be satisfied or answered in writing on or before a specified time. D-193 500 PROCEDURE III Service of Complaint, Inquiry,, etc. Ordered by the Secretary that a true copy of the order postponing the date of hearing be- served upon the respondent, the Sioux City Stock Yards Company* by registered mail. D-268 The inquiry and notice in connection with respondent market agencies ’ and dealers’ boycott activities was served on all the respondents by transmittal to each of them of a true copy thereof .by .registered' mail, .end the amendment of the inquiry and notice was served -by registered mail , ' D-330 The- inquiry -and■■notice of hearing, instituted to determine if respondent market agency and deader 'is insolvent, was served upon respondent by registered mail. D-335 Copies of the amendment to the order of inquiry, the order continuing the hearing upon the reasonableness of respondents 1 commission rates and charges, and the order dismissing the proceedings ordered by the Secretary to be served upon the respondents by registered mail. D-347 Notice of the hearing to determine the reasonableness of the commission rates end charges of respondents operating at the Fort North Stock Yards, Fort Worth, Texas, was served upon each of the respondents by delivering a copy thereof by registered mail* D-445 The Secretary ordered that a copy of the order postponing the hearing- to determine the reasonableness of the rates and charges of respondent market agencies bo served upon each of the respond¬ ents. D-445 Service of the order of inquiry, notice, and complaint was made by registered mail and was deemed to be complete even though one' of the respondents did not receive it, the evidence showing throb the' postman delivered the registered letter containing the inquiry, 1 notice, ' and complaint to the respondent but that the respondent'refused to accept it. Under this situation, the hearing was hold in all respects as though the respondents •were -present. ' ' D-570 501 PROCEDURE III Service of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. The Secretary ordered that the complaint and notice alleging a combination or conspiracy, and also unfair practices, on tho pent of a packer end a market agency against a shipper, be served upon the respondents by transmitting a true copy thereof to them by registered mail. D-603 t In a proceedings to determine if the respondent dealer had violated the Act by switching livestock, a copy of the Examiner 1 s report was forwarded to tho respondent at his last known address, but no forwarding address was left by the respondent and, numerous efforts having boon made to servo tho report without success, tho Secretary made his order. D-1161 Supplemental Findings of Fact Tho Examiner issued supplemental findings, upon inclusion of testimony end documents into the record after original findings had boon made. D-24 Surprise Tho vigorous objections of tho respondent market agency to tho admission at the hearing of -any testimony under paragraphs 5 to 9, inclusive, of tho complaint, on the ground that tho allegations wore so general in charactor as not to amount to a pleading and that, if they could be" considered in the nature of a pleading, they must bo deemed to relate only to the specific transactions set forth in paragraph 3 of the complaint, tho respondent pro¬ fessing its utter inability to moot the said general allegations on the-ground of surprise, wore overruled by the Secretary, it appearing from the evidence of the Government ''with respect to tho allegations complained o'f was received prior to noon of January 20, and, immediately thereafter, the case was adjourned to January 25 in order to give the respondent sufficient time to prepare a defense to the Government’s testimony. D-1181 502 PROCEDURE III Technical Defects in Pleading In determining whether complainant had suffered any damage from respondent stockyards owner so as to bo entitled to reparation under the terms of the Act, the Secretary disregarded formal .defects from the standpoint of technical pleading in the complaint and disregarded the question as to whether the acts complained of, in themselves, constituted discrimination, there being pre¬ sented for his determination the issue as to whether respondent was unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory in any respect or to any extent* D-97 The complaint should have contained an averment showing clearly that' the payments for which reparation was asked were made within ninety days.preceding the filing of the complaint; however, since the record shows that such omission did not, in this proceeding. Operate to the prejudice of respondent, and the allegations of the amended complaint are sufficiently definite and certain to inform respondent that the reweigh charges specified in its Supplement Number II to Schedule Number II on file with the Secretary arc attacked as violative of the Act and allegedly discriminatory, in that while applying to "butcher stuff" they do not apply to "livestock going to the country", and tho amended complaint further informs respondont that complainant claims reparation of the aggregate amount of the rewoigh charges paid by him, the contention of respondent tho.t tho matter is not properly before the Secretary is without merit* D-208 It is the practice in proceedings under tho Packers and Stock- yards Act, 1921, not to insist upon tho nicety of precision usual in judicial procedure, but any >f the rules adopted by the courts to bring controversies to definite end terminable issues are the result of long experience in the adjudication of disputes* To disregard them as mere technicalities is often to invito a looseness of allegation which loads to uncertainty and misunderstanding through the entire proceeding end results sometimes in one party defending cm issue, which the other has not sought to draw, end being unprepared to meet tho reed, matters in controversy. D-286 505 PROCEDURE III l . •'"* Variance between Pleading and Proof The testimony of the shipper not hairing been in accordance with the Pacts alleged in his complaint to the Secretary, upon which complaint the inquiry and notice of the Secretary was issued, the charges set forth in the notice of inquiry were dismissed. D-162 Motion to. dismiss on the ground of variance between the testimony and the allegations set forth in the order of hearing denied, r - even though the witness for the Government testified that the offer was made to him in IS29, while the order of inquiry alleged that the offer was made in 1930, the witnesses for the respondent having testified that the offer was made in 1930, D-393 v The testimony of the case containing a positive statement from the trucker that no offer of commission'rebate had over been made to him by respondent to induce him to deliver shipments of livestock by truck to respondent in preference to other market agencies, the Secretary held that that part of the case should be dismissed, even though the transcript of testimony appeared to indicate that the trucker was a hostile witness, the record being barren,of any other testimony to the contrary, D-397 It appearing from the evidence that the trucker to whom, the alleged offer was made was not certain when the offer was made, that he gave an affidavit that it was made in 1930 but later recalled that the time of the offer was a long time previously thereto, that:the bookkeeper of the respondent testified that an examination of the records back to end including six years previous to the order of inquiry did not disclose the trucker's name on the records and that it would have appeared thereon if he had done business with the respondent in either the capacity of agent or principal, the Secretary ordered the case dismissed. D-399 # \ 504 PROCEDURE III Variance between Pleading raid Proof Proof introduced at the hearing having failed to sustain charges that respondent market agency switched a bull belonging to a trucker for a bull belonging to a certain farmer, weighing 200 pounds more than the bull belonging to the trucker, and remitted to the trucker for the additional 200 pounds in consideration for the trucker bringing livestock to the respondent, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed. D-399 General allegations set forth in an amendment to the original complaint, which charged the respondent market agency with having switched livestock at various times, should be dismissed when the proof adduced at the hearing to sustain them indicates only that the respondent and the purchaser disagreed at various times as to the prices for which the livestock was purchased* D-894 505 PUBLIC UTILITIES III It is a recognized principle of lew, supported by the United States Supreme Court, that public utilities may not expend funds in opposition to the policy of the Government and in contravention of the str.tutc. It is not proper, therefore, for market agencies to include in expenses, for the determine.' tion of a rate base, the cost of litigation growing out of an illegal boycott. D' 383 506 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Arbitrary and Gratuitous Refunds Market agency which charged no commission to an owner for selling a consignment of hogs, and, in addition thereto, without any consideration therefor, paid the owner ^73.08 for the sol© purpose of reimbursing the owner for its loss on the sale of said hogs, -violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 thereunder. D-37 Market agency which rendered an account sale to the owner in¬ correctly stating that 8 hogs weighing 3,160 pounds and one stag weighing 70 pounds, at the time of sale, sold for ;j>6 per cwt• or a total of 085.40, and later rendered a correct account sale for 70 pounds at $6 per cwt., remitting therewith *4.20 and charging the item to "Miscellaneous Account", but made no attempt to collect the amount so remitted from the buyer of the livestock in question, violated Title III of the Act by making an arbitrary refund to the owner. D-50 Market agency which made cash payments of varying amounts to numerous shippers -without evidence of consideration being given therefor, charging said amounts to either its "Expense Account" or "Profit 1, ,-and Loss Account", violated Title III of the Act by remitting to shippers gratuitous rebates. D-50 Market agency which refunded 013.65 to a shipping association, without apparent legal consideration therefor, held excused from violation of the Act, the evidence at the hearing indicating that respondent made a dockage of 140 pounds on 2 hogs thought to be stags, but, the shipper protesting, the manager of respondent drove for 2 days to locate the owner of the 2 stags in the ship¬ ment, but that every shipper was willing to give an affidavit that he had no stags in the shipment. D-52 507 REBATES AMD ILLEGaL PAYMENTS III Arbitrarv and Gratuitous Refunds Xj Market agency which sold livestock for owner at $5,25 per cwt• end rendered an account sale and remittance on such basis* and later made an additional payment of M34 to owner without apparent justification, held excused from the violation of tho Act when testimony was introduced showing that the owner understood the selling price to be 06.25 per cvrt. instead of -,p5♦ 25 ‘per cvrt., tho testimony further indicating that the buyer. Swift & Company, refused to make an adjustment iii accordance with tho understanding of the seller and that, under tho circumstances, it was proper for the agency to remit the difference and take tho loss. D-52 Market agency which rendered an. account sale to a shipping association on the basis of the weights end price shown by the scale tickets, end remitted on the same basis, but subsequently remitted an additional sum of 021.19 to the shipping association to be distributed to the owners of the livestock, the total remittances equaling a sum greater than the net proceeds received by the market agency from tho sale of the livestock, violated Title III of the Act. D-71; D-72 Market agency which rendered correct accounts sale to owners or consignors of livestock, making settlement accordingly, and later refunded and remitted to the owners or consignors all of its charge as a market agency for handling said shipments, said amounts of refunds being more than the applicable rates or charges specified in its schedules, in excess of tho actual net . proceeds of the sale of said shipment, and pr.id out of funds belonging to it in its capacity as a market agency, violated Title III of the Act. D-76 Market agency which rendered correct accounts sale reports to shippers, remitting on the basis thereof, and subsequently refunded additional amounts without explanation, violated Title III of the Act. D-108 508 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Arbitrary and Gratuitous Refunds «/ The practice of a market agency of selling livestock to dealers at less than the market price, and then refunding amounts over and above the proceeds received from the sale of the livestock to the shippers, upon complaint from the shippers that they did not receive the market price for their livestock, constituted a flagrant violation of Title III of the Act, D-142 A cooperative market agency which sells cattle on commission and makes refunds to shippers of livestock, on complaints from the shippers that their livestock were not sold at the highest price obtainable when, in fact, the livestock was sold at' the highest price obtainable, makes a refund or rebate within the meaning of the. law and in violation of Title III of the ^ct, the refund not having boon made on. a patronage basis. D-142 A market agency which forwarded a check of glOO to a shipper of livestock in order to offset excessive charges for hay and bedding made against the shipper, because the particular shipper was a ’’large shipper", the market agency arguing that the shipper was entitled to at least that amount out of the 11,146 "creep" in the hay and bedding .accounts, violated the Section 316(b) of Title III of the Act (7 U.S.C.A. 207 F) which prohibits the making of a refund "in any manner" of "any portion of the rates or charges" of a market agoncy, and Section 401 of Title IV of the Act which provides in part that every market agency and dealer shall keep such records as clearly disclose all trans¬ actions. D-1117 Dockage Refunds Cooperative market a.gcncy which rendered a true and correct account sale for the shipment of one hog which showed tha.t the hog weighed 500 pounds, docko,ge 70 pounds, and wa.s sold a.t §4.75 per cwt•, for a total amount of §20,42, and remitted on the basis of the account sale, then subsequently remitted an additional amount of §9.58 to cover the dockage on the hog, violated Title III of the Act, it having admitted the act and offered no explanation therefor. D-108 509 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Over-Remittances A market agency which renders an account sale to a shipper which shows that the livestock was sold for an amount less than the purchaser actually paid for it, and remits the difference or a similar amount to a second shipper, causing the second shipper to receive actually more money than ho was entitled to, violates Title III of* the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder. D-31 Ma.rket agency who sold livestock for a price less than the price reported to shipper on its o.ccount sale, and remitted to the shipper at the rate reported on the account sale, violo.ted Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, by misrepresenting to the owners or consignors the price received therefor, D-43; D-45; D-4S; D-50; D-54; D-55; D-58; D-GO; D-S2; D-65; D-68; D-69; D-70; D-72; D-74; D-78. Market ag6ncy viola.ted Title III of the Act by rendering to the owner or consignor of livestock account so.le thereof showing the net proceeds to be more than those actually received therefor, and remitting on the o.ccount sale bo.sis, D-48 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by remitting more money to the owner or consignor than it received from the purchaser of the livestock sold, thereby, in effect, giving rebo-tos to the shipper, D-50; D-54 Market agency which rendered to the consignor an account sale in which it was stated a lot of 6 hogs was sold cot ^9.90 per cwt., whereas, in fact, the purchaser. Swift & Company, paid only '..8,50 per cwt, for said hogs, and remitted on the ba.sis of the ra.te stated in the c.ccount se.lc, co.using an ovcr-rcnittonco of : ; j)34.72, held excused from such violation of the Act, the evidence shoving that the scale ticket from which the bookkeeper obtained his figures was erroneously marked ”§9*90 per hundred"; the evidence shoving, further, tlic.t the market e.goncy made an attempt to recover the over-payment from the ovmers and shipper, but was unsuccessful, '■ ' D-52 510 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Over-Remittances Market agency which renders an account sale to owner of livestock showing the total amount of the sale to-have been nore .than.it was in fact, remitting on the basis of the account sale, violates Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and. 17 Qf the General Rules and Regulations thereunder* ■ ’ D-53 1 " r *’ * Market agency which rendered an account sale showing the hogs sold to'have weighed 1,270 pounds, while, in-feet, they weighed 1,240 pounds, tho agency'remitting on the basis of the account sale, violated Title III of the Act. D-72 Market agency which received and accepted for sale on commission a shipment of 28 steers from one owner, and a shipment of 26 steers from a second owner, and deducted per cwt* from the proceeds of sale of the first o\/ncr and added tho deduction on to the proceeds of tho sale of the second owner, thercbv remitting less than the sale price, to the first owner and more than the sale price to the second owner, violated Title III of the Act* • : " D-197 Payments to Truckers It is an unfair.practice for any market agency to pa.y or offer to •pay any driver of a truck delivering livestock at a. stockyards subject to the net any sun of money to deliver such livestock to said market agency for sake. D-274 Although respondent market agency violated the Act by paying truck drivers $1 per truck load of livestock delivered to it for sale in its ca.pp.city a.s a market •■agency, the Secretary dismissed the case without prejudice, in.view of tho fact that respondent had in good faith long prior to the tine of inquiry requested advice concerning the effect of such a practice from a representative of the Department and had been -told on several occasions that such a practice was not objectionable, D-274 The decision in Docket 27 • /1 . vps the case of Bourbon Livestock Commission Company, upheld and affirmed by the Secretary* D-3S3; D-395j D-398 511 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Payments to Truckers Without doubt, the payment of money by a market agency and the acceptance thereof by the trucker for the purpose of inducing the delivery of livestock for sale on commission, under the facts shown in the record, is contrary to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The trucker, in many cases, if not in most cases, is not specifically instructed as to whom the livestock should be delivered, and, in the exorcise of his discretion of delivery, he is agent for the shipper and as such should have no interest adverse to the shippor, but, on the contrary, he must at all times exercise the utmost good faith. If he accepts the offer made by the market agency, he nay deliver livestock for sale to on agency not so well qualified to handle the livestock as arc other similar agencies on the market, end to this extent he ha.s defrauded the shipper. D-393 The proceedings to determined the uni awfulness of respondent in making offers to truck drivers for delivery of hogs to respondent dismissed, it appearing from the record that the highest value for any one of the articles given was $ 1 , end that it had been a custom on the stockyards for a period of years for market agencies to give "canes, scissors, or hog hurdlers" or any one or more of such articles to the truck drivers engaged in the business of transporting end delivering livestock to market agencies by truck. D-394 The present case was distinguished by the Secretary from the ca.sc of Bourbon Livestock Commission Company, Docket 274, in that while in the latter ca.sc the Department held the giving or offering of $1 in co.sh to a. trucker to induce him to deliver livestock to a market agency was an improper practice, in the present case the Secretary was of the opinion tha.t since the giving of "canes, scissors, or hog hurdlers" or any one or more of those articles to truck drivers had been a custom a.t stock- yards for a period of years, the evidence of these gifts clone was not sufficient to prove on improper motive on the part of the market a.gcncios giving the gifts. D-394 512 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Payments to Truckers Evidence that the livestock solicitor for the respondent shook hands with the trucker and when, as they finished shaking hands, a .j>5 bill fell to the floor and the solicitor said ’’That’s yours”, and the trucker testified ”1 don’t care for it that way, I don’t believe in doing business that way; you take it along with you, I don’t want it”, and the solicitor replied, ”No, go ahead and take it, that’s yours”, wrhereupon the solicitor walked out and the trucker picked up the f>5 bill and retained it, nothing being said as to the reason for giving him the money, and the trucker believed it was because he' had trucked the last load of livestock to the respondent company, considered with all facts and circum¬ stances was sufficient for the Secretary to find that the respond¬ ent company had viola.ted the Act through the unfadr and deceptive practice and device of inducing truckers of livestock for shippers, by payments of money, to deliver such livestock to respondent. D-395 Market agency who offered or gave a truck driver agent of live¬ stock owners transporting livestock by truck $5, in order to induce the truck driver to deliver to the respondent the live¬ stock entrusted to him by the owners thereof for sale in commerce, violated the Act and was ordered to cease and desist from con¬ tinuing such prentice. D-395 The trucker to "whom the alleged offer to pay a sum of money was ma.de having testified at the hearing that the offer was mc.dc by a representc.tivo of the respondent market agency but thc.t ho did not know the name of the person making.the offer, nor was he a.ble to identify the person making the offer even though every person who was employed by the respondent at or near the time the alleged offer was made was produced by respondent for identification, the Secretary dismissed the proceeding. D-396 The testimony of the case containing a positive statement from the trucker that no offer of commission rcba.te had over been made to him by respondent to induce him to deliver shipments of livestock by truck to respondent in preference to other market a.gencios, the Secretary held that that part of the case should be dismissed, even though the transcript of testimony a.ppcarod to indicate tha.t the trucker was a hostile witness, the record being barren of any other testimony to the contrary. D-397 513 REBATES ME ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Payments to Truckers In order for the Government to sustain the burden of proof that offers were made to truckers for the purpose of inducing them to deliver livestock to the respondent, it is not necessary to prove the amount of the offer, it being sufficient to prove that the offer was made. D-398 It appearing from the record, that the sums of money obtained by the trucker from the respondent were subsequently repaid to the respondent by the trucker, the respondent testifying that they were loans, the burden of proof resting upon the Government to show that payments were made to-the trucker to influence him in the delivery of livestock to the respondent was not sustained even though the evidence indicated that nothing v-ras said about repaying the money at the time it was advanced by the respondent to the trucker. D-398 Payments or offers of payment, if accepted, induces the trucker to deliver livestock.to the agency so paying, regardless cf the ability of such market agent to sell livestock to the best .advantage of the shipper. The practice is believed to be and found to be unfair to the shipper, since it may result in an inefficient company receiving the livestock for sale and handling it to poor advantage, thereby depriving-the shipper of the bene¬ fits which may have accrued to him had the livestock been properly handled. The shipper is deprived of the benefit of the trucker’s honest and best judgment, which should bo used by the trucker in the selection of a market e.gency best qualified to handle the particular shipment in those canes where the shipper does not designate the agency to whom livestock should bo consigned. D-398 It appearing from the evidence that the trucker to whom the alleged offer was made was not certain when the- offer was ma.de, that he gave on affidavit that it was made in 1930, but later recalled that the time of the offer was a. long time previously thereto, that the bookkeeper of the respondent testified that an examination of the records back to and including six years previous to the order of inquiry did not disclose the trucker’s name on the records and that it would have appeared thereon if ho had done business with tho respondent in either the capacity of agont or principal, the Secretary ordered tho case dismissed. x D-399 514 REBATES AMD ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Payments to Truckers Proqf introduced at the hearing having failed to sustain changes th at respondent market agency switched a bull belonging to a trucker for a bull belonging to a certain farmer, -weighing 200 pounds more then, the bull belonging to the trucker, end remitted to the trucker for the additional 200 pounds in consideration Sot the trucker bringing livestock to the respondent, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed, D-399 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by carrying truckers of livestock on its books as employees and paying amounts as salary to them from time to time while, in fact, the truckers Y/crc agents for livestock owners and the money was being paid to them to influence them in delivering the livestock of said owners to the agency. D-521 The violation of the Act by respondent in making payments to truck drivers to induce then to deliver livestock to its pons for sale boing the first of its kind at the Union Stock Yards, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Secretary felt that the extreme penalty of suspending the registration of the respondent should not bo invoked, but that a cease and desist order would bo proper, D-536 The Secretary found that the respondent market agency had violated the Act, as amended, raid the rules and regulations thereunder, by remitting or giving part of the respondent’s commission or sums of money to truck drivers to induce them to deliver livestock to respondent’s pons, oven though one trucker testified that ho did not ever recall having received money from respondent but did one day got a dinner from him, another witness denied having every been paid anything by respondent in the way of gratuities, another witness testified that while respondent had sometimes paid for his dinner, he had never received any money from respondent except as an advance upon money duo him; the evidonee of the prior bookkeeper of respondent being direct and positive to the effect that respondent had made such pay¬ ments to the witnesses and had concealed them through devious bookkeeping methods, tho testimony of the bookkeepor having boon supported by tho records and accounts of respondent, and having not boon attacked by the respondent• D-536 515 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III 0 Payments to Truckers truck drivers a percentage of its commissions from the sale of D-735; D-746 livestock. Market agency which loaned nonev to various truckers without ony security and without any agreenent that the truckers should repay such loans, so long as the truckers delivered livestock to the respondent in preference to other market agencies, violated Title III of the Act and was suspended for this and other acts from operation as a. market agency for two year’s• D-759 A market agency violates Title III of the Act, as amended, by making locals or payments to truckers of livestock to induce them to deliver livestock to the market agency for sale on c omnis sion. D-l213 Refunding Commissions A market agency/- which remits to the seller a $2 per car maximum charge for prorating a plural ownership consignment of hogs is guilty of violating the Act and Rulo 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, by remitting a. portion of the rates or D-29 charges specified in its tariff schedule. Market agency operating at the St, Paul Union Stockyards, South the General Rules and Regulations thereunder by charging commis¬ sion in accordance with the schedule of rates and charges filed .fterwards D-37 516 0 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Rof uncling Coimni s si oils Market agency which rendered correct accounts sale to owners or consignors of livestock, making'settlement accordingly, and later refunded and remitted to the owners or consignors all of its charge a.s a. market agency for handling said shipments, said amounts of refunds being more than the applicable rates or charges specified in its schedules, in excess of the a.ctual not proceeds of the sale of said shipment, and paid out of funds belonging to it in its capacity as a market agency, violated Title III of the Act. D-76 * - Cooperative market agency which paid patronage refunds to its shareholders by check or in the form of stock certificates, from moneys other then excess earnings, engaged in end used .an unfair and unjustly discriminatory practice and device in connection with the marketing and soiling of livestock on a. commission basis in commerce, as defined in the Act, in that it remitted and refunded a portion of the rates and charges specified in its schedules filed, published, and in effect under the Act. D-77 Market agency which rendered an account sale covering a shipment of mules showing the commission charged to be that specified in the schedules filed and in effect at the time, and later refunded $174 to the shipper, making an entry on its books: "¥. A. Smyth - Rebate Commission, by T. n. and J. C. S.", violated Title III of the Act. D-80 Market agency which rendered an account sale showing a commission change if />4 per head' for 292 mules sold at public auction and a. commission charge of o2 per head for 63 mules sold at private sale, there being no schedule filed and in effect at the time authorizing a charge of $2 per hoad on mules sold at private sale, and. la.ter advised the shipper that a charge of *3 straight would be made on a.ll nul.es sold, refunding and remitting to the shipper $229 of the commission charged, the notation "Robate Commission, November 18-January 16" appearing upon the remit¬ tance check, violated Title III of the Act. D-80 \ REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Refunding Conni ssions Cooperative market agency which refunded or remitted a portion of its commission charges to owners or consignors mho mere not members or shareholders of said market agency and were not, therefore, entitled to a patronage refund on the basis of excess earnings viola.ted Title III of the Act. D-38 Cooperative market agency violated Title III of the Act when it refunded and rendttod to shippers a portion of its comission charges as a. pa.tronage dividend from excess earnings mh.cn, in fact, the shippers \;erc non-members of the cooperative* D-95; D-96 Market agency having filed an. answer to the complaint, in which it explained tha.t the alleged refunds of portions of its commis¬ sions vrcre not to the owners of livestock but mere to persons who more virtually employees of respondent, and a subsequent investigation made by the Secretary having, disclosed facts sub¬ stantiating the answer, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed without prejudice. D-127 Market a.gcncios which received and sold consignments of hogs and c.ccountcd correctly to the owners for the not proceeds of the entire consignments, remitting the proper amount therefor but looter, upon complaint by the owners of, excessive shrink, refunded axlditi mal amounts- to tho owners and charged the refunds to their Profit and Loss Accounts, violated Title III of the Act by making refunds to owners of livestock which amounted to remittances of their commission rates or charges specified in their schedule of ra.tos and.charges on file with the Secretary. D-161 Market agency which charged and collected a lesser amount for stockyard services than its schedules of raotes and charges then on file and in'effect provided for, through the device of refunding a. portion of the commissions charged, violated Title III of tho Act. ' D-197 518 REBATES ARC ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Refunds to Third Persons A commission company which sold 37 hogs weighing 8,890 pounds at f>6.40 per cwt. for a total purchase price of $568.96, and rendered an account sale to the shipper association which stated that the hogs weighed 3,740 pounds end'that the purchaser paid )9.60 less then was actually paid for them, and, at a later date, remitted the difference of $9.50 to the manager of the shipper association, violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder. B-32 Dealer who, upon receiving an offer from Thomas Gass to purchase from him 34 cattle at I0d per cwt. over the price which respond¬ ent paid for then, falsely represented to Gass that he paid $4.25 per cwt. whereas, in fact, ho paid $4 per cwt• for 33 of the cattle, and $3 per cwt. for one stag, and, upon such repre¬ sentation, received $4.35 per cwt. fron Thomas Gass for the cattle, subsequently refunding the difference of $67.92 to Hank Bros. & Ratcliff, purchasing agents for Thomas Gass, violated Title III of the Act. D-134 Refunding Yardage Charges A market agency which forwarded a check of $100 to a shipper of livestock in order to offset excessive charges for hay and bedding made against the shipper, because the particular shipper was "a large shipper”, the market agency arguing that the shipper was entitled to at least that amount out of the $1,146 "creep” in the hay and bedding accounts, violated the Section 316(b) of Title III of the Act (7 U.S.C.A. 207 F) which pro¬ hibits the making of a refund "in any manner” of "any portion of the rates or charges" of a market agency,- end Section 401 of Title IV of the act which provides in part that every market agency and deader shedl keep such records al1 tr ens actions• a.s clearly disclose D-1117 519 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS III Refunding Yardage Charges A stockvards conponv which refuses weighing services to a narlcct agency, by reason of which the owner of the livestock was conpelled to sell the livestock through a different agency at a lower price, and then pays the difference between the bid obtained by the first narket agency and the sale price thereof, to the owner, violates Section 306(f) of the Act by refunding a portion of its yardage charges specified in its tariff. D-1186 A 1193 520 REGISTRATION III Necessity for Market agency which entered into the business of selling sheep on a commission basis, rendering written accounts sale therefor and remitting to sellers on the basis of the accounts sale, without having first registered as a market agency with the Packers end Stockyards Administration as required by Title III of the Act, violated Title III of the Act. D-115 Revocation of The respondent market agency having admitted all of the offenses charged in the inquiry end notice of hearing, and waived the hearing, the Secretary ordered that its registration as a market agency bo revoked for six months. , D-1213 Revocation of Suspension of After dealer has boon suspended by the Secretary from registration as a dealer, duo to insolvency, ho nay, during the period of suspension, apply for revocation of the suspension upon satis¬ factory showirig to tho Secretary that he is solvent. D-138 Respondent given right to apply for revocation of suspension upon shewing of solvency. D-139; D-144 521 REGISTRATION III Revocation of Suspension of The suspension of registration of respondent as a market agency for one year having been ordered by the Secretary on the 8th day of June, 1926, and it appearing to the Secretary on the 18th day of December, 1925, that the purposes intended to be accomplished by the Act will be fully subserved by permitting respondent to resume his business as a market agency if only the cease and desist order made at the same time be kept effective, the Secretary ordered that the order of suspension be revoked and terminated as of the 18th day of December, 1926, D-154 Ordered by the Secretary that respondent’s suspension from operations as a market agency be revoked, respondent having executed and filed with the Administration a reasonable per¬ formance bond to cover his transactions as a market agency^ said order of suspension previously made, however, to continue in full force and effect with respect to the operaations of respondent as a dealer. D-172 Order of suspension of registration of dealer revoked upon the dealer’s furnishing a performance bond in the sum required by the Act and regulations thereunder, and filing a fully-executed duplicate•thereof with the Packers and Stockyards Administration at Washington, D a C. D-186j D-315* D-316; D-565 It appearing to tho Secretary that the purposes intended to be accomplished by the previous order of suspension for boycott activities will be fully observed if, without modifying the previous cease and desist order, said order of suspension be revoked, tho Secretary ordered that effective on and after December 15, 1932, the order of suspension be revoked but thait the coa.se and desist order remain in full force and effect. D-246 The Secretmy revoked his previous order of suspension ma.de upon the respondent’s admission of the truth of the allegations set forth in the inquiry and notice and waiver of hearing, when it appeared to the Secretary tha.t a. hearing should, nevertheless, be held. D-327 522 REGISTRATION III Revocation of Suspension of It appearing to the Secretary that respondent market agency has now arranged to have his business cleared through another registrant, which has been found acceptable to the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, the Secretary ordered the previous order of suspension revoked; the remainder of said former order to remain in full force and effect. D-401 It appearing to the satisfaction of the Secretary that respond¬ ent market agency and dealer has arranged a. satisfactory method of securing his obligations incurred as a dealer, by agreeing to clear his goods under the bond of another, the Secretary order that effective at once the previous order of suspension be revoked and terminated. D-414 The Department having been officially advised that the respondent market agency and dealer has furnished Svppropriate bond coverage in the form of clearing service from another livestock commission company, and has requested tha.t the order of suspension bo revoked by reason thereof, the Secretary ordered the previous order of suspension revoked. D-434 The respondent market agencies having now furnished satisfactory proof that all outstanding claims presented for payment have been discharged through a trustee, and that there is sufficient money in the hands of the trustee to take care of any outstanding claims not yet presented, the Secretary ordered the previous suspension order revoked. D-446 523 REGISTRATION III 9 Revocation of Suspension of It appearing upon petition from respondent that if the Secretary's prior order of suspension becomes effective it will destroy the business of respondent, that respondent will find it difficult to establish himself in any other line of business, that if suspended from business it will bo necessary for respondent to discharge employees who are now dependent upon it for livelihood, that the respondent now understands the requirements of the Act and will henceforth observe them, and that respondent will make restitution to the producers of livestock who wore damaged and to whom reparation was ordered in said prior order, and satis¬ factory evidence having been produced showing that the respondent has complied fully with the order of reparation, the Secretary ordered the order of suspension revoked, to be restored upon thirty days’ notice without further herring if respondent should fail to comply vdth any other condition of the order, said order to become effective when respondent has agreed in writing to the entry thereof upon the conditions therein named, and a copy of the consent has been transmitted to the Secretary. D-464 Order of suspension of registration of market agency and dealer revoked when it appeared to the Secretary that it had furnished a satisfactory performance bond in compliance with the previous order. D-522 It appearing to the Secretary'that the respondent has made arrangements to pay cash or give a certified check for livestock purchased at the Springfield Sales Company Stockyards, Spring- field, Ohio, and desires that the order of suspension be modified so as to permit the respondent to make purchases by paying cash or giving a certified check, the Secretary ordered that the previous order be amended by revoking that part of it prohibiting the respondent from doing business as a dealer at said stockyards without a bond, provided that all purchases of livestock made by the respondent shall be paid for in cash or by certified check. D-535 * 524 % REGISTRATION III Revocation of Suspension of It appearing to the Secretary that the respondent market agency is now clearing his business through another market agency, which is satisfactory, the Secretary ordered that his previous order of suspension be modified so as to permit the respondent to engage in business again, the remainder of the previous order to remain in full force and effect. D-540; D-556 The respondent having submitted statements showing that he has paid or can pay all outstanding obligations, and now has his business operations cleared by a duly-registered market agency, the Secretary ordered that the previous order of suspension be revoked. D-548 Respondent having furnished sa.tisfactory proof of its present solvency and having applied for a revocation of the Secretary’s previous suspension order, the Secretary ordered that the suspension of the registration of respondent as a market agency bo revoked, effective from the dato of tho order. D-G02 Tho respondent dealer having made a satisfactory showing before tho Secretary that arrangements made for clearing its business will enable it to meet its obligations incurred in tho regular course of business, the Secretary ordered the previous order of suspension revoked. T-1039 525 REMITTANCES III Bad Checks Market agency which remitted to owners and consignors by checks which Y7oro not honored when presented to the bank for payment, because of insufficient funds in the name of respondent firm, •violated Title III of the Act and Rule 24 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, D-58; D-149 Prior to Sale of Livestock Market agency which honored drafts by remitting from its shippers’ proceeds account prior to the tine the livestock, payment for which the remittances were made, was sold by it as a market agency viola.tod Title III of the Act by paying drafts out of the shippers ’ proceeds a.ccount, drawn by persons who had no interest in the account at the time the drafts were drawn, there¬ by jeopardizing prompt payments of proceeds belonging to shippers who had an interest in the account and whoso livestock had been sold by it. P-514 A market agency violates Title III of the Act by using funds from the shippers’ proceeds account to cash drafts in advance of its having received payment for ca.ttle shipped to it for sale. D-1181 A market agency who pays, from the shippers ’ proceeds a.ccount, drafts drawn upon him by a. country dealer, before the cattle purchased has boon sold, makes such use and disposition of the proceeds as to endanger the prompt and faithful accounting to other owners for the sale of their livestock, in violation of the Act. D-1187 526 REMITTANCES III Refusal to Make in Full Market agency violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the Rules end Regulations thereunder by rendering accounts sale to owners and consignors which stated that the livestock was sold for less than the amount the purchaser paid therefor, remitting on the basis of the accounts sale so rendered# D-49; D-50; D-54; D-60; D-62; D-67; D-69 Yilhen a market agency rendered an account sale showing that 24 heifers wore sold at $4#90 per cwt., and did not stale the name of the purchaser thereof, while, in fa.ct, the heifers were sold at $5 per cwt* to the market agency itself, the market agency violated the Act by not remitting the entire proceeds of sale and by failing to disclose the true purchaser# D-118 Market agency and dealer suspended from business as a market agency for having engaged in unfair end unjustly discriminatory practices and devices resulting in under-remittances of shippers’ proceeds to • oven or s of livestock, and for having failed to keep proper account books# D-389 r Supplemental Payments to Correct Previous Errors, Effect of Respondents violated Title III of the Act and Rules 11 and 17 of the General Rules and Regulations thereunder, by submitting to the owners or consignors of livestock incorrect and untrue written accounts sale and remitting the proceeds of the sales in e„cc or dance with the incorrect and untrue account sales even though, at a later date, the respondents changed their records so a.s to correctly show the facts, and remitted the balance- of the proceeds to the owners or consignors, tho testimony indicating that the respondents knowingly made and issued the false and misleading accounts sale, and there being no evidence to indicate that 11 of the 22 supplemental remittances ever reached the hands of the owners or consignors but were forwarded to thoir manager by check or by cash# •• D-*47 527 REMITTANCES III Supplemental Paynonts to Correct Previous Errors, Effect of Market agency which rendered an account sale to an owner or con- signor showing the sale of 7 live hogs at $10 per cwt. end one dead hog at 2567.92 to Hank Bros. & Ratcliff, purchasing agents for Thomas Gass, violated Title III of the Act. D-134 Market agency having been found to be insolvent by the Secretary, and its registration as a market agency having been suspended for six months, the decision of the Secretary with respect to the allegations of respondent’s unfair practice in remitting pro¬ ceeds of cattle sales to a registered dealer when, in fact, such sums should have been remitted to said dealer’s clearing agency, was held in abeyance. D-150 Market agency who knew the names of the shippers and the respective amounts of shippers ’ proceeds due them from the sale of livestock but did not remit such proceeds to the shippers direct, but remitted to a trucking company employed by the shippers to transport the livestock to the market, made such remittances to the trucking company at its own peril, the evidence indicating that the trucking company was not acting as the manager of the shippers and was never authorized by the shippers, either directly or by their actions, to collect pay¬ ment from the agency for end on behalf of the shippers. D-566 Under the general law, the duty of making remittance to shippers for the sale of livestock rests upon the market agency. It has the option of several methods of making remittances to shippers. If it chose ,its own agent as a medium for making such remittances, it is liable to the shippers if the agent fails to make the remittances, end the fact that the shippers, on previous coca- sions, received and cashed checks from the agent was not persuasive that they had ratified that method of the market agency in making payment to the extent that the market agency would be relieved from liability if the agent of the market agency should fail to moke the remittances. D-566 529 REMITTANCES III Withholding or Delaying Market agency violated Title III of the Act by collecting the net proceeds of the sale of livestock and unduly delaying in remitting such proceeds to the ovjncr or consignor or by- failing to remit such proceeds at all• D-98 Respondent market agency who made various purchases for and on behalf of various principals end who impliedly agreoi, at the time of making the purchases, to peiy the market agencies from whom the purchases were made the agreed purchase price in the usual course of business but did not, at the time of making such agreement, intend to pay for the same but intended merely to obtain possession of such livestock and.use the proceeds of its pur chan or principals a«.s a "set-off” against indebtedness alleged to bo owing to respondent by the market agencies with whom the implied agreement was made, well knowing at the tine that the livestock so purchased was largely the property of various shippers and not the property of the market a.gencics, violated Title III of the Act by using an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device in connection with the buying and'handling of livestock in commerce. D-180 The respondent’s action, in withholding the proceeds of the sale of cattle for approximately four days, did not constitute a violation of the Act upon which a claim for reparation could bo based, it being due to an erroneous interpretation of the law and not having been done for the purpose or with the intent of causing any loss to the shipper. D-193 The failure of the market agency to include the freight refund in the account sale did not constitute a. violation of the Act, it being due to the fact that the refund wa.s not received until after the account sale had been made out; it being shown, further, that the complainant sustained no loss by reason thereof. D-193 530 REMITTANCES III Withholding or Delaying Respondent market agency which withhold remittance to the ovmer of the net proceeds of the sale of cattle and attempted to apply such proceeds, in good faith, under advice of counsel, on the adjustment of a debt allegedly due the purchaser, of which re¬ spondent was a partner, from the owner on a-previous transaction involving a shipment of hogs infected with cholera, did not violate the Act by engaging in or using an unfair or unjust device in connection with the buying or selling of livestock in commerce. D-245 Respondent market agency who engaged in the practice of not promptly accounting for,and paying to shippers the proceeds of sales of livestock, but diverted the shipper*s proceeds to his own use and to the payment of persons for livestock which had boon sold or shipped by or to the respondent but who were not then entitled to bo paid from said shipper’s proceeds account, thereby endangering the account and lessening the capacity of the respondent to make prompt accounts and•payment to the shippers of its livestock, violated Title III of the Act. D-287 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by engaging in the unjust end deceptive practice and device of using shippers’ proceeds for the payment of obligations other than the obliga¬ tions which should have been discharged by the particular funds, and withholding remittances to the shippers or owners who should have ..received them. D-282 Respondent market agency violated Title III of the Act by using trust funds, in its possession and control as a. market agency and trustee for various shippers, in such manner as to render the respondent unable to promptly account for and pay to its shippers the proceeds of sales of livestock made by it and on behalf of its shippers, and by diverting such funds to its own use and to the payment of persons for livestock other than the persons to whom the- proceeds actually belonged. D-350 Market agency violated the Act by failing to remit shippers' proceeds from the sale of horses in the usual course of business. D-360 531 REMITTANCES Withholding or Delaying Market agency -violated the Act by withholding shippers ’ proceeds received fron the salo of livestock in the course of his business and- diverting such proceeds to his ova use and account, thereby endangering the shippers ’ proceeds account and impairing the capacity of respondent to make prompt accounting and payments to his shippers of livestock. D-388 Respondent dealer who arranged to clear his transactions as a dealer through another and then failed to remit to his clearing agent - "the proceeds fron six cows which ho had sold or disposed of, payment for which his clearing agent had guaranteed and had actually made, violated Title III of the Act. D-408 Respondent market agency was found by the Secretary to be violatin the Act by refusing to remit for livestock purchased in its name by a field salesmen, the evidence showing that respondent know that the salesman was traveling through the country and drawing drafts for the purchase price of cattle on respondent; that all prior drafts, with the exception of one, were honored by respond¬ ent; that an arrangement had been entered into between respondent and the salesman whorobv the salesman was permitted to draw drafts v i. on respondent for the payment of cattle purchased in the country, and also drafts for the personal expenses of the salesmen, and that the books of respondent showed that, with the exception of one day, the salesman had credit on the respondent’s books. D-516 The Secretary concluded that the respondent market agency had not engaged in an unjust practice in violation of Section 307, or an unfair practice in violation of Section 312 of tho Act, as amended, by failing and refusing to' pay over to tlio complainant tho proceeds from the sale of livestock which the complainant contended had been stolon from him; the evidence showing that tho market agency had no actual knowledge or constructive notice that the cattle had been stolen, had in good faith paid the proceeds from tho sa.le of tho cattle over to tho thief, and that there was no record made at the hearing that the cattle sold by the market .agency were the identical cattle stolen fron the c omp 1 ai n an t s . D-949 REMITTANCES III Withholding or Doleying. Tho withholding of shippers’ proceeds from the sc.lo of livestock for periods of from seven davs to fortv-eight dnvs before remitting tho proceeds to the shippers jeopardizes tho market agency’s ability to make prompt and faithful accounting to shippers, and is condemned by tho Act and rules raid regulations promulgated thereunder, D-1117 533 REPARATION III '/'/lien the complainant for reparation fails to establish any violation of the Act by the defendant, the complaint for reparation should bo dismissed. D-1276 TJhon the complainant for reparation fails to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant has violated the Packers and Stockyards Act, the complaint is dismissed* D-1276 534 REPARATION III Against a Non-Registrant ■Where partners constitute a market agency and one partner Is registered under the Packers and Stockyards A_ct but the other partner is not, an award for reparation may be made against the one who is registered under the Act, but not against the one not so registered* D-1131 Assignment of Claim for The cla.im for reparation against the defendant market agency for shippers’ proceeds, allegedly due various shippers,* was filed with the Secretary of Agriculture by the Midland Pro¬ tection Credit Association, assignee of the claims of various owners, which association has a pecuniary interest in the transactions involving the respondent in that it held notes of some of the parties who had obtained loans from the associ¬ ation upon mortgages given on the livestock in question. D-464 Attorney’s Fees Section 308(a) of Title III of the Act, as amended, which provides that ”if any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer violates any of the provisions of Sections 304, 305, 306, or 307 *** he shall bo liable to the person or persons injured thereby.for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation”, should not be interpreted to allow attorney’s fees as a part of a reparation award, since such attorney’s foes would have to be considered as ”dcmagcs sustained in consequence” of violations of , the provisions of Sections 304, 305, 306, or 307 of the Act, and such interpretation would amount to a doubt¬ ful end unprecedented extension of the meaning of Section 308(a), Soe Meeker v. Lehigh V alley k. R . Co,, 236 b. S. 412, D-1159 As a general rule, in the absence of a specific statute authoriz¬ ing then, attorney’s foes arc not recoverable as an item of damages, . D-1159 535 REPARATION III Cause of Action for The charge that the complainant was forced to assign his claim against respondent market agency to an attorney for collection does not, under the circumstances shomi in the case that the proceeds were being held because of an erroneous interpretation of the law and not for the purpose or intent of causing any loss to the shipper, set forth a cause of action under the Act, D-193 The charge that one of respondent’s telegrams to the mortgagee was broa.de as ted by the mortgagee in complainant's home town, causing complainant financial loss and injuring his reputation for honesty, docs not state a cause of action for reparation under the Act, raid need not" be considered, D-193 The substance of Sections 304, 305, 306, and 307 of the Act is to regulable stockyard services rendered by stockyard and market agencies and to require the establishment and maintenance of just, fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory charges, rates, and practices, v/hilo Section 312 of the stc.tutc covers their transactions genersilv in the buvin and sollin • of livestock. For a. violation of Section 312, no a.ction for reparation can bo maintained except where such violation also constitutes a. violation of some prior order of the Secretary issued under Title III. " 1 D-288 Under the statute, reparation ’c ta.ry for damages resulting to a. violation of some one of the pr 306, and 307, or of some order Title III. an only be awarded by the Sccro- . complainant from defendants’ ovisions of Sections 304, 305, of the Secretary issued under D-288 ■When the complainant for reparc propondcronce of the evidence, the Packers and Stockyards x,ct, t’ion fat Is to establish, by a. that the defendant has violated the complaint is dismissed. D-1276 .11011 the conplainant' for reparation fat Is to establish any violation of the Act by the defendant, the complaint for reparation should bo dismissed. P V r» boo D-1276 REPARATION III Civil Action for The mere fact that a market agency brings an action for damages in a local court against a stockyards company for violation of the Packers and' Stockyards Act, instead of filing a complaint for reparation with the Secretary of Agriculture as provided by the Act, does not constitute a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act on the part of the market agency. Bringing a suit for damages before the wrong tribunal is not a violation of the Act. W . D-1186 & 1193 For Breach of Contract The evidence at the hearing showing that the complainant and defendants entered into a. contract i/hereby the defendants agreed to purchase 25 steers from the complainant on July 15, 1930, at 12/ per pound and that complainant was to fatten said steers for tho market between October 18, 1929, end July 15, 1930; the evidence further showing that the defendants delayed J O d acceptance of tho steers on July 15, 1930, and definitely refused to accept delivery of them on November 10, 1930, a.t which time the complainant sold them on the market, sustaining a loss of ,j>l,024.85; and the preponderance of the evidence further showing, that tho complainant did execute his part of tho agreement by fattening the steers in accordance therewith; tho Secretary found that the complainant had boon damaged in the sum of hi,024.85 and ordered the defendants to pay such . sun an reparation on or before May 1, 1931. D-342 Upon the respondent’s brea.ch of agreement to soil the livestock in accordance with the terms arranged between the respondent’s agent and the owner of the livestock, the owner was entitled to receive the livestock in the same condition as when they wore sold, and, as this was impossible due to shrinkage, he was entitled to place them on feed and bring thorn back to their normad condition, which he did. D-523 REPARATION III For Breach of Contract Complainant who testified that the respondent. Farriers Union Live¬ stock Commission, Inc., sold him 63 head of cattle weighing 46,940 pounds, but foiled and refused to deliver the cattle pursuant to the sale agreement, and who. claimed damages at 25/ a hundred on the total weight of the cattle, and who testified further, "I figured I could get that much advance on these cattle if I took them down to nv alley end resold them again, which I- do with all cattle I buy. I don’t say I always get that amount of profit, but I believe I should have done it on these cattle", held bv p u the Secretary to be not entitled to damages, the damages, if any, being too speculative. D-524 complaint for rcpr.ration for the t of a dr ait drawn by the complainant The question, in the ca.sc of payment of the fane amoun upon the respondents for ca.ttle purchased by the agent of the respondents, of the liability of the a.gcnt to the principa.1 for the difference between the fa.ee amount of the draft and the amount of the shippers 1 proceeds actually ror.itted, cannot be decided when the solo question in the-case is whether the principal is liable to the complainants upon agreed contract* D-548 Respondent market agency who entered into a written agreement with the complainant to purchase livestock under certain terns and at a. certain price was not permitted to object to making the full payment of the contract price of the livestock to the complainant on .the ground that the complainant f s scales over weighed the cattle by 75,000 pounds, the evidence,shoving that the first throe hundred head of the ca.ttle were underweighod with the knowledge of the respondent and without objection by the complainant, and that it was within the power of the respondent to produce the proper weights of tho cattle from other scales and he failed and refused to do so, Tho Secretary allowed the complainant reparation for the full amount of tho contract based on the original rights, which included the 75,000 pounds in dispute. D-754 538 REPARATION III For Breach of Contract .The sale price of livestock approximately one year after the breach of contract for the purchase thereof does not serve as a proper basis upon which to predicate an award of damages in a proceedings for reparation. D-1109 In a proceedings for reparation for the failure of the respondent market agency to take delivery of cattle purchased by a country agent of the market agency, the complainant introduced evidence with respect to the cost of feed and pasture and labor involved in caning for cattle for one yean after the breach of contract before they were sold, and introduced evidence of the price for which they and their increase were sold a year later. The Secretary held that the complainant had failed to establish a proper basis for determining damages, and he awarded the com¬ plainant nominal damages of ,;|il. D-1109 The respondent market agency was hold liable by the Secretary for the difference between the contract price agreed upon between country buyer agent of the respondent and the shipper and the amount received by the shipper when he sold the sheep, which were the subject of the agreement, after the refusal of the respondent to take delivery thereof, the evidence indicating that, although the respondent had wired the country buyer not to purchase the sheep, that knowledge had not boon reported to the shipper, D-llol The Secretary awarded reparation to the complainant shipper of livestock for the face amount of a draft drawn by the complain¬ ant upon the respondent market agency covering livestock purchased by the authorized agent of the respondent, together with interest at 6 % per annum from tho date of dishonoring of the draft, D-1200 539 REPARATION III For Failure to Pay The respondent’s action in withholding the proceeds of the sale of cattle for approximately four days did not constitute a ■violation of the Act upon which a claim for reparation could he based, it being due to an erroneous interpretation of the law and not having been done for the purpose or with the intent of causing any loss to the shipper. D-193. It appearing to the Secretary that settlement had been made in full by respondent market agency to complainant in reparation proceedings for the alleged failure to remit the proceeds from the sale of one steer, the Secretary ordered the complaint • dismissed, ' D—373 Respondent market agency was under no obligation to remit the shipper’s proceeds from the sale of three cars of livestock to the complainant creditor of the owner of the cattle, or to honor the draft of the complainant, the evidence showing that respondent properly remitted to the owner and that the cattle were not partnership property of respondent and owner. Com- plainant, therefore, was not entitled to reparation from respondent. D-411 The respondent market agency was ordered by tho Secretary to make reparation to shippers or to the assignee of shippers in the amount representing the difference between the face amount of drafts drawn by respondent’s country buyers upon respondent for the sale of livestock and the amount of shippers’ proceeds actually remitted by the respondent to tho shippers, it appearing from tho evidence that; the respondent’s actions were such that he was estopped from denying liability for the actions of the country buyers. D-434 It appearing from the evidence that; the country buyer had not exceeded his apparent authority to draw drafts upon the respond¬ ent for the payment of livestock, the Secretary ordered the respondent market agency to moke reparation to the shippers or sellers of the livestock for the difference between the face amount of the drafts and the shippers’ proceeds from the sale of tho livestock which had theretofore be on sent to tho shippers or sellers by the respondent. D-475 540 REPARATION III For 'Failure to Pay It appearing that prior to the hearing the respondent market agency had satisfied the complainant’s request for reparation in the amount of f‘212.25 alleged to be due from the sale of nine buffaloes, in addition to the amount theretofore remitted by respondent, the Secretary ordered the inquiry dismissed without prejudice. D-511 Market agency ordered by the Secretary to remit the sum of t47.50 with interest at 6/o until paid to the ower of live¬ stock purchased by a field salesman under circumstances and. conditions leading the owner to believe that the salesman was the agent of respondent; the interest to.run from the date the salesman made the transaction with the owner. D-516 m the difforonce Reparation in the sum of 0507.05, representing between the face amount of a dishonored draft end the proceeds of the seJLe of cattle^ with interest thereon at the rate of 6 % per annum from the dato the draft was drawn upon respondent, was awarded to the complainant, it appearing from the evidence that the respondent agreed by wire to accept the draft. D-548 ng that the complcin- Thc evidence introduced at the hearing showing ant delivered a bull weighing about 1,600 pounds to a trucker, that the trucker delivered the animal to the Union Stock Yards in Chicago end notified the Standard Livestock Commission Company that the animal was consigned to respondents, that the respond¬ ents had instructed the Union Stock Yards Company to deliver oil cattle received by it consigned to them to the Standard Livestock Commission Company, that the Standard Livestock Commission Company sold, the bull upon its arrival but never remitted the proceeds thereof to the respondents, and that the respondents therefor never accounted to the complainant for the bull, the Secretary ordered the respondent to make reparcation to the • complainant for the full amount of the proceeds from the sale of the animal even though tho respondent did not receive the proceeds from tho Standard Livestock Commission Company. D-7S7 * 541 REPARATION III For Failure to Pav K! The complaint for reparation, for the alleged failure on the part of the respondent market agency to fully account for the net proceeds from the sale of one cot/, was • dismissed by the Secretary, the evidence of the respondent indicating that the got/, upon delivery at the stockyards, //as tagged as a suspect by the State inspector, later condemned by a Federal inspector, and sold at the customary price paid for condemned cattle, end the evidence of the complainant having* failed to disprove the defense. D-7S6 The defendant market agency having made reparation in full, with interest, to the complainant for cattle owned by the complainant and sold by the defendant, but for which the defendant remitted to a third party who had stolen the cattle, the Secretary ordered that the complaint for reparation be dismissed. D-895 Dealer who sold livestock but failed to render cm account of the transaction to its clearing agent was ordered to make reparation to the clearing agent for the amount of the transaction, together with interest at the rate of o% per annum from the tine the transaction should have been reported. D-912 The respondent market a.gency having remitted the full amount of the draft drawn by an agent to the shipper of livestock after the date of the order of inquiry end complaint for reparation for failure to make such remittance, the Secretary was not required to make an order of reparation, D-927 It appearing that after the institution of the order of inquiry to determine if tho respondent market agency had unlawfully failed to remit the proceeds from tho sale of one sow tho respondent made full reparation for tho amount claimed by tho complainant to bo duo, and there was no longer a public interest involved, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed. D-977 542 REPARATION III \ For Failure to Pay It appearing that the respondent market agency has submitted a statement shelving payment in full to the complainant for reparation, and that the delay in settling the accounts was due to the "conflicting circumstances end statements in the case which have now been cleared up to the satisfaction of both parties concerned , and that the complainant is satisfied, the Secretary ordered the complaint for reparation dismissed, D-1042 The complainant livestock owner was awarded reparation against the respondent market agency in the amount of the difference between a. partial remittance made by the market agency to the shipper and the face amount of a personal check given by a country buyer to the shipper for the payment of the livestock but returned for insufficient funds, the evidence shoving that the country buyer was acting as the agent of the market agency in the purcha.se of the cattle. Complainant's attorney's foes and expenses of transportation, meals, etc,, were not permitted to be included in the award. D-1159 It appearing from the evidence that the balance of the purchase price of the sale of livestock, for which the complaint for reparation'had boon filed, hard been paid by the respondent according to tho terms of a settlorient about three weeks prior to the hearing in the ca.so, the Secretary dismissed the reparation feature of tho case, D-1182 v Complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the defendant market agency to honor a. draft in payment of a. carload of live¬ stock dismissed, the evidence showing that the defendant agreed to honor a draft onlv in the event the draft was not more than $1200 and the cattle wore heavy corn-fed cows, the evidence further shoving that the cattle received were not of the type ordered by the defendant, that the coniplainaj.it had no rca.son to assume that the particular draft would bo honored from any statement, made by the defendant, and that the complainant knew tho reputation of the person who represented to him that tho draft would bo paid by tho defendant to be bad # D-1276 543 REPARATION III t ♦ For Failure to Render Reasonable Service The evidence failing to show that the complainant sustained any damages by reason of the failure of the defendant to weigh complainant 1 s livestock, it appearing that the defendant did not refuse to weigh the livestock and did not refuse to issue a scale ticket therefor, but failed to do so upon erroneous belief that the firm of complainant did not exist, the Secretary ordered the complaint for reparation dismissed. D-286 Under the circumstances in the co.se, the evidence showing that the ostrays wore kept seven or eight days in the custody of the stockyards company, during which time they lost considerable weight end one steer died, the failure of the stockyards co ipony to dispose of the steers as ostrays constituted a failure on the part of the respondent, stockyards to render reasonable stockyard services, rendering it liable to respond to a timely claim for reparation. D-461 Evidence that the driver of a truck unloaded steers at the proper unloading chuto at the stockyards end delivered the steers some men at the unloading dock whoso names were not known to the driver but that the stockyards company did not know who took delivery of the animals was sufficient to show a failure on the part of the respondent stockyards to render reasonable stockyards services, the stockyards company being remiss in its duty to shippers to permit any hangers-on to frequent tho unloading docks, and not giving its authorized employees some badge indicative of their authority to receive livestock. D-461 The respondent market agency failed to render a reasonable service when it foiled through its employee to obtain the name of tho owner of tho cattle in c. telephone conversation originated by the owner when attempting to locate his livestock, and also failed during such conversation to obtain such r. description of the cattle as would cno.ble him to properly describe then and obtain their custody from the stockyards company. D-461 544 REPARATION III For Failure to Render Reasonable Service The respondents stockyards company and market agency having been equally negligent in taking steps to properly identify the complainant’s cattle, and having equally failed to render a reasonable stockyards service, are equally responsible for the loss of one steer due to its death at the stockyards, and are morally and legally bound to make the loss good to the complainant, but, since the complainant failed to make timely claim for damages, in accordance with the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the respondents are not compelled to make reparation. D-461 The complainant having failed to sustain the burden of proof that the respondent market agency did not obtain a fair price for the cattle in question and thereby failed to render reasonable stockyard service,- the Secretary ordered that the complaint for reparation bo dismissed. D-1143 The Secretary ordered that the complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the respondent stockyards company to render reasonable stockyard services to the complainant be dismissed, the evidence showing that, at the time the sheep arrived at the stockyard end for two or throe days following, tho thermometer was 25 to 35 degrees above zero and part of this time it was raining or snowing, end the respondent worked twenty-four hours a day to keep the sheep properly housed, watered, and fed, end that the only time the sheep were not watered was when for a short while the faucets to the water pipes were frozen and water did not run until an employee of the respondent used a blow-torch to break the freezing; tho evidence further showing that, even though the sheep had lost a few pounds in weight, they woro being sold for breed owes by the head and that a difference of a few pounds in weight would have little or no effect upon the price paid. D-1163 545 REPARATION III For Failure to Render Reasonable Service The defendant stockyards company cannot be held responsible for the loss of one calf within its stockyards, where the evidence shows that the calf was lost during the movement of complain- ant’s cattle to pens of its own selection, without checking the number of animals and without defendant having knowledge of the number of cattle, or having accepted custody of the animals in the usual manner* D-1230 For Transportation, Fare, Meals, and Expenses of Prosecution An award for reparation should not include such items as train transportation, fare, streetcar fare, automobile trips, meals, and the cost of a Pullman berth, since the evidence showed that exhibit received in evidence as proof of such expenditures was ■without identification or other explanatory testimony by the witness as to the expenditure of the items or the reasonableness thereof. D-1159 For Unfair Practice A preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing having indicated that certain dead livestock were not improperly weighed by the defendant market agency and that the defendant did remit to the complainant for the full amount of the weights an shown by the scales, the Secretary ordered that the complaint for reparation, for the alleged failure of the defendant to properly remit for the gross weight of certain dead livestock sold, and the inquiry in the case be dismissed. D-8S9 546 REPARATION III For Unfair Practice A complainant who bases his right to recovery for alleged improper weighing of cattle on the ground that the steers in question wore fed for approximately 120 days, during most of that time upon corn and molasses, end that they had all they could eat and should have made substantial gains, did not sufficiently sustain the burden of proof to permit recovery, the actual evidence of the defendant indicating that the steers were weighed by an experienced weighmaster of a stockyards company on a scale which was periodically checked for accuracy, and that the actual weight did not show such substantial gain. D-1224 For Unreasonable Rate or Charge The complaint for reparation, filed by the dealer at the respond¬ ent stockyonds company for alleged discrimination against him in the charging by the respondent of one-half the regular yarda-ge- charges upon livestock "planted and resold" in the commission division of the stockyards, was dismissed by the Secretary, inasmuch as the evidence adduced at the hearing was insufficient to entitle the complainant to an award of dama.gcs. D-6 The complainants for reparation for the payment of alleged discriminatory reweigh charges ma.de by the respondent stockyards company heaving failed to prove with reasonable certainty that the reweigh charges were paid by them end not passed on to the next purchaser, end, hence, that they suffered damage, the Secretary ordered that the complaint for roparc.tion on c.ccount of the alleged discriminc.tion bo dismissed. D-7 The Secretary found that the facts produced in the proceeding failed to prove that the reweigh charges complained of \rc re unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory and that, therefore, complainant was not entitled to an award for reparation, D-208 547 replication III m For Unreasonable Rato or Charge Before complainant is entitled to payment for reparation for unroasono.ble change for brand inspection service, complainant must comply adth Regulation 19 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Act. D-278 Limiteetion of Time to Seek The complednt should have contained an averment shovdng clearly that the payments for which reparation was asked were made Yd.thin ninety days preceding the filing of the complaint; how¬ ever, since the record shows that such omission did not, in this proceeding, operate to the prejudice of respondent, end the allegations of the emended complaint arc sufficiently definite end certain to inform respondent that the re weigh charges specified in its Supplemental Humber II to Schedule No. II, on file with the Secretary, arc attacked as violo.tivc of the Act and allegedly discriminatory in that whi 1 e applying to "butcher stuff" they do not apply to "livestock going to the country", and the amended complaint further informs respond¬ ent that complainant claims reparation of the o.ggr egeotod amount of the reweigh charges pedd by him, the contention of respondent that the mc.ttcr is not properly before the Secretary is without merit. D-208 The Packers and Stockyards Act does not authorize the Secretary to make and issue an award of demerges unless the petition by the complainant is filed with the Secret any within ninety days from the date the cause of auction accrues. D-949; D-981 The filing of an informal complaint with the Depa.rtmcnt on or Cvbout October 1, 1937, for reparation for the soic of cattle on August 23, 1937, was sufficient to bring the complainant vdthin the statute for the filing of claims for reparation* D-1043 548 reparation III Measure of Damages i The Secretary awarded "135.10 as reparation to complainant for respondent’s unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory practice of erroneously delivering complainants hogs to other packers, $17.55 of the sum awarded representing the difference in price complainant was compelled to pay in replacing the hogs, end $17.55 representing loss by rce.son of the difference in the gra-de of the hogs. D-97 In connection with the existing mode end system of respondent in delivering hogs to purchasers thereof, a practice has grown up end obtained at respondent’s stockyards under which the owner of hogs erroneously delivered to another packer obtains settlement from the other packer at the price paid for them by the owner. Under this custom, when the market goes down the owner melees the difference in the rcplmoment cost, and when the market goes up he loses the difference in the replacement cost. D-97 Defendants ordered by the Secretary to pay complainant, an reparation for breach of contract to accept delivery of steers, the difference between the price agreed in the contract and the actual price for which the complainant was compelled to sell the steers. D-342 The Secretory ordered the respondent to pay the complainant the sun of .>463,95 with interest cat 6/ 0 per annum from the da.tc of the dishonoring of the draft upon respondent, such sum being the difference between the face amount of the draft drawn by the country buyer upon the respondent and the proceeds remitted by the respondent to the shipper for the sale of the livestock in question. D-474 In a case for reparation, wvhere the respondent breached its agreement to sell livestock end the owner wras required to take a rodclivcry of the livestock, the owner wras entitled to the cost of placing the animals back to the condition wrhich they wrere in when the e.grocment to sell was consummated, end the respondent cannot be heend to complain that the owner vras not damaged becanso the owner lastur sold the cattle a.t higher market prices. D-523 549 REPARATION III Measure of Damages Reparation for breach of contract cannot be based upon speculation. D-524 Reparation in the sun of :|507.05, representing the difference between the face anount of a dishonored draft end the proceeds of the sale of cattle, with interest thereon at the rate of S/o per ounum fron the date the draft was drawn upon respondent, was awarded to the complainant, it appearing fron the evidence that the respondent agreed by wire to accept the draft. D-548 Respondent market agency who hold out an individual to be its lawful agent to purchase cattle for it, end permitted the individ¬ ual to draw drafts upon the respondent for the payment of cattle, was held to bo liable for the payment of the face amount of the drafts, end the Secretary ordered reparation to be paid to the shippers of livestock purchased by the agent under color of authority from the respondent, in the amount of the difference between the face amount of the droits drawn by the o.gent upon the respondent end the actual amount of the shippers’ proceeds remitted to the shippers by the respondent. D-570 The true measure of dono.gcs suffered by one who is fraudulently induced to make ci. contract of sale, purchase, or exchange of property is the difference between the cntual value of thc,t which ho pants with and the actual value of that ‘which he receives under the contract. It is the loss which ho has sustained and not the profits which ho nay have made by the transaction. It excludes ail speculation and is limited to compensation. (Siga.fus v. Porter, 17S U. S. 116; Smith v. Bollos , 932 TJ 0 STT25T7 D-754 “When a. manket a.gcncy is liable to a shipper for the full vriuc of the cc.ttle shipped for having appropriated the proceeds from the saie of the cattle to extinguish an indebtedness due the market a.gcncy from a. country buyer, and the cattle have been slaughtered, and it appears fron the record that the judgment of the country buyer with respect to the value of cattle frequently ha.s been erroneous, the value of the cattle may bo considered to be the sole price realized by the manket agency at the public manket, it having appeared that several potential customers were present to bid on the cattle and that the price obtained was the highest competitive bid. P-1043 550 REPARATION III Measure of Damages The sale of livestock approximately one year after the breach of contract for the purchase thereof does not serve as a proper basis upon which to predicate an award of damages in a proceed¬ ings for reparation. D-1109 The complainant livestock owner ’-'as awarded reparation against the resoondent market agency in the amount of the difference between a partial renittance made by the market agency to the shipper and the face amount of a. personal check given by a. country buyer to the shipper for the payment of the livestock but returned for insufficient funds, the evidence shoving that the country buyer was acting as the agent of the market agency in the purchase of the ca.ttlo. Complainant’s attorney’s fees and expenses of transportation, meals, etc., were not poredtted to bo included in the award. D-1159 Trucking Charges It not only being the custom of market agencies to pay truckers for transporting cattle to market, the respondent market agency was, in this case, responsible for the trucker’s charges because of the contract ma.de between the trucker and the agent of the respondent whereby the agent agreed that the respondent would pa.y the trucking changes. ' D-523 551 RES AD JUDICATA III The Secretary’s order finding certain roweighing charges of the respondent stockyards company discriminatory did not dispose of the issue and prayer for reparation, which was he end during the sane proceedings but upon which no order was ,ia.de. The order ne.de by the Secretary kept the docket open raid, later, proceedings were conducted thereunder. The Secretary’s previous order was merely' a direction to the respondent company to remove the discrimination in its tariff• D-7 No order to cease end desist should bo issued in the present ease with respect to those questions involved therein which were disposed of in a prior docketj to wit: D-38. D-92 A rate order is not res adjudicata. D-344; D-385; D-435 d/hilo, under Section 309(f) of the Act, ’’the findings and orders of the Secretary shall be prime, facie evidence of the facts therein stated”, this moans that only a presumption is established by such findings and order. It cuts off no defense, it interposes no obstacle to a full contestation of all the issues and takes no question of fact from either court or jury in a civil proceedings. At the most, therefore, it is merely a rule of evidence which does not abridge the right of trial by jury or take away any of its incidents, nor docs it in any way work a denial of duo process of law, keeker & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad, 236 U. S. 412, 430. ~ = Mk31 SET-OFF III Shippers’ Proceeds Subject to The right of set-off docs not exist in favor of a market agency to retain money due owners and consignors of livestock as pay¬ ment of indebtednesses due and owing from other market agencies acting merely as agents to sell livestock of such owners or consignors. D-18Q It is not for the Secretary to determine, under the circumstances of the ca.sc, the validity of a claim of the right of a market a.gcncy to .withhold and off-set owner's proceeds from the „salc of cattle against an alleged debt due the purchaser of the ccattle which arose from a prior transaction between the purchaser and ' the owner, involving hogs infected with cholera, the determination of the validity of such a claim being a. judicial question within the jurisdiction of a civil court of competent jurisdiction. D-245 A market agency has no authority to make deductions from proceeds from the sale of ca.ttlc for indebtednesses due the market agency from its duly authorized agent who purchased the ca.ttlc, involved in the transaction, for and on behalf of the market agency. D-1200 To the complaint for reparation, the defendant filed on informal answer alleging set-off in the following words: "I wish to state that the complainant in the cane is indebted to me and whenever ho is willing to pay mo, I an ready to settle with him." D-1273 553 SHIPPERS 1 PROCEEDS III Appropriation of to Discharge Debts of Country Buyers Market agency is not entitled to appropriate shippers’ proceeds from the sale of livestock for the payment of debts due it from country buyers, it having chosen to accept and sell the live¬ stock for the owners in the capacity of a factor knowing that there were equities of third parties at stake. It is the established rule that, under those circumstances, the factor cannot appropriate proceeds of the sale for the purpose of paying a debt owing to him from the one who drew the draft. Mu iford v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity C ompany , 228 Pac. 206. Sec also Means v. Bank of Rendall , 146 U. S. 620. D-464 When a market agency entered into an agreement with a country buyer to accept cattle for sale through the country buyer, end the market agency knew that personal checks given by the country buyer for payment of livestock had to be covered by remittances to the country buyer by the market agency or they would bo dis¬ honored for insufficient funds, the market agency engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice and device when it applied the proceeds from the sale of the cattle to the payment of an indebtedness due it from the country buyer instead of covering the country buyer’s personal check so that the shipper could obtain payment for the livestock. D-1043 A market agency 'who a.pplies the proceeds from the saio of cattle to an indebtedness due it from a country buyer under a. mistake of law, in the honest belief tha.t he is within his legai rights in making such application, is liable nevertheless to the shipper for damages arising from the conversion of the cattle and the proceeds thereof, to the full extent of the value of the cattle. D-1043 SHIPPERS’ PROCEEDS III As Trust Funds Full protection under the Packers and Stockyards Act requires that funds derived fron the sale of livestock be inviolable end held as a -trust fund which nay be devoted only to the purpose of paying the shipper for his livestock, and proceeds arising fron the sale of livestock consigned to a market agency at a public stockyards, while in the hands of a narket agency, are not subject to be used as a set-off or counterclaim, because of any debts owing by or clained to be owing by the narket agency consignee to another, and funds in the hands of a narket agency, paid to him for the purpose of paying for ■ livestock purchased by such narket agency on order, nay not be withhold under the claim of a private indebtedness to the agency so holding the funds, D-180 Vilien the respondent violated the Act by diverting trust funds, connonly known as the. shippers ’ proceeds account, to. its own use and thereby damaging such account raid inpairing capacity of respondent to make pronpt accounting and paynont to its shippers of livestock, notwithstraiding that the Secretary had previously ordered respondent to cease and desist fron such practice, the respondent subjected hinsolf to the penalties , imposed by the Packers, raid Stockyards Act, 1921'. ' ’■ D-287 Market agency violated Title III of the Act by engaging in the unjust and deceptive practice and device of using shippers’ proceeds for the paynont of obligations other than the obli¬ gations which should have boon discharged by the particular funds, and of withholding rcnittancos to the shippers or owners, who should have received then.* D-2S2 Market agency suspended for one year duo to his insolvency raid to his unlawful practice and device of failing to promptly remit shippers ' proceeds hold by him in trust for owners or consignors of livestock. D-388 555 SHIPPERS’ PROCEEDS III Manner of Handling Yilicn prorate sheets are furnished, a check for the total net proceeds of sale end the master prorate sheet nay be sent to the .imager of the shipping association or one of the aimers, and the disposition of the proceeds nadc in the country. On the other hrnd, the commission firm, nay be requested to renit to each shipper by individual check, D-308 The yjrocccds of the sale of livestock arc deposited by the market agency in a market agency account at a bank, and a check covering the net proceeds of sale is sent to the shipper with the account sale. D-308 Usually, remittance of proceeds from the sale of truck-livestock are made by'firm check. In some cases, the proceeds may be remitted through the bank or by cashier’s check, D-311 Market agencies which arc engaged in soiling followed the practice for a number of years proceeds of sale through the bank. Usually, designate the bank to which lie desires that livestock have of remitting the the shipper will the proceeds be sent. D-311 Remittances to nearby shippers arc usually made by commission firm check, whereas, remittances to remote points are made either by bank draft or by depositing the net proceeds to the credit of the shipper’s hone bank, D-383 The remittance of the proceeds of the salu of trader’s livestock is made by chock to the firm through which the trader clears. This is handled through the clearing house. D-402 556 SHIPPERS ’ PROCEEDS III Manner of Handling There arc different ways in which the proceeds fron the sale of livestock arc renitted to the shippers. The nest common nothed is by check accompanying the account sale. If there are no instructions fron the shipper, the eomission firn checks its records to sec how the shipper had his renittcn.ee nadc on previous shipnents. Often the noney representing the proceeds of a sale of livestock is renitted through banks and deposited to the credit of the shipper at his local bank. In a snail percentage of cases, the noney is sent by postal noney order and by express. D-402 Respondent market agency was under no obligati on to remit the shippers’ proceeds fron the sale of three cars of livestock to the complainant creditor of the owner of the c act tie or to -honor the drewft of the oonplainant, the evidence showing that respond¬ ent properly remitted to the owner and that the cattle were not partnership property of respondent and owner• Complainant, therefore, was not entitled to reparation fron respondent. D-411 Remittances of shippers ' proceeds are na.de by check sent to the shipper or by deposit in a local bank which, in turn, remits to the local bank of the customer. The method of remittance is usually determined by the instructions from the shipper. Remit¬ tances by commission non are na.de as ' promptly as possible. Ordinarily, the purchaser of livestock has until some tine the following day to pay for the livestock bought. In many instances, the collections aero made on the same day as the sales are na.de. It is the prentice of most salesmen to write letters to each shipper giving an account of the market conditions and the facts surrounding the sale of his particular livestock. D-455 It is not uncommon to sell livestock Upon which loans have been nadc• In those instances, it is necessary to determine the proper disposition of the proceeds. D-445 The fern in which the remittances of the not shippers’ proceeds is made depends sonewha.t upon the wishes of the patron. If there a.re instructions, they are followed. Usually, remittances arc nadc through banks or by firm chock. D-445 557 SHIPPERS* PROCEEDS III Mariner of Kandlirig Remittances of the net proceeds from the sales of livestock are made either through the banks by rare or by firn check. The pra.ctice in this respect is governed by the rashes of the patron in each instance. If the remittance is not by firn check, it is not usually nade until the next day for the rea.son that the work in the office cannot bo completed before the banks close. When a remittance is nade by firn check, the account sale is usually nailed out rath the check on the day of the sale. D-456 & 457 It appearing tha.t the respondent market agency has surrendered its charter to the State of Tennessee end that it is no longer in existence as a corporation and is not engaged in business of any kind, the Secretary ordered the inquiry to determine if it was unfairly handling shippers* proceeds dismissed without prejudice. D-1085 Mingling of rath Other Funds Respondent violated Title III of the Act by making such use and disposition of funds in its possession or control a.s to endanger the prompt accounting for payment of the proceeds tha.t were due consignors of livestock, and by causing such funds, to become intermingled and confused with the other a.ceounts- or funds of respondent. D-98 Withdrawals from the shippers * proceeds account prior to the rendition of the a.ccounts sale and prior to payment of the net proceeds due the owners of the livestock, and 'especially the withdrawal of lump sums in anticipation of future completed transactions, in effect constitute a mingling of funds and tend to endanger and impair the faithful end prompt accounting which is required by Regulation 17(c) of the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary under the Act, end such pra.ctice should be condemned, as "unfair"' and "deceptive" within the intent and meaning of the statute• D-1117 558 SHIPPERS' PROCEEDS III Mingling of with Other Funds A market agency violated Section 312 of Title III of the Act and Regulation 17(c) of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by making withdrawals from the shippers' proceeds account and depositing the withdrawals to its general account when it "had no equity or interest in said shippers' proceeds account as would entitle it to make such withdrawals", the justification for such acts given at the oral argument before the Secretary that the withdrawals from the shippers’ proceeds account were made for the purpose of paying duty on cattle shipped from Canada being insufficient, since no proof was introduced to conclusively show that the funds withdrawn from the shippers’ proceeds account were actually used for the pur- pose of paying duty on Canadian cattle, and, even if such fact had been established, it would be insufficient to justify such .withdrawals because the evidence conclusively showed that at the time of the withdrawals the market agency had no equity in the shippers’ proceeds account equal to the amounts withdrawn and deposited to its general account. D-1117 Market agency which kept only one bank account through which were handled the funds used in paying drafts drawn by country buyers, the proceeds of the sale of livestock, and the funds used by the owner of the market agency to conduct the West Coast Auction Sales Company violated the provisions of Regu¬ lation 17(c) of the General Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Act by making such use or disposition of funds in its possession or control as to endanger or impair the faithful raid prompt accounting for and payment of such portion thereof as may be due to the owner or consignor of livestock. D-1182 The respondent market agency having admitted the truth of the allegations of insolvency and of intermingling shippers' proceeds funds with other funds, and having waived a hearing, the Secretary ordered that it be suspended from registration as a market agency for six months. D-1202 SHIPPERS' PROCEEDS III Mingling of with Other Funds Tho respondent market agency having acknowledged the truth of the allegations in the inquiry'that he failed to segregate from his other accounts or funds the proceeds derived by him from tho sale of other cattle sold by him as a market agency, and that ho kept his accounts and handled his funds in such a manner as to endanger tho prompt remittance of shippers’ proceeds, and that he had failed to keep proper accounts, records, end memoranda of his transactions, end having waived Cl formed hearing, the Secretary found that he had violated the Act, end issued a. cease end desist order against such continued violation. D-1222 Using for Other Purposes Market agency which used shippers’ proceeds to pay its salary end travel expenses violated the Act. D-197 Market agency who engaged in the prentice of not promptly accounting for end paying to shippers the proceeds of sedcs of livestock, but diverted the shippers’ proceeds to his ovm. uses end to the payment of persons for livestock which heed been sold or shipped by or to the respondent but who were not then entitled to be paid from said shippers’ proceeds account, there¬ by endangering the account and lessening the capacity of the respondent to make prompt accounts and payment to the shippers of its livestock, violated Title III of the Act. D-287 Mien tho respondent violated the Act by diverting trust funds, commonly known as shippers' proceeds account, to its own use and thereby damaging such account and impairing the capacity of respondent to make prompt accounting and payment to its shippers of livestock, notwithstanding that the Socretany had previously ordered respondent to cease and ’desist from such practice, the respondent subjected himself to the penalties imposed by the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921. D-287 SHIPPERS’ PROCEEDS III Using for Other Purposes Market- agency ■violated. Title III of the Act by using trust funds in its possession and control as a market agency end trustee for various shippers in such manner as to render the respondent unable to promptly account for and pay to its shippers the pro¬ ceeds of sale of livestock made by it on behalf of its shippers, and by diverting such funds to its ovm use and to the payment of persons for livestock other than the persons to whom the proceeds actually belonged. D-350 Market'agency violated the Act by wdthholding shippers’ proceeds received from the sate of livestock in the course of his business and diverting such proceeds to his own uso and ancount, thereby endangering the shippers’ proceeds account and impairing his capacity to made© prompt accounting and payments to his shippers of livestock# D-388 A market agency which violates Rule 17(c) of the rules and regu¬ lations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stockyards Act by not canefully preserving the proceeds of the saic of livestock of its patrons, and by using such funds for the purpose of financing the business of other people or for continuing respondent’s own business, is subject to liability and to the remedial processes of the Act, even though by reason of such violation no loss has been suffered by any shipper, and his plea of ignorance in not understanding that it was improper to use shippers’ proceeds for such things as aforomentioned is of no avail, particularly in view of the evidence that prior thereto a Government accountant discussed this end other prentices in dcta.il with respondent. D-464 # 561 SHIPPERS’ PROCEEDS III Using for Other Purposes Respondent market agency which honored drafts by remitting from its shippers’ proceeds account prior to the time the livestock, payment for which the remittances were made, was sold by respond¬ ent in its business as a market agency violated Title III of the Act by paying drafts out of the shippers’ proceeds account, drawn by persons who had no interest in the account at the time the drafts were drawn, thereby jeopardizing prompt payments of proceeds, belonging to shippers who had an interest in the account and whose livestock had been sold by respondent. D-514 Market agency who engaged in the practice of diverting proceeds belonging to shippers from the shippers’ proceeds account to its general bank account and used such proceeds in its own behalf, instead of remitting them to the shippers entitled thereto, violated the Act and was suspended for two years for this and other reasons. D-759 The respondent market agency violated the Act, as amended, by using money from the shippers’ proceeds account to finance the clearing transactions of dealers in livestock, even though the respondent testified that ho did not rea.lizo that it was unlaw¬ ful to do so, and even though the respondent ceased continuing such practice sometime before the date of the hearing. D-1132 A market agency violates Title III of the Act when it diverts shippers’ proceeds from shippers entitled thereto, for use in making advances or loans to livestock buyers and shippers, thereby endangering and impairing the faithful and prompt accounting and payment for livestock sold by it on commission. D-1213 562 SHIPPERS’ PROCEEDS III Using for Other Purposes i Market agency having admitted that it used funds from the shippers ’ proceeds account to honor drafts drawn against the respondent by country buyers to cover the purchase of live¬ stock not yet; sold, thereby depleting the working capital of the respondent and endangering end impairing the faithful and prompt accounting to shippers for the proceeds of sale of their livestock, and that it had failed to keep proper accounts end records of its transactions, end having waived the hearing, the Secretary found the.t it had violated thb Act, as amended, and issued a cease and desist order e.gainst such continued violation, D-1237 * 563 STATE STATUTES III Vfhen mortgaged cattle were shipped from New Mexico into California for sale, with the knowledge and consent of the mortgagee, the mortgagee lost his lien, given by the state laws, on the cattle and any claim to the particular funds derived from their sale, and he was in no different position with respect to the proceeds of the sale than any other creditor of the shipper. D-193 Brand inspection is a stockyards service and is controlled by the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, when rendered at a stock- yard subject to the Act, and in such cane brand .inspection is not controlled by the laws of the stale in which the stockyard is located. D-278 When breeding stock and stockers and feeders are purchased to be shipped to the country, it is necessary to comply with tho federal and state laws governing tests before shipment. D-402 Under tho statutes of Louisiana, a sa.lo of livestock may be voided in seventy-two hours for certain vices unknown to the purchaser. The practical effect of this is to postpone payment for livestock until post-mortem examination has boon completed, usually seventy-two hours after the sale. Respondent market agencies often advance owners the appraised value of the live¬ stock at the time of the sale. This occasionally results in unadjusted sales, either over or under the post-mortem values. D-534 Chapter 546, Laws of 1935 (Wisconsin), does not specifically make the trucker of livestock the argent for tho shipper, and no decision interpreting the statute to that effect has been called to tho attention of the Secretary. D-566 STATE STATUTES III Even though the laws of Missouri provide that a commission market agency is guilty of a civil conversion and lia.ble to the owner for the full value of stolen cattle which it has sold and remitted for to the thief without the consent of the true owner, it does not follow that the market agency violates Section 307 or Section 312 of the Packers and Stockyards Act when it refuses, upon the mere presentation of a claim and demand for payment, to pay the value of the cattle to a person who claims to be the true owner thereof, if the market agency sold the stolen cattle in good faith and without actual knowledge or constructive notice that the cattle had been stolen. It is neither unfair nor unjust for the market agency, acting in good faith, to mthhold payment of such a claim until it has had an opportunity to investigate the facts in the case, and, if it desires, to contest the claim and require the claimant to tost its validity in a court of competent jurisdiction, D-949 A valid mortgage upon personal property located in Iowa., duly recorded in conformity with the laws of Iowa in the county where the property is located, is constructive notice of its contents, and such recorda.tion constitutes constructive notice under the 1 aws of Minnesota, However, even though a market agency in Minnesota may bo guilty of a civil conversion and liable to the mortgagee for the value of the livestock sold, the validity of an Iowa mortgage on livestock or the relation¬ ship existing between the livestock sold by the market agency and the cc.ttle covered by the mortgage is not an issue in the case to determine if the' market agency violated Section 307 or Section 312 of the Packers and Stockyards Act by remitting proceeds from the sale of the livestock to the mortgagor instead of to the mortgagee, the only issue in such a. cr.se being whether, in connection with such sale, the market a.gency engaged in an unjust practice in violation of Section 307 or an unfair pra.ctico in violation of Section 312, D-981 In determining whether or not a stockyards company is justified in denying the privileges of the market pla.ee to a. market agency because of a. breach of contract by the market agency vdth the stockyards company, it is not necessary for the Secretary to interpret a. statute of Oklahoma to determine if the contract was void as a, restraint of trcidc, it being sufficient for the Secretary to determine only if the stockyards company ha.s violated the appropriate section of the Pa.ckers and Stockyards Act. D-1186 & 1193 565 STOCKYARDS III The Mistletoe Stockyards is not a "stockyard" as this term is used and defined in Title III of the Act. D-l- As Competitive Market Places It is deemed imperative that public stockyards markets'subjoct to the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act shall, in every sense, be open, competitive market places,, D-189 It is the bargaining among buyers and sellers that eventually establishes the market for livestock^ D-308 It is the bargaining among the salesmen and buyers at the market which finally determines what the market prices for the various grades and classes of livestock will be each day. According to the custom of the market, only one buyer is taken into a pen at one time* If the livestock is suitable for the buyer, an offer end a bid me made. If a sale is not consum¬ mated, the buyer goes on to some other salesman and the live¬ stock is sold to the next buyer. D-311 The establishment of an open competitive market is one of the prime essentials which the Packers and Stockyards Act (1921) was designed to accomplish and perpetuate. D-330 A general and widespread attempt on tho part of market agencies to deny the advantages of an open competitive- market to on agent for the former or shipper, and to an order buying company as agent for various members of the packing industry, constitutes a grave injustice tp the principals of the market agencies, D-330 566 STOCKYARDS III As Competitive Market Places Ordinarily, the price of any class or grade of livestock is not determined in advance of the time that the buyers end sellers meet and consummate a transaction. There is no price tag placed upon the livestock, an is the practice in soiling many other commodities where the salesman hns no option with respect to the price and must endeavor to overcome sales resistance by other means then bargaining with respect to price. The buyers cone upon the market equipped with substantially the same inf or mention an that possessed by salesmen. It is the bargaining between buyers and sellers which eventually determines the price with respect to ea.ch lot of livestock sold. D-383 If cl buyer is interested in a. lot of livestock, the salesman takes him into the pen, shows the livestock, and mokes an offer. The buyer, if not willing to pay the price asked, nay make a bid. If no sale is con surma, ted, the buyer leaves and the live¬ stock is shown to another buyer. By the process of offers and bids, the trend of the market is eventually established and the livestock is sold. D-402 Usually, a. salesman cl the stockyards shows: all the livestock which he ha,s of a, given clans to a. buyer interested in that clans. It is by means of bargaining between salesmen and buyers that prices are eventually determined. D-445 If a. buyer at the market is interested in purchasing livestock, the market a.gency*s salesman makes an offer, and, if the offer is not satisfactory, the buyer makes a. bid. Both salesmen and buyers are informed in regard to the fa.ctors which affect prices and they attempt to appraise those factors in determining the price ‘at which they will sell or buy, an the cane may be. It is by this method of bargaining that prices are eventually estimated and sales are ma.de. D-456 & 457 At the Hew Orleans Stock Yards, one buyer is taken into a pen at a. tine, and in his turn. Offers and bids are exchanged and the sale is completed by oral agreement or the buyer loaves the peri the next buyer another market it arrives and end the livestock is available for purchase by on hand. Some livestock is carried over to day but the groat majority is sold on the day is offered for sale. D-534 567 STOCKYARDS III As Public Utilities The Packers end Stockyards Act t apparently classes stockyards as public utilities. D-19 Customary Mode of Operation at A history and the customary node of operation of the Peoria Union Stock Yards Company is set forth in this docket, D-5 The customary mode of operation at the Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd,, South Omaha, Nebraska, is sot forth in detail in this docket, D-6 The customary method of operation at the Union Stock Yard & Transit Company, Chicago, Illinois, is set forth in detail in this docket, D-7 The customary system and method used by respondent in deliver¬ ing hogs at its stockyards to packers purchasing them is sub¬ stantially as follows: , After the hogs arc weighed on scales maintained and operated in the stockyards by the respondent, weighnasters employed by respondent place the weight of the hogs and the number of the pen in the stockyards in which the hogs arc placed upon a paper I mown as a scale ticket and the scale ticket is placed by the weighmasters in a compartment bearing the name of the respective purchaser. The hogs arc then placed in the pons which have been assigned to them and the pens are locked by the respondent, the custody of the pen being given over to an employee of the respondent known as the "key man". If the packer does "not remove his lot promptly, the packer places a seal bearing his nemo over the look, and, upon request of the packer, the key man delivers the hogs to him. - D-97 The customary methods of operation of the stockyards at South St. Paul, Minnesota, by the St. Paul Union Stockyards Company are-sot out in detail under "stockyard operations". D-116 568 STOCKYARDS III Customary Modo of Operation at During tho course of the hearing to determine the reasonable¬ ness and lawfulness of proposed new commission rates and charges by the respondent market .agencies at the Union Stock Yards at Omaha, Nobraska, full information was developed relative to the operations of the respondents at tho stockyards. D-143 Customary raode of operation of respondent stockyards set forth and explained in detail. D-155 Manner and custom of handling livestock arriving at tho Union Stock Yards, San Antonio, Toxa.s, set out in detail. D-191 Full information relative to the organization and operations of respondent Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., was developed during tho course of the hearing in the case to determine the reasonableness of rates and changes for stockyard services. D-291 At the Denver Union Stock Yards, it is customary for producers and livestock shippers to emnloy the services of commission firms who operate on the market and hold themselves out a.s salesmen of livestock on a commission ba.sis. D-301 Trade territory, market outlet, location and general description of respondent's property, the services and facilities furnished, and customary mode of opora.tion at tho Denver Union Stock Yards, Denver, Colorado, sot forth in detail. D-301 Customary node of operation of commission men and stockyards company in handling livestock in tho Sioux City Stock Yards, Sioux City, Iowa, sot forth in detail, ' D-308 Tho method of operation at the Kansas City Stock Yards is set forth in detail in this docket. D-311 The customary mode of operation of respondent Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd., is set forth in detail in this ca.se, D-344 569 STOCKYARDS III Customary Mode of Operation at The custernary mode of operation of the stockyards company and of commission agencies at the stockyards is set forth in detail in this docket. D-383 The customary mode of 'operation of commission men at the Chicago Union Stock Yards market is sot forth in detail in this docket. D-402 The customary node of operation of commission men at the Denver Union Stock Yards is sot forth in deta.il in the docket. D-435 The Fort Worth Stock Yards Company ha.s incorporated in its tariff of rates and charges certain rules governing the conduct of those who engage in business at the market place. Among those rules, there is one which provides that any person, firm, or corporation engaging in the livestock commission business a.t the stockyard shall enter into am agreement with the company to observe and obey all rules end regulations adopted by that company for the government of the business, and to pay over to tho company all ra.tcs end charges that may be duo and collectible by the company on all livestock received, sold, or otherwise disposed of by such person, firm, or corporation. D-445 Frequently, owners or their roprescnta.tives accompany livestock when it is shipped to tho market, end they arc privileged to ClO the selling for themselves. However, they rarely over attempt to do their oxm selling as they are not familiar with the intricate details involved \&th handlin' stockyards'. livestock in the D-445 The customary mode of operation of the respondent market agencies and of tho Fort D-445 at the Fort Worth Stock Yards, Fort Worth, Tooc r~. o Worth Stock Yards, sot forth in doted 1.. The customary node of operation a.t the Denver Union Stock Yards is set forth in this docket. ' D-450 570 STOCKYARDS III Customary Mode of Operation at Tho customary mode of operation at the Ogden Stockyards and at tho Horth Salt Lake Stockyards, and of tho commission men at such stockyards, is set forth in detail in this consolidated ease. D-45S & 457 The customary manner of doing business at the Hot; Orleans Stock Yards is set forth in detail in this docket. D-534 Custom and necessity have developed two somewhat distinct classes of operators on the market. One is commonly known as commission firms, hold thorns elves out to the public both to sell and to buy livestock on a commission basis. Order buying by commission men constitutes a very small part of the total business. Tho other class is composed of persons commonly known as order buyers. The latter specializes in buying livestock on order and doing no selling on a commission basis. D-534 Depreciation on Property of. Formula for -L «/ 9 Formula for Depreciation Reserve rato properly allowable on property of respondent stockyard owner, said formula to be as follows: R. n U * R) - 1 . 07 :« 35 ri + .07) - i .007237 D-84 % 571 STOCKYARDS III Depreciation on Property of. Formula for In determining the depreciation of the property of the respondent stockyards company for rate-making purposes, the Government appraiser used the condition percent principle. Ho had five engineers inspect each unit of equipment and structure of the respondent’s property and place upon it an estimate of its percent condition as compared with its condition if new* He then took the percents condition as reported to him by his assistant engineers, and, giving double weight to the opinion of the engineers who inventoried a particular unit, averaged the percents reported to him. Then, using this information as a guide, he inspected the property, checked the estimates as reported to him, and arrived at a condition percent. Ho applied the condition percent of certain group or structures of equip¬ ment against the total cost of reproduction now of each unit, thus ascertaining the cost of reproduction now less depreciation of those groups. The sum of the reproduction cost now less depreciation was related to the sum of the reproduction costs of those units. The resulting percentage represents the weighted average percent condition of all respondent’s structures and equipraent as testified to by the appraiser. D-450 Estrays, Care and Disposition of The custom of the stockyards has been and is now to sell as ostrays, within a. reasonable time after discovery, livestock for which no ownership appears. Ydiat constitutes a reasonable time is always a* mixed .question of law and fc.et, but it is clear that, in the unusual conditions prevailing in this case, the evidence showing, that livestock was held by the able weight and one steer during the seven or eight days the stockyards company it lost consider- die a the cattle were hold too long, D-461 572 STOCKYARDS III Estrayc, Care and Disposition of Under the cireunstanc.es in the case, the evidence showing that the cstrays were kept seven or eight days in the custody of the stockyards company, during which tine they lost considerable weight and one steer died, the failure of the stockyards company to dispose of the steers as ostrays constituted a. failure on the part of the respondent stockyards to render reasonable stockyard services, making it liable to respond to a tincly claim for reper cation* D-461 Fair Return on Investment, Right to (Sec also "Stockyards Ratos and Charges - Reasonableness of”) The theory that respondent stockyard owner is entitled, through its rates, to earn a "fair rate of return” upon the "fair value” of its property, and no more, is not regarded by the Secretary as constituting a. fair or adequate test of the reasonableness of stockyard rates. D-116 Under the evidence adduced at the hearing, the respondent Fort Wayno Union Stock Yards Company was permitted to increase its stockyard- services charges to a ra.tc which would permit it a fair return on its investment, even though, when it was organized, it constructed a, plant much larger then that required by the business which the company had or could reasonably have expected to have. D-155 It was found by the Secretary that is a. reasonable rate of return upon the fair value of respondent Denver Union Stock Yard Company's property, to be used in* determining the charge for services. D-301 m 573 STOCKYARDS III Functions of The function of the respondent St, Joseph Stock Yards Company as a livestock depot requires it to provide (l) docks for loading and unloading, (2) chutes, (3) chute pens, and (4) alleys, D-298 The specific functions of the respondent St, Joseph Stock Yards Company are threefold: (l) the provision of a market place, (2) the provision of a depot for the unloading end loading of livestock brought to the market by railroad, motor trucks, end other vehicles, and (3) the -warehousing :>f the livestock.so brought to market, D-298 The functions of the Sioux City Stock Yards Company are three¬ fold: (l) the provision of a market place, (2) the provision of a depot for the unloading and loading of livestock brought to the market by railroads or by motor trucks or other vehicles, and (3) the warehousing of livestock so brought to market, D-425 Nature of Business The outlet for the livestock which arises'at the Denver market is dependent upon the local packers, order buyers, feeders, and finishers. Denver is a. large stockor end feeder market for ca.ttle and sheep. Largo numbers of these two species move- eastward for further finishing. D-301 The chief classes of buyers who furnish the outlet for live¬ stock at the Sioux City Stockyards are: packers, order buyers, traders, and country feeders, D-308 STOCKYARDS III Notice That Act Applies to. How Given Under Title III of the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture gives public notice that a stockyard is a stockyard within the meaning of the term, as used in the Act, by notifying the owner thereof and by posting public notice thereof in the stockyard, D-49 Privileges i There are traders operating at the market who frequently buy livestock end resell it in the yards. These traders have the use of pens for holding, sorting, and grading livestock similar to those that are available to the commission men, D-191 It is unjustly discriminatory, as well as unreasonable, for the respondent to maintain a large section of valuable property end to incur numerous expenses in the rendition of a free service to one class of patrons and remunerate itself through a charge on another class which is greater than necessary, to cover the cost of rendition of the service to the latter class, D-301 It is the privilege of the owner or shipper of livestock to the Kansas City public market to soil his own livestock on the market. However, this is a privilege rarely exercised. D-311 It is the privilege of the owner to sell his own livestock on the market. D-402 % The privilege accorded by the railroad in connection with the through billing of livestock is a feature which has a bearing upon the price asked by the salesman for his livestock. D-435 575 STOCKYARDS III Privileges Those who consign livestock to the Ogden and North Salt Lake markets for sale have the privilege of selling it themselves* However, it rarely occurs that a producer of livestock who ships it to these markets does his own selling. Owners do not always find it convenient to accompany their livestock to market, and, even if they do, they are not familiar enough with market conditions to enable them to do their own selling satisfactorily. D-456 & 457 'While it is the privilege of the owner or shipper of livestock to the Arabi Stockyards to sell his own livestock, the market¬ ing machinery and the contract of buyers make it a practical necessity for the producer to consign his livestock to some regular selling agency for sale. D-534 The Fort Worth Stock Yards Company had no just or legal cause to refuse stockyard privileges to the complainant market agency, it appearing that the market agency was ready and vailing to c.bidc by all of the rules end regulations of the stockyards company, was asking for no greater privileges than those extended to other market agencies, and that the respondent stockyards company had no objection, on personal grounds, to the complainant when ho was a leading member of another com¬ mission firm operating upon the market prior thereto. D-956 The Fort Worth Stock Yards Companv engaged in end used an unfair -L O O and unjustly discriminatory prentice in connection with the rendition of stockyards services at its stockyard when, without just cause, it refused a market agency the same stockyard privileges it had extended to other like market agencies under similar circumstances• D-956 A market agency did not exorcise bad faith in engaging In business near a congested scale at the stockyards, when the stockyards company denied him the right to use a less congested scale. The business of a market agency depended on its getting its livestock weighed, end the agency did not exorcise bad faith in asserting what he honestly believed to be his right, it appearing that no rule of the stockyards was violated. D-956 576 STOCKYARDS III Privileges The Peoria Union Stock Yards Company was justified in excluding the respondent market agency from the use of its stockyard privileges when it appeared that the loading member of the agency had, prior thereto, been the leading member of a firm which had been suspended from operation at said stockyards for admitted insolvency, and that said prior firm had also violated Regulation 17(c) of the rules and regulations pro¬ mulgated by the Secretary under the Act, by intermingling shippers 1 proceeds funds with funds of its own, and the stockyards company had reason to believe that, because of these circumstances, to admit the complainant market agency to the use of stockyard privileges would be injurious to the market• D-9 79 The contention of the Peoria. Union Stock Yards Company that it had a right to exclude the complainant market agency from the use of its stockyards privileges on the grounds that (l) it owes no duty to a market agency to provide and furnish facil¬ ities to be used by it in connection with its business, and (2) it has, by regulations, -reserved the right to limit the number of market agencies at its stockyard, was overruled by the Secretary. D-979 The respondent The Fort Worth Stock Yards Company having stated in its ansvror to the order of inquiry that it will furnish proper stockyard services to the complcdnant dealer, and the dealer having withdrawn his complaint by letter, the Secretary ordered that the proceedings be dismissed. D-1157 While a stockyards company is entitled to maJ.ce reasonable charges for its services end facilities and to adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the conditions under which those services and facilities will bo extended, it is not reasonable to^ make the privileges of the market available upon conditions relating to activities carried on outside the stockyard. The Act docs not require a commission company or its agents engaged in receiving, buying, or selling livestock on the promises of the stockyands company to do all of its business at the stock- yards. Rash vi lie Union Sto ck Yards, Inc. v. Gr issi n, 280 S.W. 1015 (Supremo Court of Tennessee}. D-1186 & 1193 577 STOCKYARDS Privileges In determining whether or not a. stockyards comp my is justified in denying the privileges of the market place to a market .agency because of a breach of contract by the market agency with the stockyards company, it is not necessary for the Secretary to interpret a statute of Oklahoma to determine if the contract was void as a restraint of trade, it being sufficient for the Secretary to determine only if the stockyards compmy has violated the appropriate section of the Packers and Stockyards Act. D-1186 & 1193 Relationship of to Operator The evidence showed that the Detroit Stock operated by the Michigan Central Railroad C independent corporation but as an autonouou the railroad. Yards was owned and onpmy, not as am s denartnent under j. D-25 Evidence adduced at hearing tended to show that the Buffalo Stock Ycards was owned and operated by the New York Cqntral Railroad Company, not as an independent corporation but as an autonomous department under that railroad, D-26 Special Services At the Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., the service of immu¬ nizing hogs is usually performed by some local veterinarian. The stockyards company furnishes the facilities for which a. charge is mq.de• a D-291 STOCKYARDS III Special Services If livestock is bought on order to go to the country for feed¬ ing, breeding, or dairy purposes, it may be necessary to comply with certain regulations governing the animals’ health, such as testing, vaccination, and immunization. Frequently cattle may be branded or dehorned before shipment to the country. These are services performed by the stockyard company or under its direction. D-308 Separate charges are made by the stockyard company for services and use of facilities in connection with branding, dipping, testing, immunization, or other spedial service. Usually, these special services are required in connection with the movement of livestock from the market back to the country and the charges therefor are paid by the purchasers. If, for any reason, any of these services are required by the shipper, the charges arc deducted from the proceeds at the sale of his livestock. D-311 For its services, the stockyard company assesses a charge upon each head of livestock. It also makes a separate charge for feed and bedding at regularly published rates. These charges are assessed against the owners or shippers of livestock. The stockyards company also renders special services such as dipping, spraying, branding, testing, and immunizing, and for such services special charges ore made and assessed against the persons requir¬ ing those services. D-402 If special services such as dipping, spraying, vaccinating, or testing are required, the owner or his agent makes an order upon the stockyard company specifying the nature of the service desired. The stockyard company takes charge of the livestock and arranges to have tho required service performed. D-445 Trade Territory of. Method of Determining One of the chief factors in determining the trade territory of a stockyard is the rate structures of the railroad transportation systems. D-311 579 STOCKYARD PRACTICES III Assignment of Pens There are various market agencies and dealers or traders in livestock in the Kansas City Stockyards who have pens assigned to them. D-39 The commission firms which operate at the stockyards have pens allotted to them for the sale of livestock. * D-291 Pens are assigned to the commission men in the various divisions of the Sioux City Stockyards, These assignments are changed from time to time by the officials of the stockyard company depending upon the amount of business done by the different firms, D-308 Pens are assigned to the various commission firms at the Kansa-s City Stockyards in the different divisions of the yond. These assignments are made by a committee. The number of pens assigned to each firm is governed by the volume of business handled, and the location is governed largely by the length of time during which a firm has been in business. D-311 For convenience pf operation, the stockyards of the Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd., is divided into divisions, and definite pen areas arc assigned for the preferred use of commission firms and other individua.ls engaged a.t the market. D-344 / • * t , The only standing committee of the St. Louis Livestock Exchange is a pen committee which coopera.tcs with the stockyard company in the assignment of pons, D-383 ‘ The general superintendent of the stockyard company allots pons to the various firms and individuals doing business a.t the market. Pons are not lea.sed and are not assigned for any specified period. The stockyard company reserves the right to change, at any time, the allotment of pens, both as to location and number, of pens assigned. Usually, the firms and persons who have boon in business for the longest time at the market obtain the locations which are most advonta.gcous for carrying on their operations. D-402 580 STOCKYARDS PRACTICES III Assignment of Pons In the cattle division at the Fort horth Stockyards, pens arc assigned to each of the commission firns and traders. The assignments in the hog and sheep divisions are not as definite as those in the cattle division. However, certain pens arc regarded as those being regularly used by certain firns. These assignments are made by the superintendent of the stockyard company and nay bo changed from tine to time a.s the needs of the business may require. D-445 For convenience of operation at the Denver Union Stock Yards, the stockyard is divided into divisions, and definite pens are assigned for the preferred use of commission firms and other individuals enga.gcd in business at the market# Hot all pens arc so assigned. During periods of hea.vy runs, and when other circumstances may require, the respondent may change an assignment to meet current needs of business. D-450 At the Ogden Stockyards there are certain pens set apart for the use of commission firns in the cattle end hog divisions. This assignment is no.de by the general manager of the stockyard company in cooperation with commission firns. The commission firm opcra.ting at the North Salt Lake Stockyards has pens assigned for its use. D-456 & 457 Usually the commission firns located art the market and engaged in the buying and selling of livestock on a commission basis arc assigned pens in a cortain section of each division. It is also customary for the respondent to set aside certain sections in ec.ch of the main divisions for the use of order buyers and for the use of dealers and for the holding of livestock alter it has been sold but is being held awaiting delivery to the purchaser. There arc also shipping divisions whore livestock is held pending the tine it is shipped from the market. D-453 The stockyard company allots pens to the various firms and individuals doing business at the market. Pens assigned are subject to revocation at the expression of the yard company. Preference of location is usually given the persons or firns which have been in business for the longest time. D-534 581 STOCKYARDS PRACTICES III Assignment of Pens The complainant market agency having, by letter, requested that the Secretary drop the proceedings to determine if the respondent stockyards company is unfairly discriminating against it by refusing it the * assignment of certain pens, the Secretary ordered the proceedings dismissed. One rule of the Fort Worth Stock Yards Company is that the company reserves the right to allocate pens to commission agencies, and that the agencies and patrons may not claim the exclusive use of pens. D-571 D-956 Assignment of Scales The basic principle in the assignment of scales for weighing and reweighing livestock is that each scale will be assigned to the use of those v\rho are most conveniently located to it. D-453 The assignment of scales by the respondent in such a manner that the scales are conveniently located to those who are exempt from paying rowcigh charges, but are remotely and in¬ conveniently located to those who are required .to pay rowcigh charges, results in art unjust discrimination against the latter class of traders. D-453 Delivery Delivery of livestock by the stockyards company to ‘the commission men is made by counting the animals as they pass out of the pen into the alley. The livestock is then in the custody of % tho- commission firm. D-402 582 STOCKYARD PRACTICES III Requiring Agencies to Limit Business to Posted Stockyards At the conclusion of the hearing to determine the lawfulness of the Milwaukee Stockyards Company’s requirement that market agencies handling livestock at its stockyards execute an agree¬ ment not to do business at any place other than a posted stock- yards, the company agreed to delete such objectionable feature in its contract with the market agencies, and the Secretary dismissed the proceedings, P-721 The Act does not require a commission company to do ail of its business at the stockyards. D-1186 & 1193 Weighing Generally, livestock is reweighed each and every time it is sold in the stockyards. P-5 A stockyards company which refuses weighing services to a market agency, by reason of which the owner of the livestock was compelled to sell the livestock through a different agency at a lever price, and then pays the difference to the owner between the bid obtained by the first' market agency and the sale price, violates Section 306(f) of the Act by refunding a portion of its yardage charges specified in its tariff. - D-1186 & 1193 583 STOCKYARDS PRACTICES III Yardage Charges Upon consideration of the entire record, the Secretary found that the charges of the defendant stockyard company for a yard¬ age were not unjustly discriminatory against the complainant, the evidence offered by complainant showing that defendant assessed the yardage charges against certain shipments of live¬ stock consigned to complainant which were temporarily stopped at the defendant's Omaha market for branding and then rebilled to complainant at his ranch at South Dakota, even though the evidence further showed that the defendant assessed no charges against livestock consigned to a commission firm which was not sold at defendant’s Omaha, market but was returned to the point of origin or forwarded to another market; hence, that the complainant was not entitled to reparation for damages* D-207 The tariff of respondent for yardage services should not have been different with respect to charges for drought cattle on their way to various packers for slaughter than the tariff on any other cattle consigned to packers and slaughterers, or other cattle not sent to the stockyards for sale or for effect¬ ing change of ownership, and it was unlawful, unreasonable, and discriminatory for respondent to amend its tariff schedule so that the yardage charges on drought cattle would be made under that schedule affecting cattle brought to the market for sale or change of ownership, and to charge complainant 33^ per head for yardage charges for such drought cattle when the rajbo on cattle consigned to packers and slaughterers was only 25^ per head. D-451 STOCKYARDS PRACTICES III Yardage Cheer*gos t A market agency which broaches, a contract with a stockyards compcry, to the effect that it mil pay to the stockyards company yandage charges on livestock sales made in the country the same as if the livestock sales were made at the stockyards, is still entitled to reasonable stockyard services from the respondent stockyards company in connection with cattle thereafter sold by the market agency at the stockyards, and if the stockyards company denies such reasonable service to the market agency because of the broach of contract by the market agency, the stockyards company violates Section 304 of the Act, as emended. D-1186 & 1193 Yardage Changes, Refunding A stockyards company which refuses weighing services to a market agency, by r ceson of which the evjnor of the livestock vras compelled to sell the livestock through a. different c„gcncy at a lower price, and then pays the difference between the bid obtained by the first market agency and the sale price to the owner, violeabcs Section 306(f) of the Act, by refunding a. portion of its yen dago changes specified in its tariff. D-1186 & 1193 585 STOCKYARDS RATES AIJD CHARGES III •Rato Base, Factors in Determining In determining the cost of reconstruction now of the property of the respondent stockyards company for rate purposes, no allowance for taxes on indirect construction costs was allowed by the Secretary, since the period of construction was esti¬ mated at eight months end no assessment is made for tax purposes in Peoria covering a period of construction within the tesK year, D-5 In making a determination of the reasonable rate of return for the respondent stockyards company in rate-making proceedings, the Secretary considered the condition under which the live¬ stock market operates at the stockyards of the respondent company, such as the fact that the company receives a large proportion of its livestock from a limited territory, that the bulk of its receipts arrives by truck and consists of hogs, that it is located between two large national markets at Chicago end East St, Louis, and all other elements affecting the volume and the stability of the business, D-5 In analyzing the cost of operation of the stockyards of the respondent company, the Secretary discarded the method of distributing all expenses on the basis of gross income. Part of these expenses ho allocated directly, pent to yardage, part to overhead, and the remainder on the basis of the relative value of the facilities used in rendering the various stockyards services, D-5 Since sellers and buyers are equally essential to a market, it is the opinion of the Secretary that the intangible factor known as "the privilege $f the market” is not the basis on which the reasonableness of a stockyards rate or change is to be determined, D-7 It is an inescapable conclusion that, in so fan as stockyards one concerned, the fortuitous circumstances of whether a city has or has not appeared to grow around a stockyard is very apt to become a controlling factor in determining the reason¬ ableness of its rates, D-116 586 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining Respondent Fort wayne Union Stock Yards Company was not periTiitted by the Secretary to charge as an operating expense, to be reflected in and paid for by an increased stockyard services rate or charge, the amounts paid out to 'Uniting & McMurray, order buyers, pursuant to a contract under which it paid to; said T/hiting c McMurray 2Y per head for all livestock received in its stockyards up to 100,000 head, and Iff per head on all livestock received in its stockyards over and above 100,000 head. ' D-155 The value of that part of a foot subway built by the respondent stockyards company under the railroad tracks leading into the stockyards was found by the Secretary to be used and useful in the rendition of stockyards services. D-298 Under the law of the land, there is to be included, in deter¬ mining the value of stockyards’ property for rate-making purposes, property used ond useful in the rendition of the service or services for which the regulated rates are being charges. This does not moan used or useful. The primary fact to be ascertained in this connection, is whether the property is being used. If it is not being used, it is needless to inquire into whether it might, under some circumstances v/hich may arise in the future, prove to be useful. D-298 The major amount of expenses found not reasonably to have been incurred in the rendering of stockyard services by the respond- v ent were incurred in connection with property which had been found by the Secretary to be not used and not useful in the rendition of the services for which were charged the rates the reasonableness of "which was determined by the order • The remainder of the expenses found not reasonably to have been incurred were expenses which, while incurred in connection with the used and useful property, were not reasonably so incurred. D-298 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining In arriving at the net stockyard operating indome of the respond¬ ent, the Secretary included the income and expenses incident to loading and unloading, even though no attempt was being made in the proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the charges made by the respondent to the railroads for this service, it appearing that the facilities and services used in connection with the loading and unloading of livestock were used in render¬ ing other services in the stockyards. D-298 A ’’betterment" is a physical change in a structure which has the result of making the properties affected more useful or of greater capacity than they were at the time of their original installation or acquisition. Under the classification of a betterment, the Secretary covered the addition of a concrete floor to the hog house of the respondent stockyards company as a betterment instead of as a repair. D-425 In arriving at the value of the property of the respondent stock- yards for rate-making purposes, the Secretary allowed an item for working capital. D-425 In the valuation of the stockyards property of the respondent for rate-making purposes, the Secretary added, in addition to the value of the land and the cost of reproduction new, an item representing additions and betterments, but refused to allow an item for organization expenses. D-425 In this docket seems to bo the onlv instance where an allowance a of expenses for Interstate Commerce Commission hearings has ever been made in rate orders issued under the Pankers and Stockyards Act. D-450 A stockyards company has no right to underwrite all deficits incurred by a stock-show association and to pa.ss these on to shippers in the form of regular stockyard rates, although the stockyards company may ma3.ee some contribution in the form of services rendered to the stock-show association and cause the expenses incident thereto automatically to go into the rates paid by the general shipping public, D-450 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In arriving at a rate base for the respondent stockyards company, the volume of business to be anticipated is an important factor to be given consideration* It includes the volume of livestock for which yardage charges mil bo made and the amount of feed and bedding sold, D-425 The number of head of each species of livestock and the amount of different kinds of feed used by the Secretary as rate fa.ctors in determining reasonable stockyards rates and charges were not arrived at by any peculiar mathematical computation, but by a consideration of the receipts which were handled by the stock- yards company and also the testimony which has a bearing upon wheat the receipts of the company are likely to be within the years immediately following those as to which specific and definite information is contained in the record. The finding is baised upon the statistical information of record, the opinions of witnesses, and a test of these opinions in the light of the receipts of livestock an determined in accordance with the reports of the stockyards company filed monthly by it with.the Department of Agriculture. D-450 In arriving at a. schedule of stockyards rectos and charges which will produce revenue sufficient to meet a.ll reasonable costs, expenses, reasonable return, and reserve requirements, consider¬ ed ti on must be aiven to the number of head of livestock yarded and to the amount of feed, grain, and bedding sold, and to the miscellaneous services rendered. D-450 Court decisions (see the Dos Moines Gan Comp any v. Dos Koines, 238 U.S. 153, 165), the Secretary concluded, do not absolutely require that he add to the production new vaJ.uc, less depreci¬ ation, a specific sum of money representative of ’’going-concern value”, as a separate item, the court having held that the failure to make specific allowance for this item of value does not necessarily render tho rates confisco.tory, and the court halving approved rates in some cases whoro such specific allow¬ ances were not made. D-291 589 ' STOCKYARDS RATES iJD CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining At the rehearing, the Secretary refused to allow any amount, in determining the value of the respondent’s property, as a. separate item for going-concern value, stating that'a soporate allowance for the element of going-concern value has no place in valuation for rate-making purposes because, in actuality, going-concern value is conceived to be the difference between the present fair value of the physical properties of a business, plus its working capital, end its actual net earnings capitalized at the going rate of money. The use of such a measure in rate proceedings would have the effect of destroying the result of the elaborate procedure which is undertaken to avoid using capitalized income as a basis for determination of the reasonableness of that income. D-298 Other factors in determining the fair value of respondent's property, used end useful, in the rendition of services for which rates ere charges, arc working capital and going-concern value. D-301 In estimating the value of respondent’s stockyards property for rate-making purposes, the Secretary allowed the inclusion of ail item for working capital and an item for going-concern value. D-344 It is generally concodud that it is not proper to include in the value of property, in rate proceedings, an amount for going value based upon the deficits incurred during years in the past when the business suffered a loss pending the time when it became established upon a profitable basis, D-425 In arriving a.t a rate ba.se, the Secretary refused to allow, as an item of value of the property of the respondent stockya.rds company, a going-conccrn value, holding that the element of going-concern value is an integral part of the property itself and not a separate clement to bo isolated and measured,* that when the cost of reproduction new loss depreciation is trans¬ muted into fair value,'going-concern value inheres in that fair value• D-425 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Raotpp Ba.so, Factors in Determining In determining the value of stockyards property of the respond¬ ent for rate-making purposes, the Secretary refused to melee a separate allowance for the element of going-concern valuo. D-450 In determining the cost of reproduction new of the property of the St. Joseph Stock Yards Company for rate-making purposes, the Secretary would not make allowances for "pre-organization expense” and "cost of financing”• D-298 The Secretary determined that items submitted by the respondent for what it termed ”initial promotion”, "organization”, and ’’assembling ca.pital” wore not proper items to be considered in the cost of reproduction of used and useful structures. D-301 Intangibles, such a,s "Preconstruction and Organization Expenses”, "Assembling Capital”, "Attaching Business”, "Carrying Charges During Initial Operating Period" wore not considered to bo costs which could be allowed in determining the cost of repro¬ duction new of respondent’s stockyards property for the purpose of arriving at a ra.to ba.se. D-344 The Secretary found that there should not be included in the ra.to base for the respondent stockyards company any allowance for the cost of assembling ca.pital. D-425 STOCKYARDS FLUTES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining Under the existing theory thereby the cost of reproduction new of the actual property of a stockyards company for rate-nailing purposes is used as a guide to a fair value, there appears to be no reason for allowing an additional item of pre-organization expenses which would have to ao with the preliminary work involved for those who j. light be interested in promoting a new enterprise. If historical costs were to be used as the guide for the fair value and it could be shown that respondent had actually incurred the type of expenditures which its engineer has included under organization expenses, the claim for the inclusion of such■expenditures in’the rate base might then have some merit. Upon the basis of the evidence in the record and upon the basis of the principles followed in the determination of the issues in the case, it is found that the pre-organization expenses set forth by the respondent’s engineer should not be included an an element in the rate base. D-425 The method used by the witness Zelinski, in determining the value of respondent’s land for rate-making purposes, was the method approved by the Secretary. The witness arrived at the value of the lend by deter..lining the sales prices of other tracts of land either contiguous to or in the immediate vieinitv of respondent’s lend, regardless of the uses for which the contiguous or immediate tracts were sold and regardless of the manner in which they were sold. ' " D-344 The method used by the land appraisers in appraising the used and useful land in connection with the rendering of stockyard services, in order to determine a rate base for the respondent stockyards company, was to investigate sales of similar and adjacent property where such sales were existent, and deter.iine from such investi¬ gation the nominal values of the lands represented by those sales, and then to apply such values, talcing into consideration all of the circumstances, to similarly located tracts of lend belonging to the respondent, giving consideration to the effect of the depression in so far as the economic factors involved had influenced the general level of values, but not giving effect to the stagnation in real estate values resulting from the depression. From the testimony of the appraised witnesses for the Government and for the respondent, the Secretary arrived at the reasonable value for such lands for rate-making purposes. D-425 592 STOCKYARDS RATES AM) CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In making a valuation of the land owned by the respondent stock- yards company, for rate-making purposes, the -witness, whose testimony the Secretary gave great weight, considered the follow¬ ing elements: (l) the topography, size, shape, and location of the land with respect to highways, railroad trackage, and to certain centers of value or development in that portion of the city in which the property is located, (2) the general nature of the surrounding development and the use to which the surround¬ ing property is devoted, (3) the improvements in the community in which the property is located, such as schools, churches, and fire protection, (4) the location of the property with respect to street cars and local transportation and to city facilities such as water mains and sewage outlets, (5) the sales price of transfers made over a period of years of land located near to the land in question, (6) the value of the land as naked, unimproved, vacant land, giving consideration that all the adjacent property was in place and that the situo.tion with respect to the surrounding property was unchanged in every respect, (7) the fact that the lands are especially adaptable for a stockyards utility, lie gave little weight to the assessed value of the property. He looked upon the area in question as bare land, lacking public streets and alleys. D-450 In determining the cost of reproduction new less depreciation of stockyards’ properties for rate-making purposes, the Secretary also depreciated general overheads during the construction period, D-298 Depreciation in parts of a structure tend to depreciate the structure as a whole. D-298 593 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors In Determining One method of determining the cost of reproduction-new less depreciation of stockyards’ properties for rate-mailing purposes is to find the percent condition of each unit and multiply its cost of reproduction new by such percentage# A second method is to deduct from the cost of reproduction new, of each unit, a sum of money composed of (l) the estimated cost of replacing such parts of the unit as should be replaced, and (2) an estimate, in money, of the accumulated depreciation in those pants of the structure, which, though not sufficiently worn to warrant replacement, do show wear# The two methods are not distinct, but each involves some elements, at least, of the other. They seen but slightly different methods of arriving at the sane determination., namely, tho proportion of the property which remains sound. The appraisal engineers for both the Government and. the respondent stockyards company used the first method. D-298 In determining the cost of reproduction now less depreciation, the Secretary adopted at the rehearing the method used by Kcnrici, 'which was to find the percent condition of oa.ch unit and multiply its cost of reproduction new by such percentage. D-298 In determining the rate base, the Secretary found that, in addition to depreciating structures, general overheads should also bo depreciated., D-301 General overheads, allowed by the Secretary as an item in the reproduction new of tho used and useful structures of the respondent stockyards company in arriving at a rate ba.se, were depreciated by the Secretary to the same extent that tho used and useful structures were depreciated. D-425 594 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In computing depreciation to determine the cost of reproduction new less depreciation of respondent’s property, for the puroose of determining a rate base, the Secretary adopted the method used by the engineer for the Government, which was that after having ma.de an inspection of the property he estime.ted the percent condition of the property from the viewpoint of what he, as an engineer, estimated the accrued reduction to be in the valuation of the individual units of property due to wear, teen, rot, rust, decay, inadequacy, and obsolescence, wherever they appear. The engineer found the condition percent of the property to be 84.7. D-344 Upon consideration of all the evidence in the record, the Secre¬ tary found that, with the exception of additions and betterments, the condition percent of the used and useful stockyards structures of the respondent for rate-making purposes was slightly clove 81.40, and that the total cost of reproduction new less depre- ci a.tion of materi al s and. 1 abor was ~}1 ,9 70, 054 • D-425 The method pursued by the engineer for the Government and adopted by the Secretary in arriving at the cost of reproduction new less depreciation of the respondent’s stockyards property was a determination of the condition percent of each item of property from the actual visual inspection of it. This determination was made by five engineers employed by the Government and working v under the supervision of the chief engineer, and the average of the five estimates together with the estimate of the chief engineer was taken as the condition percent of each cla.ss or item of property. They did not use the age and life method. Age was a factor in the determination made only to the extent that age is apparent from an inspection of the property. They too]: into consid.ero.tion such elements a.s roc]:, rust, decay, wear, tear, and inadequacy. D-425 In arriving at' an item of expense covering repairs, depreciation, and depreciation reserve for rate-making purposes, the Secretary did not consider alone the sinking fund method or the straight- line basis, but considered both of these principles together with the amounts vdiich had in the past actually been expended for repairs or set aside for depreciation reserve upon the books of the respondent. D-425 ✓ 595 STOCKYiJIDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining A careful analysis of the facts with respect to the elements which enter into the depreciation of stockyards property, for rate-making purposes, will disclose that judgment based upon the general engineering'knowledge must enter into the proper determination to the extent of depreciation of property. The elements of deterioration are continually at work and this is exceptionally true in the case of such structural properties as are owned by the respondent stockyards company. Ordinarily, a board or a hinge does not pass from its new condition to a condition of uselessness at any given moment. There is a process of wear, tear, and decay whereby property gradually deteriorates, and, although it may continue to render satis¬ factory service for a long period of time, it is inevitably destined to that point when it becomes useless. The problem of determining the depreciated condition of property involves many factors which are known as having an influence upon the condition of the property from the standpoint of its permanency of rendering the service for which it is intended. They are factors which must be solved by careful inspection by those skilled in making such inspections and having a knowledge of factors affecting the depreciation of the property. The determination of the influence of such factors is not a sub¬ ject of mathematical calculation. Such calculation serves its purpose only after the engineering judgment has been exercised. Since a stockyards property in a very poor state of repair and destined to remain in use for only a short time might render service quite similar to that of a new property, it is not proper to consider that the only elements of depreciation to be properly deducted in setting up value as a part of the rate base is the actual depreciation which affects the capability of the property to render services as compared with new property. This view of depreciation gives less weight than is warranted to the actual physical condition of the property. D-450 In arriving at a rate base for determining the reasonableness of stockyards rates and charges, the Secretary found that the cost of reproduction new less depreciation of the respondent Denver Union Stockyard Company’s used and useful and non-used and useful structures was 80.545% of the cost of reproduction new. D-450 596 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In fixing a rate base for stockyards rates and charges, sub¬ stantial justice in arriving at a proper amount to be covered into rates on account of depreciation of respondent’s property is not dependent upon a particular method of mathematical computation, but upon an observation of the condition of the property, how this condition is maintained, what the respondent’s policy has been with respect to repairs and retirements, and what its depreciation accounts show* Some of the respondent’s property is comparatively new; other items have been in existence for considerable periods of time. The character of the property is such that much of it, such as pens and their appurtenances, can be maintained almost indefinitely through adequate repairs. Its buildings, such as the Old Exchange Building and the Now Exchange Building, suffer depreciation. All these matters me factors which it is necessary to consider in arriving at a reasonable amount to allow for depreciation. D-450 Handling costs, overheads, and other indirect costs not added to the cost price of feed purchased by respondent were included by the Secretary in operating expenses in determining the rate base. D-301 The Secretary allowed the following items as reasonable operating expenses in determining a rate ba.se for the respondent stock- yards company: (l) insurance, (2) repairs, depreciation, and depreciation reserve, (3) subscriptions to papers, services, and organizations of specific benefit to the respondent, (4) engi¬ neering expenses on account of the Sioux City Terminal Railway, (5) taxes, (6) capital stock taxes to the extent of the value of the respondent’s used and useful property, (7) other general operating expenses. D-425 The following items were included by the Secretary in determin¬ ing the cost of reproduction new of the used and useful structures for rate-making purposes upon the respondent’s stockyard lands: (l) materials and labor, (2) general overheads, consisting of engineering and architects' expenses 5^, legal expenses work¬ men’s compensation insurance, general salaries 2/^, fire insurance, taxes during construction, interest during construction, interest on land during construction, D-425 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In determining the cost of reproduction new of the respondent stockyard company's property for rate-making purposes, the Secretary included the following items; (l) labor and material, (2) omissions and contingencies b%, (3) engineers’ and archi¬ tects' fees 5%, (4) legal expense l/o, (5) general salaries and expenses 2%, (6) fire insurance one-half of \% 3 (7) taxes during construction, and (8) interest during construction. D-450 In determining the fa.ir value of the respondent stockyard company's property for rate-making purposes, the Secretary included the following items; (l) cost of reproduction new less depreciation of the structures, (2) reasonable value of the land, (3) an item for working capital, (4) interest on the used and useful land during construction, (5) the value of a bridge in the process of construction at the dole of the oral argument, (6) the value of a sewage disposal plant in process of construction, as of the date of the oral argument. D-450 In fixing a rate base for stockyards rates and charges, the reasonable operating s alaries and management expenses of Interstate month to cover expenses Secretary allowed the following items as expenses; (l) yard labor, (2) officers' withdrawals, (3) $300 per month to cover Commerce Commission hearings, (4) $100 a incurred in connection with hearings under the Packers and Stock- yards Act, (5) an item to cover dues, donations, and subscriptions of■a public nature, which are of peculiar benefit to the employees and patrons of the respondent stockyards company, (6) garage expense, (7) expenses in connection with the horse and mule division, (8) taxes other than Federal income tax, (9) miscel¬ laneous expenses, (10) repairs, (ll) depreciation reserve, (12) Federal income tax, (13) on amount to cover proposed increa.se in pay roll. D-450 598 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining The Secretary allowed, as items of additional operating expense over and above the items allowed in his previous order fixing the rates and charges at the Denver Union Stock Yards, the following: (l) a modified and larger amount for repairs, (2) a modified and larger amount to cover the expenses on account of the Social Security Act, (3) expenses of taxation due to legislation passed by the State and Federal Governments subsequent to the date of the original order, (4) an amount to cover increases in pay roll due to the administration of the Wage and Hour Law, (5) an additional amount to cover the operat¬ ing by the respondent of its sewage disposal plant. These allowances were ma.de upon petition by the stockyards company for modification of the original order. D-450 In'making a determination as to the fair value of the entire property of the respondent stockyards company devoted to the stockyard service, for the purpose of establishing reasonable rates, the Secretary considered all of the elements which enter into such a determination, including the reproduction cost new and an amount adequate for overhead construction cost, the present condition of the property, the changing price levels of the investment, the capital stock and its value, the purpose for which the property is used, an amount adequate for working capital, the value of the land, and the fact that the'property is now- operating successfully as a going concern. The Secretary refused' to include good will as a specific item. D-5 Applying the general principals with respect to the determination of reasonable rates end charges requires an ascertainment from the record in the case of the following facts: (l) the property of the respondent Nashville Union Stock Yards Company both tangible and intangible, used and useful in the rendition of stockyards services, (2) the fair value of such property, (3) the fair return upon such value, and (4) the volume of business reasonably to be anticipated at the stockyard in the immediate future. D-291 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining The following tracts of lend, were considered by the Secretary to be used and useful in the rendering of stockyard services by respondent Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc.: (l) a vacant area which is used for the disposing of manure and refuse from trucks transporting livestock, (2) lands upon which are located the livestock divisions of the stockyard such as hog, calf, sheep, cattle, etc., and (3) land upon which is located the exchange building, even though some of the offices in the build¬ ing ere vacant and the building was constructed evidently to anticipate a volume of business which has not materialized. D-291 The following items of personal property were found by the Secre¬ tory to bo used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services by respondent: (l) working capital of $10,000, the record showing that the annual cash requirements are slightly less than $95,000, which represents a cash expenditure of $7,900 per month, end the record further showing tha.t payments are made in the main on a semi-monthly and monthly ba.sis and revenues are collected largely on a weekly basis, and (2) interest on used and useful land during the construction of the buildings and facilities thereon. The total fair value of the structures upon the land found to bo used and useful for stockyard purposes, as computed on the ba,sis of their reproduction new value less depreciation. D-291 In determining .the reasonable cost of the reproduction new of the property, the Secretary allowed the following elements to be included: (l) material costs, labor costs, omissions and con¬ tingencies b%> (2) engineering, architects, and supervision 5%, (3) legal expenses during construction 1%, (4) general office salaries and expenses 2% } (5) insurance during construction 2% of labor, (6) ta.xes during construction (from a.udit), and (7) interest during construction 7% for 4-g- months, one-half construction period. D-291 600 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining The following expenses were included as reasonable end necessary in malting a determination of the net operating income of the respondent stockyards company for the purpose of fixing rates; (1) expenses for repairs, maintenance, and reserve for doprccication, (2) an allowance for casualty insurance premiums, (3) tcocos other than Federal, (4) Federal income taoces, and (5) other expenses of operaction which are set forth in detail on pa.ge 64 of the docket, D-298 The following facilities were found by the Secretary, upon a rehcaning, to be used and useful in the rendition of stockyards services by the respondent: (l) unloading and loa.ding facilities, (2) packers stora.ge facilities, (3) a covered stock driveway, (4) a. new stock viaduct, (5) Packers Avenue, extending from the Belt railway tracks at the northerly boundary of the main stock- yard area to the point at which the Armour covered stock drive crosses the respondent’s property leading to Armour & Company’s property line, (6) all land lying within the general stockyard area, (7) land upon which the offices of the sheep commission men are located, (8) land upon which the exchange buildings ace loca/tcd, and the buildings, (9) land upon which garages are located, which are used for the storage of automobiles owned principally by tenants of the exchange buildings and by various persons having business in the sheep division, and the gara.ges thereon, (10) subway structures on the respondent’s land, (11) the old Southern ca.ttle division, (12 ) land occupied by feed lots, (13) land upon which is located a material house used in connection with the water supply service to respondent, (14) a roa.dway used for truck traffic, which was not open at the first hearing, and (15) on area used for the disposal of manure, D-298 In determining the four value of the defendant’s stockyards property for rate-making purposes, the Secretary included the following items; (l) the cost of reproduction new less depre- ciation of all properties used and useful in the rendering of stockyard services, (2) a reasonable amount of working capital, and (3) a roasona.blc amount for going-concern value, D-298 601 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining The following land was determined by the Secretary to be used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services; (l) land upon which are located the cattle, hog, and sheep divisions, and other various properties usually employed in the operation of a stockyards, (2) land being used by the stockyards company for a. manure dump, (3) land upon which is located a transit house hotel for use by owners of livestock, truck drivers, and other persons connected with the livestock business# D-298 All structures located in or upon lands found by the Secretary to be used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services were also found by the Secretary to bo used and useful for that purpose; likewise, all structures located upon property not used and useful for the rendition of stockyards services were found not to be used and useful for that purpose. D-298 The valuation of the used and useful structures upon the land of respondent stockyards was arrived at by determining the cost of reproduction new of the structures, less depreciation, end in determining such reproduction costs the Secretary included the follomng items: interest on land during construction, materials and labor, omissions and contingencies, engineering and superintend¬ ence, legal expense, general office expense, liability insurance, taxes during construction, and interest during construction# D-301 All structures located upon the land found to be used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services, except the gen ago, anc also found to be used and useful in the rendition o.f services and to bo considered in determining the rate bane; likewise, all structures located upon the land found not to bo used and useful in the rendition of services are to be excluded a.s fc.ctors in determining the ra.te base. D-301 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determini ng The following expenses were considered proper by the Secretary in connection with the furnishing of stockyard services: expenses incurred in rendering stockyard, services; repairs to property used in rendering stockyard services, expenses upon real estate used in connection with stockvard services, advertising expenses; fire insurance premiums upon real estate used in connection with stockyard services; donations, sub¬ scriptions, payments, and miscellaneous expenses which have the effect of benefiting the shippers to the market and tend toward improving the morale of the employees of the respondent; taxes on real estate found to be used and useful in rendering stock- yard services; miscellaneous hay expenses, except those expended in connection with the acquiring of permanent equipment; depreciation reserve; income tax calculated, at 12% on the net taxable income. D-301 The following revenues were determined by the Secretary to be properly considered in arriving at the income of defendant stock- yards: rentals received from real estate found by the Secretary to be used'and useful in connection with rendering stockyard services; end the Secretary determined that revenues from the railroad track income end rentals from real estate found not to- be used and useful in connection with rendering stockyard services, and interest and dividends on investments should not bo considered as factors in arriving a.t a rate base. D-301 603 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Do tor mining The foilowing land of respondent Denver Union Stock Yards was found by the Secretary to be useful in the rendition of services for which rates are charged by respondent, and, hence, to be considered as factors in the determination of a. reasonable rate base: (l) land near the exchange building occupied by a garage, consisting of 2 one-story brick buildings, (2) property used in rendering loading and unloading service, such as unloading docks, chutes, chute pens, etc,, (3) 69,575 square feet of land occupied by parts of the sheep division, river dock, and river chute pens, (4) all of a tract of 361,417 square feet, except • 611 e.crcs of land occupied by the railroad, right of way, containing part of the cattle division, some of the hay storage facilities, manure dump, and two va.cant areas, one of which lies between the ha.y barn and the • manure dump an one side and the cattle pens on the other, the other of which lies between the cattle pens and the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad, (5) 660,587 square feet of land, except 23,300 square feet of railroad right of way, comprising the northeasterly part of the cattle pen area, on which arc locoated the material yard, the carpenter shop, parts of the Armour roadway, an area of 41,935 square feet of van ant' land, railroad docks, and chute pens, (6) property on which the horse and mule barns arc located, (7) 33,062 square feet of va.cant land upon which truck drivers dump the litter from their trucks after they heave brought livestock to market, (8) a. section of roadway leading to and from the drive-in division of the stockyard end the Swift packing'plant, end -(9 ) 110,773 square feet of vacant land from which gra.vel is obtained to bo placed on slinperv ailovs and runways in order to fmilitate the movement of livestock and render it less hazardous, D-301 604 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rats Base, Factors in Determining The following tracts of land were found by the Secretary to be used and useful in connection with the rendition of respondent’s stockyards services, and hence the value of which should be included in determining the rate base for such services: (l) land used for the horse and mule division of the stockyards company, upon which are located the main horse and mule barn, a horse show barn, covered pens, sales pavilion, and other facilities and appurtenances used in connection with the operation of the division, (2) land covered with pens and alleys, forming a part of the cattle division, and a tract of land used for hay storage, (3) land upon which is located the exchange building, a part of the commission section of the cattle division, the carlot hog division, a part of the motor truck hog division, and the viaduct leading past the exchange building, (4) land upon which a shed is located for the storage of hogs by the Cudahy Packing Company prior to the time they are taken to the packing plant, and for storing cattle used by the Cudahy Packing Company at times, and at other times by the respondent for yarding cattle, (5) land upon which is located a part of a rail¬ road right of way, cattle division pens, a water reservoir, and certain vacant properties surrounding it, a storage yard and hay barn and a small area used for miscellaneous purposes, land upon which is located a storehouse and shops, and a material shed, (6) land used sheep sheds, a plot lot, a plot of land yard, and a plot of for a feed yard, upon which are built two of land used as a salvage material storage used as a hog pasture and a concrete casting land used for a feed yard, (7) an area which was formerly used as the ouarantinc cattle division and which is now covered with sheep and cattle pens and is used by Armour & Company for the holding of cattle and sheep, .and (8) an area commonly known as the river property, used by the respondent company in connection with its water supply for the main stockyard area, and upon which is located the pumping plant, water reservoirs, and a number of wells, it being shown that although the area is not now all used in connection with the water system, and some of it has been laid out into city lots, the property is of such nature that if- the parts testified to as not now being used and useful were disposed of, the cost of protecting the remaining property from the ravages of the Missouri River would be greater than the expense incurred by the company in holding the entire tract intact, as it now is. D-344 605 STOCKYARDS RATES AID CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining For the purpose of determining a rate base for stockyard services charges of respondent, the Secretary included, in determining the reasonable value of respondent's property, all structures located on lands of respondent found to be used and useful in the rendition of services, and the Secretary excluded all structures found on land determined by the Secretary to be not used and not useful in rendering stockyards services. D-344 The following lands were found by the Secretary to bo used and useful in the rendition of stockyards services for which are charged the rates under consideration: (l) an area, occupied by a baseball bus garage, it appearing that the land would be used and useful if a garage were not there, (2) appropriate areas of land for use as manure dumps, snow end ice dumps, and a sand pit, (3) an area on which is included truck-washing facilities, it appearing that they also serve as a protection from the river, (4) an area used for parking trucks for those who truck live¬ stock to the market, (5) a private driveway, (6) land occupied by loading end unloading facilities, (7) land occupied by the building of the Record Publishing Company, it appearing that if it wore vacant it would be included in the used and useful land as interspersed land, (8) land occupied by the exchange building of the Sioux City Livestock Exchange, (9) land occupied by loaded trucks awaiting their turn a.t the cattle unloading docks, (10) land upon which is located a. house occupied by a foreman and watchman, (ll) a roadway providing a. way for fire equipment to get to the hay storage yard, (12) a parcel of vacant land so interspersed with used and useful property tha.t it is included • an such, (13) land occupied by the hay office, the vault and hay storage facilities, (14) land occupied by horse barns and other buildings constituting a part of the horse and mule market, (15) land occupied by a. blacksmith's shop, a wagon repair yard, and a hitching yard, (16) land occupied by horse bams, corrals, sheds, and lots, (17) an alloy loading from Beech Avenue to the horse barns and corrals, (18) land occupied- by a corn scale and corn crib garage, and (19) all structures upon the land found to be used and useful, except certain buildings on a residential site. D-425 606 stockyards rates and charges III Rato Base, Factors in Determining In addition to the general stockyard facilities and the land upon which it is located, the Secretary found the following property to be used and useful by the respondent stockyards company in the rendition of the stockyards services: (l) all interspersed lots and parcels of land, (2) a reasonable amount of vacant land for expansion, (3) a reasonable portion of land under which are sewer and other drains, (4) a parcel of lend furnished free to truckers of livestock for dumping purposes and for cleaning end washing facilities adjacent to the truck chutes, (5) lend occupied by the horse end mule division end operrated by the Colorado Iiorse and Mule Company, (6) a. parcel of land upon which is a gravel pit, and (7) structures located upon the land found to bo used and useful. D-450 In arriving at the rea.sona.hlc value of the respondent’s property, to be used as a. banc for rahc-making purposes, the Secretary refused to allow the inclusion of the following items: (l) going-concern value. The element of going-concern value is an inherent pant of reproduction new value less depreciation, and an such has been taken into consideration and given due effect in the ascertainment of that value, and (2) the contract with the Louisville and Nashville and the 'Nanhville, Chattanooga., and St. Louis Railroad Company, whereby respondent’s stockyard is made the exclusive livestock depot in Nanhville of those railroads. To allow the instrument which creates the monopoly which, in turn, necessitates public rate regulation to be used to render such regulation would be the very inversion of reason. D-291 607 STOCKYARDS RATES AMD CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining The following tracts of land were considered by the Secretary not to be used and useful for a stockyard purposes, in deter¬ mining a fair value of the respondent’s stockyards: (l) lands not now used for rendering stockyard services but being held by respondent for expansion purposes. Those utilizing stock- yard facilities may not properly be required, through the payment of rates and charges, to provide for a monetary return on the value of, or to bear the carrying charges of, lands not used, or in fact not likely to be used in the future in the rendition of the stockyard service, and (2) land upon which is located a gasoline filling station and oil tanks which are owned by an outside person and have no connection with the operation of the stockyard. D-291 The following were some of the expenses found not to have been reasonablv incurred in the rendering of stockyard services by the respondent: (l) certain donations and miscellaneous administrative expenses, because they v r ere made from the stand¬ point of the citizenship of the respondent in the community and were of a character commonly made by the citizens of each community. If they were passed back to the patron of the stock- yard in the form of rates, it would result in the respondent having rate assessing power to compel its patrons to contribute to the St. Joseph community, in addition to their voluntary contributions made for their own. community, (2) bond interest was not included for the reason that it is a capital charge and is specifically provided for in the ascertainment of the fair rate of return. • D-298 At the rehearing, the Secretary determined that the following items of expense were not proper to be considered in arriving at the respondent stockyards company’s not operating income: (l) donations and subscriptions, (2) bond interest, bond discount, bond issue expense, (3) interest paid as a penalty for underpayment of income tax, (4) cost of shoes sold to employees, (5) miscellaneous outside real estate expense, and (6) capital expense in connection with fiscal agents, registrars, etc. D-298 608 STOCKYARDS PATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining The following land was determined by the Secretary to be not used and useful by the St. Joseph Stockyards Company in the rendition of stockyards services: (l) land being hold for expansion, (2) land being used as feed lots in preparing feeder lambs for market, (3) land being used as alleyways between feed lots for feeder lambs, (4) land upon which is located a meter house, which is leased to a. corporation and used by the corporation in supplying water to the stockyards, (5) land leased to a serum company and used by the company in the manufacture of livestock scrum, (6) land upon which is located a harness shop and a building in which a livestock market newspaper, known as the Stockyards Journal, is published, (7) land upon which is located a brick barn in which is conducted, for 0 . few days each year, without charge, a 4-H Club livestock show, and (8) three-fourths of the Southern cattle dock, which is no longer being used. D-298 At the rehearing, the Secretary determined that the following lend and facilities were not used and useful in the rendition of stockyards services: (l) property occupied by the Anchor Scrum Company, (2) a plot of ground set aside for an automobile parking space, there being nothing in the evidence to indicate that it could not be monopolized by employees of the packing plants nearby, (3) land being held for expansion, (4) on area described as the horse and wagon yard, (5) farm land, (6) land used for a city dump, and the road leading thereto, (7) a public street owned by the respondent but used by the public, (8) land v upon which a transient commercial hotel is located. The opera¬ tion of a commercial hotel is not a stockyard service; and (9) land leased to the Kelsey Nurseries. D-298 The following expenses were not allowed by the Secretary to be considered in determining the rate base for stockyard services rates: (l) revenues from outside investments, current yard expenses incurred on account of the livestock show, repairs to property not used in rendering stockyard services, expenditures upon real estate not used in rendering stockyard- services, (2) fire insurance upon real estate not used in rendering stockyard services, (3) donations, subscriptions, payments, and miscellaneous expenses of little or no benefit to shippers and employees, taxes on real estate and personal property not used in connection with rendering stockyard services, (4) bond discount and expense, (5) interest on bonds, income taxes on bond coupons, and (6) expenses for water reports. D-301 609 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHANGES III & Rate Base, Factors in Determining The following land of respondent was found by the Secretary to be not used and useful in the rendition of services for which are charged rates, and, hence, the value thereof should not bo considered as a factor in determining the reasonable rate base: (l) a vacant tract of 4*>41 acres consisting of a portion of the old river channel and bank lying below the stockyard levol, being filled with refuse and manure, (2) railroad right of ways end railroad property end facilities used by carriers under terms end conditions sot forth in contracts between the couriers end the respondent, they being a pent of the transportation service as distinguished from the stockyard services, (3) land held for expansion purposes, it being not reasonable for present shippers to pay through rates covering as one item of charge land not now being used for their needs, (4) 169,448 square feet acquired by respondent in connection with the changes brought about by the improvement of the channel of the South Platte River, being held for use an trackage property, (5) vacant tracts being held by respondent for use as future manure dumps, (6) 104,120 square feet of land, the cite of the National Western Stock Show buildings, used in connection with such show, and (7) 3,528 square feet of land upon which is located a two-story brick structure, the first floor being leased to 3 stores and the second floor being used by the Denver Club. D-301 610 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III # Rato Base, Factors in Determining Tho Secretary found that the following expenses vrcre not incurred in connection with tho rendition of stockyard services and, hence, should not be figured in the total amount of expenses incurred in the rendition of stockyard services: (l ) rent expenses incurred in connection with property which has been found to be not used and useful in connection with the rendition of stockyard services, (2) insurance premiums paid on property found not to be used and useful in connection with the rendering of stockyard services, (3) taxes paid on property found not to be used and useful in connection with stockyard services, (4) interest was excluded because it was found to be an expenditure in connection with the capital of the respondent company and was provided for in connec¬ tion with the rate of return allowed, (5) tre.ffic expense for items incurred which would in no way result in a benefit to the conduct of respondent’s business, (6) expenditures incurred in connection with rate hearings, it being a policy of the Secretary to disallow such expenditures, (7) an item on the books of the respondent company identified as "Officers’ Expense", this account not having been properly vouched and there being no information to indicate that the expense was rendered as a nec¬ essary and reasonable stockyard expense, (8) an item in the "General Expense" account which could not be identified as having been expended as a reasonable stockyard expense, and (9) all sums over a reasonable allowance for annual repairs, maintenance, and reserve for depreciation, it a.ppearing that the amounts set forth for such purposes by the respondent vrcre unreasonable when computed either by the straight line or sink¬ ing fund methods• D-344 611 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining The following lands were found to be not used and not useful to the respondent Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Ltd,, and, hence, the value of which should not bo figured in determining the rate base: (l) land being held by respondent company for the expansion of the horse and mule division, (2) land upon which is located the Journal Stockman Building, (3) a small area upon which the Cudahy Packing Company has erected facili¬ ties for slaughtering serum hogs and which is used exclusively by the packing company, (4) an area upon which is located a storage yard and dairy barns and yards which are used by respondent in connection with a dairy herd vrhich is maintained by respondent to furnish dairy products to the respondent’s catering department; an area containing two sheep sheds, which is leased to an independent sheep feeder; a tract of land leased to the Cudahy Packing Company and used by the packing company for feed lots, (5) a tract of land used in connection with the pasturing of the dairy herd maintained by the respondent in connection with its catering depantment, (6) a tract of land held by the respondent company either for expansion or for the buying power of the yard, (7) a. strip of land known as the Cudahy Road, which, as shown from the evidence, has been used by the public for 40 years, (8) a tract of land leased to Armour & Company for storing hogs prior to their being moved to the packing plant, upon which is located an improvement known as the Armour hog shed; and a portion of land in Zone 13, which is vacant and unused; a portion of land, in Zone 14 leased to an independent packer and used, in connection with the pack¬ ing plant for holding pens and a truck chute for livestock, (9) a tract of land consisting of a number of city lots which are leased, to parties for quarantine purposes, (10) a tract of land leased to Swift & Company, who used it for feed lots, and which the respondent company is holding for sale to someone who would increase the buying power at the market, (ll) a tract of land leased for agricultural purposes, and a. portion of which is a stock driveway leading from the stockyards to the Dold Packing Company, and (12) land held for sale to packers, While it may be good business policy for respondent to hold land for this purpose, it is difficult to sec why a present shipper to the Omaha market should pay the cost of holding property which some years in the future may be sold to a packer whoso presence presumably will bo a benefit to some other shipper some years hence, D-344 612 STOCKYARDS RATES AMD CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining The Secretary found that the following revenues were not obtained by the respondent stockyard company in connection with property used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services, and, hence, should not be included in the total amount of revenues obtained in the rendition of stockyard services; (l) real estate rentals from property determined by the Secretary to be not used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services, (2) grease revenue from the operation of a rendering plant locaatcd on prop¬ erty not claimed to be used and useful and in no way connected with the furnishing of stockyard services, and (3) revenues obtained from bonds and securities not a part of the value of respondent’s property used in connection with the rendition of stockyards services. D-344 In arriving at operating costs, for rate-making purposes, of the respondent stockyards company, the Secretary excluded the following items of expense as being improper items to be con¬ sidered in the raate base; (l) feed Laid bedding, since the rates prescribed by the Secretary provided for the cost of feed and bedding F.O.B. the stockyard, whatever that price may be, and . a reasonable margin of profit per unit, (2) office rent, since this item appeared among the revenues derived from the exchange building and was, therefore, eliminated by the Secretary as an expense and as a. revenue, (3) all expenses incident to the operation of outside property, (4) donations, (5) expenditures v on account of fiscal argents, registrants, and trustees, since . these items of expense are merely incidentals due to the fact that the respondent chooses to carry on its business under corporate form, (6) interest on bonds, (7) discount on bonds, (8) bond issue expense, (9) ail expenses incident to the maintaining of the ba.scball club, (10) interest on income tax, this item having arisen out of a controversy with respect to the amount of taxes to bo paid, end not being i\. recurring item, and (ll) garage expenses. D-425 613 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rate Base, Factors in Determining In arriving at the value of used and useful land and property owned by the Sioux City Stock Yards Company, for the purpose of fixing a rate base for stockyards services, the Secretary found that the following property of the stockyards company was not used and useful in the rendering of the stockyard services: (1) land leased to serum manufacturers and their subsidiaries, (2) land leased to a local slaughterer, (3) land leased to a rendering company, (4) land occupied by a garage used primarily for the storage of privately-owned automobiles of the employees of the outside industries, (5) land leased to individuals for residential purposes. (6) vacant land or other land being held for expansion, (7) land devoted to use as a baseball park, (8) an ornamental parkway, made attractive to lend a pleasing appearance to the aesthetic senses of those who come to the stockyard, (9) land being used as a stock drive upon the limits of the property used for marketing purposes, (10) land occupied by a garage and filling station, it appearing that those who use the garage and filling station pay for the services rendered, (11) vacant land being used for parking space for those attend- . ing the horse market or having other business at the market, it appearing that the employees of a local packer are its major users, (12) land being used for the operation of a local packing business, (13) land being used for a local packer's experimental feed yard, (14) land leased to a local packer for storage purposes, (15) land leased to a private company for the operation of a feed store and for hay storage purposes, (16) easements granted by the city to the respondent for the purpose of constructing and main¬ taining a ra.ilroad track, and (17) all structures on land found not to be used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services, D-425 614 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rato Base, Factors in Determining The following property and facilities of the Denver Union Stock Yards Company was found by the Secretary to be not used and useful in a stockyards rate case in the rendition of stockyards services; (l) land upon which railroad unloading and loading facilities are located, and the facilities, (2) land upon which are loca.ted railroad tracks owned by the respondent stockyards company but leased to the railroads, (3) land occupied by com¬ mercial feed lots and leased to a. private party, (4) land occupied by a trackman’s tool house, (5) land being held for expansion, which is so located with respect to the stockyards pens that there is no likelihood of expansion in that direction, (6) land occupied by and devoted to stock-show purposes, and (7) all structures located upon the land not used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services. D-450 In fixing a rate base for stockyards ra.tes and changes, the Secretary refused to allow the following items of expense; (l) cost of sc.les of hay, grain, and bedding, (2) contributions and donations which ha.ve no peculiar benefit to the employees and patrons of the respondent stockyards company, and (3) Federal surtax on undistributed profits, since the record indicated that in the past all of the dividends of the respond¬ ent company had been distributed. D-450 Reasonableness of The Secretary found that a not return of 7 % per annum, after allowing for all tax.es, including Federal income trot, and depreciation, is a reasonable return upon the fair value of the property of the Peoria,. Union Stock Yards Company. D-5 The Secretary found, after full investigation and hearing, that the rate or charge of one-half the original yardage charge demanded and collected upon all livestock ’’planted and resold” in the commission division of the stockyards of the respondent is discriminatory and, therefore, contrary to and in violation of Title III of the Act. D-6 615 STOCKYARDS RATES ADD CHARGES m Reasonableness of Proposed new rates and schedules for stockyard services charges found by the Secretary to be not unjust or unreasonable, the evidence indicating that the proposed increase was requested for the purpose of enabling the respondent company to earn enough to pay its legitimate operating expenses, interest on fixed obligations, and taxes, and not for the purpose of securing sufficient revenue to enable it to declare a dividend,, B-82 The evidence indicating that the net earnings of respondent stockyard company were less them 4% of the book value of the company’s assets, that the operating expenses of the company show that the salaries paid are conservative, that the company has paid no dividends on its common stock since the date of its organization, and that the amounts expended for advertising items were limited, the Secretary permitted the respondent to increase its rates or charges for yarding livestock 2$ per head over end above the rate or charge previously in effect. D-155 So long as the resale yardage charges are reasonable and apply equally to all who operate upon the yard making the charges, the rates cannot be said to be discriminatory because another competing stockyard makes a less change or no charge for the same service. D-191 It is fundamental that a public utility cannot be required to furnish a. service without some compensation, either directly or indirectly, nor compelled to render one service below cost merely because it may be making a. fair return, or even an exorbitant profit, on other services. D-191 The fact that stockyard services changes to one group of patrons may be sufficient to defray its expenses and yield a fair return upon its investment does not entitle another group of pa.trons to receive services without charge. D-191 616 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Reasonableness of Based upon his conclusions that the fair rate of return upon the fair value of respondent’s property used and useful in rendering stockyard services should be the Secretary fixed a schedule of rates and charges for the respondent Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc-,, which could reasonably be expected, on the basis of a normal volume of business, to return a net operating income of $41,708 upon $556,007, the latter figure being approximately $45,000 more than the fair value of the property as theretofore found, to afford a, margin to cover errors or omissions in the determination of the fair value, D-291 After having given due consideration to opinions of the various witnesses as to what constitutes a reasonable rate of return, and to the facts upon which they based their opinions, the Secretary concluded that a schedule of rates which would have produced in 1928 a return of 7on the value of the property, as of that date, would not have been confiscatory, D-291 It may be that the respondent stockyards company has the right to render free service to one class of its patrons if, by so doing, it does not become necessary for it to maintain higher charges upon the service rendered to others, but for respondent to maintain a large section of a valuable property and to incur numerous expenses in the rendition of a free service to one class of its patrons and then to remunerate itself through a charge on another class, which is greater than necessary to cover the cost of rendition of the service to the latter class, is unjustly discriminatory, as well as unreasonable. It is found, therefore, that all who receive the benefit of carrying on their business within respondent’s warehouse and market place, through the purchase and resale of livestock therein, should pay for the services so received substantially one-half of the rates and charges imposed upon those who cause to be brought to the warehouse and market place livestock for sale, D-298 617 ■STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III € Reasonableness of The existing rates and charges for the respondent's stockyards services found by the Secretary to be unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory because (l) they yield a net return which exceeds the reasonable cost of rendering the service, including the fair return found upon the fair value of the used and useful property, and (2) because they are imposed upon portion of the respondent’s patrons in amounts sufficient to cover not only the cost of rendition of the service to those patrons but also the cost of the rendition of services to other patrons for which no charge is made. D-298 The Secretary found that 7-g^ constituted a fair rate of return upon the fair value of the respondent's property found to be used and useful in the rendering of stockyard services. D-298 On the basis of the entire record in the proceeding, the Secre¬ tary found.and set forth in the docket a schedule of maximum reasonable rates and changes for the following stockyards services rendered by the respondent: yardage, feed and bedding, dipping or spraying, hog immunizing plant, cattle testing barn, cleaning and disinfecting, bedded and sheltered pens. D-298 Upon rehearing in the St. Joseph Stock Yards Company rate case, the Secretary proscribed the same maximum reasonable rates and charges for the same services as ho prescribed at the original hearing. D-298 At the rehearing, the Secretary determined that 7% Is the reasonable rate of return to be used in the determination of reasonable rates to be changed by the respondent stockyards company. D-298 The Secretary found and concluded the maximum reasonable rates and charges for yardage, feed and bedding, branding, marking, castro.ting, tipping, dehorning, etc., dipping, disinfecting, testing cattle or horses, immunization and vaccination, bedding stable charges and weighing, to be such that the net operating income therefrom would bo 7j=f/o of $3,44G,959, which was approx¬ imately $53,000 more than the fair value of respondent’s property used and useful in the rendition of stockyard services. D-301 618 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Reasonableness of It was found by the Secretary that 7j$> is a reasonable rate of return upon the four value of respondent Denver Union Stock Yard Company's property to be used in determining the charge for services. D-301 It is unjustly discriminatory, as well as unreasonable, for the respondent to maintain a large section of a valuable property and to incur numerous expenses in the rendition of a free service to one class of patrons and remunerate itself through a change on another class which is greater than nec¬ essary to cover the cost of rendition of the services to the latter class. D-301 It may be that respondent has the right to render free service to one class of its patrons if, by so doing, it does not become necessary for it to maintain higher changes for services rendered to others. D-301 In order to follow the decisions in the cases of Denver Union Stock Yards Company v. U. S. , 57 Fed. (2d) 735, and St. Joseph Stock Yards Company v. U, S., 58 Fed. (2d) 290, 295, the Secre¬ tary concluded that a reasonable rate of return on the four value of respondent's stockyards property would be 7-gfb. He stated, however, that; except for those decisions, ho would have found the fair rate of return to be D-344 A petition by the respondent stockyards company for permission to substitute a tariff in lieu of the rrates and charges prescribed in Paragraph 235 of the Secretary’s order of December 13, 1934, having been subject to vigorous protests by practically all market agencies doing business at the sto.ckyo.rds and by many others who would be o.f footed by it, and in view of the further facts that there has yet been no opportunity for practical application for the rates and charges prescribed by said order to demonstrate their effect, was ordered dismissed by the Secretary and the proposed substitute tariff was rejected. D-425 619 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Reasonableness of A reasonable schedule of stockyard rates is one of such structure that it assesses charges to all users as nearly equitable as practical application permits, end of such altitude that it normally produces all reasonable operating costs and a fair return upon the fair value of the property used and useful in the rendition of those stockyard services rates for which one stated in such schedule. D-425 The Secretary found tho,t 7^ is a reasonable rate of return to bo used Cls a rate factor in determining the reasonable rates to be charged by the respondent stockyards company. D-425 A fair return upon fair value contemployes not only the return to the investor in respondent's securities, but also an allow¬ ance to surplus to meet contingencies. With this in mind, it is believed that from to 6 % would be the fair rate of return. D-442 It appearing from an analysis of information in the possession of the Secretary that the respondent Wichita Union Stock Yards Company's existing rates and charges are not now yielding, nor are they likely to yield in the immediate future, more than a fair return upon the fair value of the used and useful property and that, therefore, under those circumstances, no purpose would be served at this time in holding the hearing directed in the order of inquiry, the Secretary ordered the proceeding dismissed without prejudice. D-448 In order to permit the respondent additional revenues to cover the allowance of additional -operating expenses made by the Secretary in his order modifying his original order, the Secre¬ tary modified his original schedule of stockyards ra.tes and charges by increasing the yardage charges in certain respects. D-450 It is the law that all rates and changes made for any stockyard service, furnished at a stockyard by a stockyard owner, shall be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, and that any un¬ lawful, unreasonable, or discriminatory rate or charge is prohibited. D-450 620 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Reasonableness of Reasonable and nondiscriminatorv stockyards rates and charges are robes assessing' charges equitably among the various users of the services and of such altitude that they mil produce gross revenues enough to pay all reasonable operating expenses including taxes end an ample amount to compensate for depre¬ ciation in plant end equipment, and, in addition, a net operat¬ ing income equal to a fair return upon the fair value of the stockyards company. D-450 In addition to producing a fair return upon the fair value of a stockyard company's used and useful property for rate-maicing purposes, a. rea.sona.ble schedule of rates end charges should produce enough revenues to pay all reasonable stockyard operating expenses, including a.dcquate provision for depre¬ ciation and taxes. D-450 It may be that a stockyard company has the right to render free services to one clans of its patrons if, by so doing, it does not ha.ve to maintain higher changes for services rendered to others. It is, however, unjustly discriminatory, as well ‘as unrea.soncble, for at stockyards company to maintain a. lange section of valuable property and to incur numerous expenses in the rendition of free services to one class of its patrons and then remunerate itself through a. charge on another class which is greater than necessary to cover the cost of rendering v the service to the loiter class. D-450 The Secretary found that the schedule of rates and changes of the respondent Denver Union Stock Yards Company contained rates and charges which were unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, since the schedule produced an amount in excess of the amount found to bo necessary to pa.y all rea.sonoblo operabing expenses and a fair return upon the fair value.of the used and useful property of the respondent, and since the respondent had not assessed a. yardage charge against traders ’ livestock resold or reweighed for purposes of sale, except that resold in the commission division; and the Secretary prescribed a schedule of reasonable rates and charges for the following items t and services: (l) yarda.ge charges, (2) feed, bedding, etc., (3) branding, marking, ca.stra.ting, testing, dehorning, etc., (4) delivering cattle to or from branding chutes, (5) dipping charges, (6) disinfecting charges, (7) immunization and vaccination, (8) special sales, (9) boarding and stabling charges, (10) weighing, and (11) miscellaneous. D-450 621 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of Before a just determination of the reasonableness of a roweigh service charge can bo made by the Secretary, the Secretary must make a complete analysis of the rate structure. Such an analysis involves a careful study of any factors, including the physical services rendered, the character of organization necessary to render the services, the operating cost, the facilities end property necessary in furnishing reasonable stockyard services, end the general economic conditions affecting the stockyards as a market center. D-7 The theory that respondent stockyard owner is entitled, through its rates, to earn a ’‘fair rate of return” upon the "fair value" of its property, and no more, is not regarded by the Secretary as constituting a fair or adequate test of the reasonableness of stockyard rates. D-116 Customarily, opinion as to the reasonableness of any price is guided to quite an extent by the prices changed elsewhere for the same article or service. D-116 In determining what stockyard ra.tes are reasonable, the Secreteny does not regard the "fair rate of return" upon the "fair value" of the property to be the sole consideration, but all of the facts must be taken into consideration, including the cost of the same or similar service in other conpanable yends, the effect of unearned increment on land values, and all of the factors upon which the cost to ca.ch of a representative group of stockyands for rendering services is based. This method was the course pursued in the Omaha commission recto ca.se. (Docket No. 143.) D-116 In the opinion of the Secretary, a method which tests the rea.sona.bl ones s of the rectes for ee.ch stockyend by the costs which it has developed and without reference to the cost of the same or quite similar services of other conpe.ra.ble ya.rds tends to reward extravagance and bad management, and to penalize economy and efficiency by allowing costs resulting from the former to justify high rates at one yard, while the condition brought about by the latter force the lowering of rates at another ye.rd. Such a method does not seem to the Secretary to be the correct way of ascertaining the rcc.sone.bloness of rates now in force or of establishing new and reasonable ones. D-116 622 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of A rate schedule affording the management of the respondent an opportunity to produce from the volume of business handled a net operating'income sufficient to pay reasonable interest and dividends on securities reasonably worth o.s much as the property would enable the security holders to dispose of their interests in the property for which it is reasonably worth. Such returns would result neither in confiscation to the owners nor extortion to the users. D-291 The fair rate of return to which the respondent is entitled, which is the ratio which his net operating income bears to-the fair value of the stockyard expressed as a percentage return, should be such that the willing sellers holding interest in the stockyards may, without -financial sacrifice, dispose of their interest in the yard to willing buyers. D-291 The net operating income of a stockyard company is the differ¬ ence between the stockyard revenues of the company, derived from the used and useful property, and revenues derived from the rendering of services of the company on the one hand and the reasonable stockyard operating expenses of respondent on the other. This net operating income is the amount which should represent a fair return upon the fair value of respond¬ ent’s property used and useful in connection with stockyards services. If this net operating income amount represents more than the fair rate of return upon such property of the respondent, then the rates and changes of respondent for stockyard services should be reduced; if this amount represents less than the fair rate of return upon respondent’s stockyard property, then the respondent’s rates and charges for stoclc- yard services should be increased. D-291 In order to determine whether the rates now being charged produce a fair return on the value of the property or a reasonable net operating income and, if not, what rates would do so, it is necessary first to determine what the net operat¬ ing income is. s D-291 i 623 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of When determining the fair value of respondent’s stockyards property, the Secretary has in mind not the value from which he may ascertain and prescribe reasonable rates and charges but rather from which he may ascertain the lowest rates which he can prescribe without confiscating respondent’s property, in other words, the lowest rates the law of the land will permit him to prescribe so that he may use that basis as a point of departure in determining the rates which are reason¬ able for respondent to charge. D-291 In fixing rates and charges, to avoid overstepping the lane of confiscation, it is necessary that the rates prescribed • be such as, when applied to the volume of business reasonably to be anticipated in the immediate future, will yield a fair return upon the fair value of the property of the utility used and useful in the rendition of the public service. D-291 The law of the land fixes no definite formula for the deter¬ mination of just and reasonable rates, but rather furnishes guides to judgment, marking out a course which may be called the zone of reasonableness. This zone is bound on the one hand by the proposition that the rates prescribed must not be so low as to amount to a gradual confiscation of the property of the -utility and, on the other hand, by the principal that the rates should not be so high as to amount to an extortionate demand upon the public. D-291 As said in Docket No. 143, ’’there is a general concurrence in the proposition that the most nearly just and reasonable rates or prices are those fixed by the play of normal and reasonable competition". It is probably in recognition of this principle that public rate regulation, though not necessarily dependent upon, is generally found in association with complete or partial absence of rate or price competition within the industry regu¬ lated or some local division thereof. These questions lead to the conclusion that one of the primary objectives of public rate regulation is to bring about within the industry or division rate conditions as nearly approximating those which would obtain under conditions of normal, reasonable competition as is possible. D-291 624 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of In determining what would be a reasonable rate of return upon the fair value of respondent’s property used and useful in rendering stockyard services, the Secretary considered the fair value of the property to be outstanding in the hands of the investing public in the form of bonds, preferred stocks, and common stocks at a ratio of either one-third bonds, one- third preferred stock, and one-third common stock, or one-half bonds, one-fourth preferred stock, end one-fourth common stock. He then considered the current yields on the local markets of the outstanding bonds and preferred stock, and determined from the evidence that the common stock earnings of the stockyards company should be kept alive in the open market at about 10^, then figured, in percentages, the proportionate return of the total fair appraised value of each class of security, and took the total amount of the percentages so figured as the approximate fair rate of return which the fair value of the property should yield. D-291 The theory upon which the schedule of stockyard rates and charges is constructed is that whosoever causes livestock to come to the stockyard shall pay yardage charges which are, in effect, an entrance fee, and that thereafter no further yard¬ age charges should be imposed, except in case of livestock resold in the commission division. Inasmuch as the producer of livestock, either directly or through the country livestock buyer, causes the great bulk of the livestock to come to the stockyard, the burden of maintenance of the stockyard proper¬ ties and services, through the payment of yardage changes, falls most heavily upon him. D-298 The whole theory of fair return upon fair value as a basis for reasonable rates is that the worth of the outstanding securities should be equal to such fair value whereby the holders of those securities would receive a fair return upon them. D-298 In determining the values used as the rate base, depression or stagnation values were carefully avoided and normals were used. D-298 625 STOCKYARDS RATES AMD CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of A test of the reasonableness of the rates now being charged by respondent stockyards company is whether the revenue produced by them is substantially in excess of the amount necessary to pay the reasonable cost.of rendering the services for which those rates are charged, including-in such costs a fair return upon the fair value of respondent’s property used end useful in the rendition of such services. A test of the reasonableness of rates to be prescribed, if those now being charged by respond¬ ent bo found to be unreasonable, is whether the revenue reason¬ ably to bo anticipated from them arc sufficient to pay the afore¬ said reasonable costs of rendering the services. To the end that these facts may be determined, it is necessary to ascertain from the evidence (l) the property used and useful in the rendi¬ tion of the services, (2) the fair value of that property, (3) the fair return on that fair value, (4) respondent’s reasonable operating expenses, said (5) the volume of business reasonably to be anticipated for respondent in the immediate future. D-298 A fair rate of return upon the fair value of the respondent’s stockyards property should bo a return sufficient to enable the respondent's securities to occupy in the field of finance a position comparable to or on a parity with the securities of other soufid public utilities and industrial corporations, so that investors seeking to invest their funds would regard respondent’s securities in as favorable a light as those of any other sound corporation that might be considered. D-298 • • " ■ t In order to determine what are reasonable rates and charges for stockyards services, it is necessary to determine what are reasonable costs for the items which enter into the operating expense account raid the costs made necessary by the payment of a reasonable compensation to those who furnish the-facilities. D-301 No hypothetical cost should bo included in the rate base. D-301 626 STOCKYARDS RATES MD CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of In order to determine whether a schedule of stockyard rates is reasonable, and in order to prescribe one which is reasonable if that charged is found to be unjust, unreasonable, end dis¬ criminatory, it is necessary to adopt a standard of reasonableness • That adopted in this case is that a schedule of ra.tcs should provide sufficient revenue to provi.de all reasonable opcra.ting expenses, including on amount to cover depreciation and obso¬ lescence and reasonable compensation to those who furnish the ce.pital in the conduct of the business. D-301 The theory of a fair return upon a. fair value as a basis for determining the reasonableness of rates is that the holders of the securities will receive a fair return upon securities equiv¬ alent to the fair value. D-301 s In determining the value of the used and useful land, to arrive a.t a. rate ba.se for reasonable stockyard rates and charges, the proper method is to arrive at a. fair market value of the land, stripped of all improvements, the value of the improvements being given sope.re.te consideration. D-301 In order to determine if the present stockyard ra.tcs and charges are reasonable, the Secretary must determine wha.t is the present net stockyard operating income, and that figure is the difference between revenues, obtained by the respondent from ail property found to be used and 'useful in connection with the rendition of stockyards services and all costs found to be roa.sona.bly expended in connection with the rendition of stockyard services. D-344 In order to determine whether a. schedule of stockyard ra.tcs is reasonable, and in order to proscribe one which is reasonable if tha.t charged be found to be unjust, unreasonable, and unjustly discrimina.tory, it is necessary to a.dopt a standard of reason¬ ableness. Tha.t aiopted in this cr.so is that a. schedule of ra.tcs should provide sufficient revenue to pa.y all rcasona.blc operating expenses, including -an amount to cover depreciation and obso¬ lescence and reasonable compensa.tion to those who furnish the ca.pital, in the conduct of the business. D-344 627 STOCKYARDS RATES AND CHARGES III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of In order to fix a schedule of rates and charges sufficient to pay all reasonable operating expenses, it becomes necessary to determine what arc reasonable costs for the items which enter into the operating expenses and'what reasonable costs arc made necessary for the payment of a rea.sonablc compensation to-those who furnish the facilities. D-344 I A reasonable net operating income of the stockyards of the respondent stockyards company is the fair value of respondent’s property multiplied by the fair rale of return to which the respondent is entitled, and the stockyards services rates should be such that the product of those two figures mil be obtained. D-344 The theory of a. fair return upon a fair value a.s the bn.sis for determining the rca.sona.blcnoss of rales is that the holders of the securities mil receive a. fair return upon securities equivalent to the fair value of the property. D-344 In determining what the respondent stockyards company’s future business will be, for the purposes of rale making, the- Secre¬ tary assumes that the best measure of the future is wha.t ha.s occurred in the past. D-344 In arriving at a* fair rale of return upon the fair value of a stockyards property, for rate-making purposes, it is not proper to aid a. per cent to cover contingencies which have been already considered and reflect themselves in operating expenses or in the volume of business. To do so would be a. duplicalion. But when proper allowance ha.s been male in cost and volume for such contingencies and orovidod for in the rales, there still remain incalculable and uncertain amounts which cannot be expressed in definite figures or on cn annual ba.sis. For such contingencies a.s these, proper allowances must bo male in the fair rale of return, to the end tha.t adequate funds ma.y bo accumul Cl ted out of which they can be met when they materialize. B-425 628 stockyards rates and charges III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of The basis for arriving at a fair rate of return includes all considerations which arc necessary to attract capital under normal conditions. If the historical cost or the prudent investment theory were to bo adopted as a measure of the fair value of the respondent’s stockyards property, coed it should be shown that the cost of assembling capital was an item of cost actually incurred, respondent’s contention that it should be included in the re.to base might have some merit. The principle of the fair return upon the fair value based upon the theory of cost of reproduction of the property nocessarilv excludes consideration of what respondent may have actually incurred for the cost of assembling capital. If respondent or its owners lacked the necessary capital and yet had tho confidence in the enterprise to pay someone to raise the capital for them, their reward lies in the prospect of a fear return. It is generally recognized that it is the- prospect of a fair return which normally causes capital to flow into various enterprises. Under such circumstances, there is no basis for including an intangible element of value in a property merely because the owners who fostered the enterprise did not have the capita.! at the outset. It is difficult to find any persuasive reason for recognizing the lower value in a. property, the construction of which was paid for by the owriur: .don ,y then the value of an identical property for the construction of which the owners were compelled to borrow; the money D-425 v In determining the volume of business to bo reasonably expected, ' for rate-making purposes, the Secretary considers tho volume of business for previous years, in this case for the years 1928 to 1933, inclusive, together with expert testimony as to what can reasonably bo expected in tho future, D-425 stockyards rates and charges III Rules for Determining Reasonableness of In arriving at a determination as to whether the existing stock¬ yard services, rates, and charges of the respondent stockyard company are unreasonable and discriminatory, the Secretary figures in dollars the amount of a fair rate of return upon the fair value of the respondent’s property, adds the reasonable operating costs, end balances the sura total of these tvro items against the amount of revenues under the existing rates to be reasonably expected from the volume of business anticipated. If the revenue’s exceed, beyond a reasonable margin, the oner at- ing costs plus the fair rate of return u^on the fair value of the property, the rates are found to be unreasonable and dis¬ criminatory, D-425 Stockyards rates arc made for the future, and. mathematical computations end. the opinions of expert Witnesses must bo tempered by the exercise of a reasonable judgment. The low yield procurable on investments and the opinion of at least one of the witnesses that the low yields would continue for a number of years lead to the conclusion that the respondent stockyards company is entitled to charge rates which will yield on average rate of 6-gyo of the rate base. D-450 A stockyards company is entitled, to charge rates which will produce revenues adequate to meet all reasonable costs, expenses, reasonable return and reserve requirements, D-450 A rato structure cannot be built on the relative economic importance of the groups engaged in business on a public market. D-453 630 STOCKYARDS SERVICES III Tho Union Stock Yc.rd & Transit Company of Chicago is engaged in the business of rendering stockyard services at Chicago, Illinois. D-16 The Milwaukee Stock Yards Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is engaged in the business of rendering stockyard services at Milwaukee, .vi scons in. D-17 Tho Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee, is engaged in the business of rendering stockyard services at Nashville, Tennessee. D-18 The Michigan Central Railroad Company of Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in the business of rendering stockyard services at the Detroit Stock Yards, Detroit, Michigen. D-25 The New York Central Railroad Company is engaged in the business of rendering stockyard services at tho Buffalo Stock Yards, East Buffalo, Now York. D-26 Brand inspection is a stockyards service and is controlled by the Packers and Stockyards act, 1S21, when rendered at a stockyard subject to the act, and in such case brand inspection is not con¬ trolled by tho laws of tho state in which the stockyard is located. D-278 Brand inspection service is designed for the protection of the owners of tho livestock inspected. A permanent record is made at tho stockyards of all brands so that a check can bo made as to the ownership of the livestock inspected, in order that it may be determined whether that livestock is in proper or wrong¬ ful hands. If no brands appear upon the livestock inspected, that fact is also recorded. The report of tho brsnd inspector with respect to each shipment is filed with the record of owner¬ ship which accompanies tho shipment, may suspicious cases .are reported to the proper parties in the' country immediately. D-278 631 STOCKYARDS SERVICES III Weighing livestock is, beyond a question of doubt, a stockyard service as defined in the Act, and includes weighing as directed by the owner or his agent and the issuance of suitable scale tickets bearing the necessary information relating to the live¬ stock. D-286 Stockyard owners are required by the Packers and Stockyards Act to render reasonable services upon reasonable request without unjust discrimination. D-286 At the Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., the respondent has installed facilities and made provisions for the service of dipping sheep. D-291 Congress did not intend that regulation under the Packers and Stockvards Act should extend to include regulation -of stock-show associations as a stockyard service, for to presume such an intention upon Congress would render it necessary for the Secretary to include the value of the property of a stock-show association in the rate base and to assume the responsibility for determining the reasonableness of the general entrance fees, the price of reserved seat tickets, the charges made for conces¬ sions during the show week, and the rental for various activities held occasionally through the year. Stockyards services should not be construed that broadly. D-450 c/ The stockyards service of unloading and loading livestock from and into cars is a common carrier service subject to the pro¬ visions of the Interstate Commerce Act. I. C. C. Investigation and Suspension Docket Fo. 4109, Page 342. It is a transportation service (295 U. S. 193). D-450 It is practicable and reasonable for respondent to provide free holding facilities where livestock may be held for a reasonable time after sale until the buyers can come and take delivery of it. This service is afforded to all buyers. D-453 632 STOCKYARDS SERVICES III The resDondent market agency fo.iled to render a reasonable stock- yard service when it failed through its employee to obtain the name of the owner of the cattle in a. telephone conversation originated bv the owner when attempting to locate his livestock, and also failed during such conversation to obta.in such a de¬ scription of the cattle as would enable him to properly describe them and obtain their custody from the stockyards company. D-461 Evidence that the driver of a truck unloaned steers at the proper unloading chute at the stockyards and delivered the steers to some man at the unloading dock whose name was not kno iT n to the driver but that the stockyards company did not know who took delivery of the animals wan sufficient to' show a. failure on the pant of the respondent stockvards to render reasonable stockyards services, the stockyards comp an v bein'? remiss in its duty to shippers to_ permit any hangers-on to frequent the unloading docks, and not giving its authorized employees some badge indicative of their authority to receive livestock, D-461 The stockyard company’s primary service is housing or penning and weighing the animals at the time of sale. All other special ser¬ vices, such a.s dipping, etc., except feeding, cue performed also by the stockyards. D-534 The Secreta.ry ordered that the complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the respondent stockyards company to render reasonable stockyard services to the complainant be dismissed, the evidence showing that, at the time the sheep arrived a.t the v stockyard and for two or three days following, the thermometer was 25 to 35 degrees above zero and pant of this time it was raining or snowing and the respondent worked twenty-four hours a day to keep the sheep properly housed, .watered, and fed, and that the only time the sheep wore not watered wan when for a. short while the faucets to the water pipes were frozen and water did not run until an employee of the respondent used l \ blowtorch to break the freezing; the evidence further showing that, even though the sheep had lost a few pounds in weight, they were being sold for breed .ewes by the head and that a. difference of a few pounds in weight would have little or no effect upon the price paid, D-1163 633 SUBPOENAS III In a proceedings to determine' the reasonableness and lawfulness of yardage reweigh charges, the complainant Traders Livestock Exchange applied to the Socrcta.ry for a subpoena duces tecum to compel either the officers of the respondent or the respondent . company to produce the books, records, and documents referred to in the subpoena. Protest against the issuance of the subpoena wan ma.de by counsel for the respondent, who stated that it would produce volunta.rily any papers that might be pertinent to the inquiry, end the Secretary apparently did not issue the subpoena. • 0-7 The record and showing made by the respondents’ counsel in connection with his application for subpoenas ad testificandum and subpoenas duces tecum being insufficient to show that the alleged evidence demanded, if produced, would bo competent, relevant, or material to the a.ction involved, the a.ction of the Examiner in denying the application for the subpoenas was affirmed by the Secretary, D-330 Respondents’ counsel’s application for .subpoenas ad testificen- ’ dum to compel the Secretary’of Agriculture, the Assistant .Secre¬ tary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, the Chairman of the Federal Farm Board, and a member of the Federal Farm Board to testify on behalf of the respondents, and applicap¬ tion for the issuance of subpoona.s duces tecum to compel the complainant National Order Buying Company to produce its charter, amendments to charter, by-laws, amendments to by-laws, minute books, ledger, journal and books of records and accounts, and also for all of the ledgers, journals, records and books of accounts of the National Stockyards Branch of the complainant National Order Buying Company, and also for similar books and records of the complainant Producers Livestock Commission Asso¬ ciation and for the same books and records of the Producers Feeder Pool, end for other books, speeches, Land records was denied by the Examiner upon the ground that Eucli testimony end records would bo incompetent, immaterial, cml irrelevant to the issues in the ca.se, and the Secretary affirmed the Examiner’s a.ction. D-330 634 SUBPOENAS III Subpoenas ducos tecum wore issued end served directing the surviving partners of respondent and the legal representative of the deceased partner of respondent to appear before the Examiner of the Department of Agriculture at the hearing. D- In a proceeding to determine the responsibility of respondent commission company for the payment of drafts drawn upon it by a country buyer, a. subpoena, was issued for the country buyer but was not served boca.use he could not be loca.ted. D' In a proceeding to determine the lawfulness of respondent market .agency’s trade practices in dishonoring drafts of country buyers, the Secretary subpoenaed the postmen, to testify that he ha.d delivered a registered letter to the respondent and tha.t the respondent had refused acceptance of same. 335 475 D-570 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRANT, PROVISION AUTHORIZING III The provision authorizing suspension of a registered trc.dcr under the Packers and Stockyards Act is legislation of a general and permanent character, even though it first appeared in the appro¬ priation act of Juno 5, 1924, and was re-enacted in ca.ch subse¬ quent appropriation act, including the annual appropriation act of June 16, 1938 (7 U.S.C.A. Supp. IV, Sec. 204). "A provision in a. general -appropriation bill throb is general in its chr.ra.ctor and continuing or permanent in its nature is as much law and as much permanent law .as if enacted independently." Hinds' Precedents, Vol. 4, 3818. Construction of statutes in harmony with the fore¬ going has been ma.de by the Comptroller of the Treasury, 13 C. D. 146; 26 C. D. 1066. The suspension of a. registered stockyard dealer was sustained in Farmers Livestock Commission Company v. U. S. 54 Fed. (2d) 375. D-1174 636 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Docvlers and Trciders, for Fraudulent Practices Dealer who issued a draft on one Fordo, representing to Fordo that he had purchased a carload of bulls for him, whereas, in fact, the dealer had made no such purchase, violated Title III of the Act and was suspended from registration _.s a dealer for one year. D-141 Dealer ordered suspended as a registrant under the Act for a period of one year for obtaining fraudulent end unlawful possession of livestock. D-146 Dealers who, through collusion with the woighmaster at Sioux Falls Stockyards, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, increased the weight of hog shipments end charged such false increase in weight to the purchaser of the hogs, thereafter destroying the scale tickets and other accounts, records, end memoranda pertaining to the transactions, used unfair ;nd deceptive practices and devices in handling livestock in commerce at stockyards under the -jurisdiction of the Secretary, wore ordered to cease end desist from the use of such practices, and wore suspended from registration as dealers for a period of one year. D-188 It appearing from the evidence that respondent Tjaden was not equally culpable with respondent Wells in misrepresenting the weight of hogs sold by them as dealers in commerce, end did not know of or participate in the destruction of the records, ho Was ordered suspended by the Secretary from registration as a dealer for a period of 60 days instead of ono year. D-188 Dealers suspended from registration because they entered into an agreement, arrangement, or conspiracy to defraud the pur¬ chaser of livestock, for whom one respondent was a bookkeeper, of sums of money by the device of the bookkeeper remitting larger amounts than were actually necessary to cov-^r the pur¬ chases, later receiving refunds from the seller for the difference. D-273 637 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Fraudulent Practices Dealer who, without authority, exchanged or switched a snail Jersey cow weighing 730 pounds for a large roan cow belonging to another, and yarded in a different pen, and then sold the roan cow as his own for 8^ a pound, the Jersey cow bringing only a pound, engaged in an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device in connection i/ith receiving, buying, selling, holding, and handling lives tool: in commerce, and was suspended by the Secretary from registration as a dealer for a period of one year. D-314 Dealers and Traders, for Insolvency * t/ Dealer who had indebtednesses past due which he was unable to pay as of the tine of the hearing to determine if ho was in¬ solvent suspended from registration as a dealer for six months> with leave during that period to apply for revocation of suspension upon satisfactory showing of solvency. • D-138; D-139; D-156 The respondent dealer having failed to appear at the heaving on his insolvency, in person or by an attorney, the Secretary found from the evidence that he was insolvent and ordered him suspended from registration as a dealer for one year for such insolvency and other unfair practices. D-141 Dealer unable to pay the debts contracted by him which become due and payable in'the course of his business suspended from registration as a dealer for one year, with leave during sa.id period to apply for revocation of suspension upon a satis¬ factory showing of solvency. D-144 638 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Insolvency Dealer unable to pay his debts contracted in connection with his business as a dealer end, therefore, insolvent, ordered suspended from registration as a dealer for six months. D-149; D-150; D-157; D-276; D-290; D-297; D-313j D-320; D-332; D-471 ; D-1039 ; D-1160 Dealer end market agency unable to pay its indebtednesses in connection with its business o.s such ordered suspended from registration as a dealer and market agency for six months. D-275; D-331; D-343; D-345; D-348* D-351;”D-375; D-379; D-478; D-696; D-908 It appearing from a statement mo.de by the respondents after the hearing hud been postponed that one partner was deceased and the other partner was liquidating the affairs of the partnership and would be unable to pay the debts of the partnership in the regular course of business even though practically all of the obligations then due shippers had been paid, the Secretary found respondent partnership insolvent TiJithin the meaning of the Act, end ordered it suspended from registration as a dealer and market agency for six months. D-335 The testimony introduced at the hearing having shown that the respondent dealer is insolvent end that he has failed to keep the proper accounts, records, and memoranda to correctly dis¬ close the number and kind of swine acquired and sold and the prices paid and received therefor, the Secretary ordered that the registration of respondent be suspended for a period of one yeon. _ . D-807 639 SUSPENSION OF ^REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Not Executing or Filing Bonds Dealer engaging in business as a dealer without having executed a bond for the perfonuance of his obligations incurred as such dealer, in accordance with Title III of the Act and amended Regulation 17 of the Rules raid Regulations for the enforcement thereof, ordered to execute a reasonable bond in the form and amount required by the Secretary within 15 days from the re¬ ceipt of the order or be suspended from registration an a. dealer. D-159 Dealer and market agency suspended from registration for two months for having failed to execute a reasonable performance bond, covering its transactions and to file a fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Administration in Washington, D. C. D-172 Dealer suspended from registration an a, dealer for two months for having failed to execute a reasonable performance bond and to file a fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Administra¬ tion at Washington, D. C. D-173; D-174 Dealer suspended from registration a.s a. dealer for six months for having engaged in business, contrary to Title III of the Act, as amended, and to amended Regulation 17 of the Rules and Regulations for the enforcement thereof, without having executed and maintained and filed a fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond. D-186j D-283; D-304; D-318; D-319j D-329; D-336j D-340j D-359j D-377; D-378; D-386; D-535; D-539; D-565; D-579; D-695; D-959; D-1130; D-1188j D-1201; D-1250 640 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Not Executing or Filina Bonds o o Dealer suspended from registration as a dealer until he executes and maintains a reasonable performance bond covering his obli¬ gations incurred as a dealer, and files a copy thereof with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Hashing tor., D„ C., as required by the Act and regulations thereunder. D-204-; D-214; D-219: D-223; D-224; D-225; D-227; D-231; D-232; D-233; D-234; D-238- D.-2S4 Deader suspended from registration as a dealer for 90 days for having failed,., neglected, or refused to execute and. maintain a performance bond covering his obligations as a dealer, and to file a. fully-executed d.uplicatc thereof mth the Burean of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C. D-221 Market a.goncy and deader violated the Act, ns amended, by fail¬ ing, neglecting, or refusing to execute and maintain and to file-mth the Bureau of Aniinad Industry at Washington, D. C., aw fully-executed duplicate of a rca.sonablc performance bond covering its obligations incurred ns aw market a.gcncv and decwlcr, and wewS ordiored suspended for a period of six months; provided that the order should not prohibit it from engaging in business of buying livestock for pawckers or others on a. commission basis in instances where no credit is extended to it. D-380 Deader who ongCwgcd in business mthout having executed or maintained or filed mth the Burea.u of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., a fully-executed duplicate of a. roa.son- able performance bond or some other form of indemnity found by the Chief of the Bureau of Aniinad Industry a.t Washington, D. C., to afford substantially equivalent protection for its obligations incurred as aw -deader suspended from registraddon awS Cw deader for a period of six months. D-405; D-408; D-423; D-439 ( 641 suspension of registration of III Dealers raid Traders, for Not Executing or Filing Bonds -Dealer and market agency suspended fron registration as such for six months for having failed, neglected, or refused to execute and maintain and file with the Bureau of Animal In¬ dustry at Washington, D„ C., a fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond covering its obligations in¬ curred as a dealer end market agency, or some other form of indemnity found by the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry to afford substantially equivalent protection. D-400j D-409 1 D-413 j D-414j D-415; D-427; D-429 ; D-434; D-441; D-444j D-473 Dealer end market agency suspended from registration for six months for engaging in business as such under the Act without having executed, maintained, and filed with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., a fully-executed dupli¬ cate of a reasonable performance bond covering its obligations incurred-as a dealer and market agency. D-540; D-556 Respondent dealer ordered suspended for one year from engaging in business as a dealer, provided that the order of suspension shall be revoked upon shornng that the respondent has furnished a performance bond satisfactory to the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C. D-655 Market agency and-dealer who engaged in business as a market agency and dealer, in some instances selling on a commission basis and in other instances purchasing the livestock outright, •without having executed and maintained a reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as a market agency and dealer, while at the sane time leading the public to believe that he is bonded, in one instance distributing approximately 150 handbills advertising a sale of horses which carried the statement, n We are bonded", engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice and device and was suspended by the Secretary for six months. D-689 642 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Hot Executing or Filing Bonds Respondent dealer having admitted the allegations in the order of inquiry that he has not executed, maintained, and filed a reasonable performance bond, while leading shippers, buyers, and vendors to believe that he has done so, the Secretary ordered that his registration as a dealer bo suspended for six months. D-711j D-722 643 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Unfair Trade Practices Dealers who, through collusion with the weighnastor at Sioux Falls Stockyards, Sioux.Falls, South Dakota, increased the weight, of hog shipments and charged such false increase in weight to the purchaser of the hogs, thereafter destroying the scale tickets and other accounts, records, and memoranda pertaining to the transactions, used unfair and deceptive practices and devices in handling livestock in commerce at stockyards under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, were ordered to cease and desist from the use of such practices, and were suspended from registration as dealers for a period of one year. D-188 Dealer suspended from registration as a dealer for a period of 60 days for having used the unfair and deceptive practice or device of placing his foot upon the scales while live¬ stock was being weighed, thereby causing the weight shown to bo greater than the actual weight. D-198 It appearing to the Secretary that respondent market agencies and dealers did not in O ood faith endeavor to correct nor cease and desist from their boycotting activities in the present case, as they had agreed to do, the Secretary sus¬ pended the registrations of certain of the respondents for a period of 15 days, with the provision that such suspension should not become effective until such tine as the Secretary may thereafter direct, and with the further provision that the case remain open for such purpose, D-246 Dealer suspended from registration for one year for having engaged in the unfair.and deceptive practice end device of talcing possession without authority of thirty-one hogs belonging to a market agency raid removing them to a pen where they were intermingled with other hogs belonging to the dealer. D-280 644 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Unfair Trade Practices Market agency raid dealer suspended from registration as such for six months for having misrepresented the price raid weight of livestock to purchasers thereof, resulting in collections in addition to its regular commission charges. D-327 Respondent market agencies and dealers ordered by the Secretory to cco.se and desist from engaging in boycott activities against complainonts, in violation of the Act, end suspended from rcgistre.tion as market a.gmcics end dealers for a period of ninety days. D-330 Market agency caid deo-lor suspended by the Secretary from rogis- tration a.s a market agency raid dealer for a. period of one year for engaging in rnd using the unjustly discriminatory and de¬ ceptive prentice or device of overcharging purchasers of co.ttle rnd mi si opr os anting to purchasers of cattle the price paid for them. • D-333 Dealer who, by no.ga.zino, ncwspo.pors, letters, and other means of advertising, ce.used purchasers to believe that co.ttle or calves sold by him were of a better gro.de than they CvCtuo.lly were, or that the breeding of said co.lves w&e personally known to him when, in truth, the calves wore purchased by respondent on the open market vlthout any knowledge on. his part of their breeding, was suspended from registration ns a. v dealer for one year for h.aving violated the Aot by enga.ging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory and deceptive' practices and devices in .the conduct of his business as a. dealer. D-337; D-338 645 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers raid Traders, for Unfair Practices Dealer suspended from registration as a dealer for one year for having violated Title III of the Act by svri.tch.ing or exchanging, without authority, five small sandy-colored hogs belonging to him for five larger hogs belonging to another, D-341 Dealer suspended from registration for six months for having engaged in the unfair end deceptive practice end device of weighing or causing to bo weighed to Danahy Packing Comp my, without lawful right or authority, certain rough hogs and placing such rough hogs with a draft of hogs which had law¬ fully been sold to said packing company, although the rough hogs hold not been sold to said company, D-353 Dealer who pa.ddcd his invoices to his clearing agency and also, from tine to tine, reported to his cleaning agency that he hnd sold numbers of livestock which were loss than the numbers ho he-d actually sold, thereby deceiving his cleaning agency into believing that ho had on hand 135 more cattle than he actually ha.d on hand, inducing the cleaning a.gcncy to continue cleaning operations for him, which re¬ sulted in a. loss to the cleaning a.gency of ^17,106.58, vio¬ lated the Act, and was ordered suspended for c, period of six months. D-384 Mrnkot agency and dealer who engaged in and used the unfair and deceptive practice and device of rendering a.c counts pur- chc.se representing the costs of livestock purchased on order to be more than he actually paid therefor, and attempted to substantiate such misrepresentation by changing the price appearing on the scale tielect or substituting and using an unauthorized scale ticket in lieu of the original scale ticket so that the price e.ppearing on the substituted ticket was designed to substantiate the false purchase price men¬ tioned in the account purchc.se sent to the purchaser, result¬ ing in the purchaser being overcharged for the livestock pur¬ chased, violated Title III of the Act and wa.s suspended from registration as a. market a 0 ency end dealer for a period of six months. D-436 646 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers end Traders, for Unfair Practices Market agency end dealer who adnittod that in rendering accounts purchase of livestock purchased on order ho reported, the price as being higher then he actually paid for the livestock end the weight on being ;reater then the c.ctual woi :ht, resultin ' in his collecting from, the purchaser amounts in o.ddition to his regular commission changes, end that he also failed to give full and accurr.tc information respecting his trensactions to his clearing agency, was suspended from registration as-a market agency end dealer for one ye on. D-756; D-758 Market o.goncy end dealer having admitted the changes in the order of inquiry that- it wc.s insolvent, that it na.de use of, for personal reasons, ond disposed of funds from the shippers’ pro¬ ceeds account, and that it foiled to keep such o.ccounts, records, ond memoranda o.s would fully and correctly disclose oil trons- actions involved in its business, the Secretory ordered that it be suspended from rcgistro.tion o.s a market cogency ond dealer for c. period of one year. D-1017 Dealer who substituted throe ho^s which he owned for throe hogs of considerably heavier weight belonging to another, ond sold the hogs thus switched for his own o.c count, leo.ving the inferior hogs for the other person, suspended for one yoo.r from registra¬ tion. D-1161 v A dealer who stole blank scale tickets from the scale houses of the official weighmaster of a stockyards company ond inserted the weights of cattle on the scale tickets to make it o.ppGon to the pur chon or of the cattle that the co.ttlc hc.d boon properly rowoighed, in order to avoid the payment of a ruwoigh charge imposed by the stockyards company, violated Section 812 (a) of Title III of the Act (U.S.C.A. Title VII, Chap. 9, Sec. 213), oven though tho weights put upon the counterfeited scale tickets wore, the same o.s the actual woi hts of tho cattle sold and the purchaser suffered no loss, it being enough to’show the unfair end deceptive cho.ro.cter of the pro.cticc, end the dealer wc.s suspended for one year. D-1174 647 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Dealers and Traders, for Unfair Practices The respondents market agency and dealer entered into a secret ayreenent whereby the dealer would purchase livestock in the country, consign the livestock to the market agency for sale, and draw a. draft upon the market agency for the payment there¬ of. The market agency would sell the livestock on commission and credit the net proceeds of the sale to the dealer's account. On the account sale rendered by the market agency, it was rep¬ resented that the cleaning a. gent of the dealer was the purchaser of the cattle and the purchase price would be charged by the market a.gency to the cleaning agent under the number used to dcsigno.tc the dealer's account on the clearing agent's bodies. The market a.gency, upon receipt of pa.yncnt from the cleaning agent for the purcha.se price of the cattle, would debit the dealer's account. By this method of financing, the dealer would obtain financial clearance from the clearing agency, without the knowledge of the cleaning agency, on all livestock transactions made for livestock purchased in the country, whereas, the cleaning agent hod agreed to clean only the transactions of the dealer at the stockyards. The Secretary held tha.t this arrangement between the respondent market agency and the dealer violated Title III of the Act, and suspended the registrati6n of the market agency and dealer for one hundred twenty days. D-1187 It appearing from testimony adduced at the hearing tha.t the respondent market agenoy and dealer had handled some livestock as a dealer and some on a commissi on ba.sis, that ho did not ha.vc sufficient onsets to meet his obli notions if comocllod to O j_ settle with all creditjrs innedia.tely, tha.t he had failed to keep the proper books of original entry and tha.t ho had so handled his funds as to endan ;or prompt accounting or payment for livestock handled by him, the Secretary ordered tha.t his registration c.s a. market a.gency and dealer be suspended for a. period of one year, D-1199 648 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Insolvency Dealer and me.rkot a 0 ency, unable to pay his indebtedness in con¬ nection mth his business as a dealer end market agency, suspended from registration as a dealer and market agency for six months. D-275; D-331 ; D-343- D-345; D-348; D-351; D-375- D-379; D-478; D-696; D-908 Market agency found to be insolvent in that he was unable to pay his debts as they became due in the usual course of business, end ordered suspended from registration as a market e.gcncy for one year. D-285 Market agency, unable to pay its debts in the usual course of business, found insolvent and suspended from rogistration e.s e. market e.gency for six months. D-292; D-300; D-307; D-328; D-339; D-361; D-367; D-369; D-370; D-374; D-382; D-455; D-459; D-521; D-602; D-619; D-806; D-853; D-950; D-1166; D-1214 It appoening from a statonent ne.de by the respondents e.ftcr the hearing had been oostoonod tho.t one ne.rtncr we.s deceased end the other partner we.s liquidating the affears of the partnership end would bo unable to pe.y the debts of the partnership in the regular course of business even though pre*c tic ally all of the obligations then due shippers had been paid, the Secreteny found respondent partnership insolvent within the meaning of the met end ordered it suspended from registration e.s a dealer and menket agency for six months. U-335 Menkot e.gency suspended from rcgistre.ti on e.s e. market a;oney for one yeen for insolvency end for having diverted shippers' proceeds. D-350 649 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Insolvency Market .agency, having been found to bo insolvent, suspended ,£rom registration as a market agency for six months, with leave to apply for revocation during said period upon satis¬ factory proof of solvency. D-428; D-433; D-468; D-469 Market agency, found insolvent, suspended until such time as he con show solvency. D-458 The purpose of the Act is to safeguard the interest of all, raid although a market agency borrows money to place in the shippers’ nrocecds account to make that p.nticulnr account solvent, the market agency is still insolvent within the morning of the Act of Con ;ress approved Juno 29, 1937, entitled "An Act nr Ain;; Appropriations for the Department of Agriculture * * * and for other purposes", and operates in jeopardy in the interest of those shippers who ship livestock to it for sale on a. comission basis so 1 ong as the market agency is unable to meet its finan¬ cial obligations as they become due in the regular course of business, aid the registration of such market agency is subject to suspension by the Secretary for a reasonable specified period. D-1117 Market agency, having admitted the truth of the allegations of insolvency and of intermingling shippers' proceeds funds with other funds, suspended from registration as ... menket agency for six months. P-1202 Market Agencies, for Not Executing or Filing Bonds Market ayoney and months for having bond covering its duplic at o thereof dealer suspended from registration for two failed to execute a reasonable performance transactions and. to file a fully-executed v/ith the Administration at Washington, D. C. D-172 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Manket Agencies, for fht Executing -or Filin,"; Bonds . Maarket agency suspended from rcgistra.ti on for six nonths for having failed to execute a. reasonable performance bond covering its transactions and to file a fully-executed duplicate thereof with the Administration at Washington, D. C. D-181; D-316j D-326; D-455; D-540; D-556 Market agency suspended from registration until ho executes and uaint.ins a reasonable porf oracnco bond end files a fully-executed duplicate thereof v/ith the Bureau of Animal Industry, as required by the Act and.Regulati ons • D-200; D-243 Market agency end dealer suspended fron registrati on as ,a market agency and dealer until he executes -and. maintains a reasonable bond to suitable trustees to secure the performance of his obli- ga.tions incurred as, a. market agency and dealer and files-, a. copy thereof v/ith the Burcau of Animal Industry, as required by the Act and Regulations • D-2.28; D-23..0; D-23.9 Market agency and dealer suspended for six nonths for having failed to execute and maintain a. roes mable perf ormance bond and to file a. fully-executed duplicate thereof v/ith the Burea.u .1 Industry at Washington, D. C. 'f D-315; D-381; D-5-22 Market agency and dealer violated the Act, a.s amended, by failing, neglecting, or refusing to execute and maintain and t- file with the Burea.u of ini. ia.1 Industry at Washington, D. C., a. fully- exccutod duplicate ~>f r. reasonable performance bond covering its obligations incurred a.s a. market aooncy and dealer, suspended for six months, provided theat the order should not prohibit it from engaging in business of buying livestock for pa.ckors or others on a commission b a.s is in instances whore no credit is extended to it. D-380 651 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Menkct Agencies, for Not Executing or Filing Bonds Market agency suspended from, registration as a narket a.ycncy for six months for having failed, neylectcd, or refused to execute and maintain and file with the Bureau of Aninal Industry at Washington, jJ. C., a fully-executed duplicate of a reasonable performance bond c overin , its obli -ations incurred as a market agency, or some other satisfactory form of indemnity. " D-401j D-417; D-424; D-443 Market a.ycncy and dealer suspended from registration as a market ay one y an-1 dealer for six months for having fc.il cd, neylectcd, or refused to execute end maintedn and file with the Bureau of Aninal Industry at Tfashinyton, D. C., a fully- executed duplicate of a. reasonable performance bond covering its obliyations incurred as a narket ayency and deader, or some other form of indemnity found by the Chief of the Bureau of Anima.1 Industry to afford, substantially equivalent protection, D-400; D-409j D-413; D-414; D-415; D-427; D-429; D-434; D-441; D-444; D-473* D-540; D-556 652 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices In exercising his discriminatory power as to whether an order of suspension shall be issued, it is proper for the Secretary to give consideration to the fact that the officers of the market agency had ample opportunity to discover the gross violations of the Act committed through their subordinance. D-142 Market agencies and dealers at a stockyards who enter into collusive and secret arrangements whereby the livestock of producers is not exposed to competitive bidding but is sol'd by the market agencies to dealers at prices below the true and known market value of the livestock, and the dealer’s scale tickets, after consummation of the sales, are changed to 'cover up the transaction from the consignor of the live¬ stock, flagrantly violate Title III of the Act, and the Secretary ordered them suspended from registration. D-142 Market agency suspended from registration as a market agency for one year for. having engaged in the unfair and deceptive practice of charging purchasers for dockage and incr 0 sing ; the price per cwt. to purchasers over the price remitted to the sellers of livestock, collecting the dockage and increase in price per cwt* in addition to its regular commission charges. D-154 Market agency ordered suspended from registration as a market agency for nine months for engaging in Unfair, unjustly dis¬ criminatory, end deceptive devices of falsely reporting to his principal the prices paid for the livestock purchased, and of withholding shippers T proceeds as a set-off against indebted¬ ness allegedly duo from the agents of the shippers. D-180 Market agency was ordered suspended from registration for six months for having failed to keep the proper books of account and for having indulged in certain unfair and deceptive prac¬ tices and devices in the buying and selling of livestock. D-184 653 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices Respondent market agencies suspended for a period of four months for indulging in the unjust and discriminatory practices and devices of participating in collusive agreements with purchasers of livestock sold by respondent for owners,of selling livestock to buyers in whom respondents had a pecuniary interest without disclosing such fact to the sellers, of drawing checks for sal¬ aries end expenses on shippers’ proceeds, of charging different rates for services than those on file and in effect at the time, and of rendering folse and mislca.ding accounts sale to the shippers, D-197 It a.ppcaring to the Secretary that respondent menket agencies and dealers did not in good faith endeavor to correct nor cea.sc and desist from their boycotting activities in the present ca.se, a.s they had agreed to do, the Secretary suspended the registro.- tions of certain of the respondents for a period of fifteen days, with the provision that such suspension should not become effec¬ tive until such time as the Secreto.ry may thereafter direct, and with the further provision thc.t the case remain open for such purpose, D-246 Market e.genev and deader suspended from registration' for six months by the first order of the Secretary, and for one year b y . a second order revoking the first ordef, for having misrepre¬ sented the prices and weights of livestock to purchasers thereof, resulting in the c.gency collecting amounts in addition to its regular commission changes. D-327 Market agencies and dealers ordered to coa.se and desist from enga.ging in boycott activities a.gainst complainants, in violation of the Act, end suspended from registration as market r.gencies and dealers for a. period of ninety dans. D-330 654 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices Market agency and dealer suspended from registration for one year for engaging in and using the'unjustly discriminatory and deceptive practice or device of overcharging purchasers of cattle, and misrepresenting to purchasers of cattle the price paid for them. D-333 Market agency suspended from registration as a market agency for one year for insolvency and for having diverted shippers ’ proceeds. D-350 Respondent market agency who rendered his shipper a false and fictitious account sale showing a consignment of calves to have been sold end weighed to one person'at on agreed price, while, in fact, the respondent sold the calves to a different person without actually weighing them, end remitted to the shipper dl.50.per cwt. more then the price actually received, thereby refunding and remitting to the shipper a portion of its com¬ mission rates and charges, suspended by the Secretary for a period of six months. D-357 Market agency ordered suspended for a period of six months for being insolvent, for failing to account or remit shippers’ proceeds from sales of horses, for failing to keep adequate v accounts, records, and memoranda of his business transactions. D-360 Market agency suspended for a period of one year for (l) being insolvent, (2) engaging in unfair end unjustly discriminatory and deceptive practices and devices of rendering false accounts sale of livestock sales, end accounting to the shippers on the . basis thereof, and (3) for failing to keep proper records, accounts, end memoranda of its business, transactions. D-368 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices Market agency suspended for one year duo to his insolvency and to his unlawful practice and device of failing to properly remit shippers T proceeds held by him in trust for owners or consignors of livestock. • ;; . D-388 Market regency and dealer suspended from business an a. market agency for having engaged in unfair and unjustly discriminatory practices and devices resulting in under-remittances of shippers’ proceeds to owners of livestock and for having failed to keep proper a.ccount books. D-389 Market a.goncy suspended from registration a.s a. market e.gcncy and dca.lcr for a. period of six- months for having enga.ged in unjust and unfair pra.cticos and devices in selling livestock on order, in that he reported having purchnscd said livestock at v/cights, prices, and from firms different than wa.s the actual ca.sc, and for having no complete, proper accounts, records, and memoranda, of his transactions . 1-407 Market agency and dealer who engaged in end used the unfair end deceptive practice and device of rendering accounts purcha.se representing the costs of livestock purchased on order to be more than he actually paid therefor, and attempted to substan¬ tiate such misrepresentation by changing the price appearing on the scale ticket, or substituting and using an unauthorized scale ticket in lieu of the original scale ticket so that the price appearing on the substituted ticket wa.s designed to sub¬ stantiate the false purchase price mentioned in the account purcha.se sent to the purchaser, resulting in the purchaser being overcharged for the livestock purcho.sed, violated Title III of the Act and wa.s suspended from registration a.s a. market agency and dealer-for six months. D-436 656 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices Respondent market agency was suspended from operating as a mar¬ ket agency or dealer for the period of one year for having (l) refused to accept and pay drafts drawn by country buyers in pay¬ ment of livestock purchased by them, though he had arranged with them- to finance their country buying operations and, in further¬ ance of that arrangement, had furnished them with such draft forms and other means of identity to induce the owner of the livestock to rely upon their arrangement which respondent had with them, (2) accepted for sale but not selling on a commission basis livestock consigned to him at the Seattle Union Stock Yards and at the same time refusing to honor drafts drawn by country buyers for the payment of livestock, though at the time of receipt of said livestock respondent knew that drafts had been drawn against him by the country buyers for payment of said live¬ stock, and (3) reporting by a printed statement on the back of each draft that he had nc interest in the transaction in which the drafts were drawn when, in truth and in fact, he did have an interest. D-464 Market agency and dealer who engaged in business as a market agency and dealer, in some instances selling on a. commission basis and in other instances purchasing the livestock outright, without having executed and maintained a reasonable performance bond covering his obligations incurred as a market agency and dealer, while at the same time lending the public to believe that he is bonded, in one instance distributing approximately 150 handbills advertising a sale of horses, which carried the statement ”We are bonded”, cnga.ged in an unfair and deceptive practice and device and was suspended by the Secretary for six months. D-689 \ 657 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices Market agency and dealer -who adi.ij.tted that in rendering accounts purchase of livestock purchased on order he reported the price as being higher than he actually paid for the livestock and the weight as being greater than the actual weight, resulting in his collecting from the purchaser amounts in addition to his regular commission charges, and that he also failed to give full and accurate information respecting his transactions to his clear¬ ing agency, was suspended from registration a.s a market agency and dealer for one year. D-756; D-758 Market agency ordered suspended for two years for being insolvent and for having diverted shippers T proceeds from the shippers’ pro¬ ceeds account to its general bank account for its own use and for having loaned money to truckers without any security end without agreement as to the time for repayment to influence the truckers to deliver livestock to the respondent in preference to other market agencies. D-759 Dealer who admitted that he had failed to account to his clear¬ ing agent for the sale of certain livestock was suspended from registration as a. dealer for one year. D-912 Market agency having admitted that he charged a purchaser 50 cents per cwt. more for cattle than he paid therefor and kept the difference, in addition to the regular commission charge, the Secretary ordered him suspended for two years. D-980 Market agency suspended from registration for eighteen months for having admitted (l) its insolvency, (2) that while operat¬ ing as a registered market agency, it diverted end converted to its own use proceeds derived from the sale of livestock con¬ signed to the respondent for sale on commission, end (3) that it had failed, while operating as a market agency, to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda, as to fully and correctly dis- close all transactions involved, in its business. D-983 658 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices Market agency and dealer having admitted that it was insolvent, that it made use of, for personal reasons, and disposed of funds from the shippers-’ proceeds account, and that it failed to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as would fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in its business, the Secretary ordered that it be suspended from registration us a market agency and dealer for a period of one year, D-1017 The Secretary withheld suspending the registration of the respond¬ ent market agency for its engaging in the unfair practice and device of appropriating shippers’ proceeds to the extinguishment of a debt due it from a country buyer, because it made such appropriation with the bona fide belief that it was legally justified in doing so. D-1043 The Secretary suspended the registration of the respondent market agency for a period of one year for the unlawful practice of rendering-accounts purchase to buyers of livestock showing the purchase price to have boon 35 cents per hundredweight more than the price paid therefor and collecting such amounts, in addition to its regular commission charge, from the buyers and dividing such amounts secretly among the members of the market agency firm, the evidence further showing that after the accountant of the Department discovered the practice the respondent took no action toward reimbursing the purchaser for such overcharge, and that v the president of the respondent corporation did not appear at the hearing and offer any testimony on the situation. D-1158 659 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices The respondents market agency and dealer entered into a secret agreement whereby the dealer would purchase livestock in the country, consign the livestock to the market agency for sale, and draw a draft uoon the market agency for the payment thereof. The market agency would sell the livestock on commission and credit the net proceeds of the sale to the dealer's account. On the account sale rendered by the market agency, it was rep¬ resented that the clearing agent of the dealer was the purchaser of the cattle, and the purchase price would be charged by the market agency to the clearing agent under the number used to designate the dealer’s account on the clearing agent’s books. The market agency, upon receipt of payment from the clearing agent for the purchase price of the cattle, would debit the dealer’s account. By this method of financing, the dealer would obtain financial clearance from the clearing agency, without the knowledge of the clearing agency, on all live- stock transactions made for livestock purchased in the country, whereas, the clearing o.gcnt had agreed to clear only the transactions of the dealer at the stockyards. The Secretary held that this arrangement between the respondent market agency end the dealer violated Title III of the Act, and suspended the registration of the market agency and dealer for one hundred twenty days, D-1187 It appearing from testimony adduced at the hearing that the respondent market agency and dealer had kindled some livestock as a dealer and some on a commission basis, that he did not have sufficient assets to moot his obligations if compelled to settle with all creditors immediately, that he had failed to keep the proper books of original entry, and that he had so handled his funds as to endanger prompt accounting or payment for livestock handled by him, the Secretary ordered that his registration as a market agency and dealer be suspended for a period of one year, D-1199 SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF III Market Agencies, for Unfair Trade Practices Market agency having admitted insolvency and intermingling shippers’ proceeds funds with other funds, the Secretary ordered that it be suspended from registration as a market agency for six months. D-1202 v 661 TARIFFS AND RATES III ■When the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe, upon an examination of the records and other information in his possession, that proposed new tariff schedules are not justi¬ fied, and that such increases are, in fact, unreasonable, a- proceeding under Title III of the Act should be had for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and lawfulness of •said new rates and charges. D-15 The Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, condemns discrimination in rates or charges, but it contemplates not every discrimina¬ tion but only legal discrimination. D-208 Ambiguity of Rates Resolved in Favor of Shipper In case of ambiguity in the application of commission rates and charges, the method to be followed is to determine the commission charges on a basis most favorable to the shipper. D-190 Brand Inspection The law requires that stockyard ovrners shall furnish reasonable stockyard services at reasonable charges but does not proscribe whether the service shall be furnished through the agency of employees or under contract. The instrumentality through which a public utility renders a service is a matter of management and of no concern to the public. Therefore, it is proper for the Portland Union Stockyards Company to make a brand inspection service charge evon though the service is rendered under contract by the Oregon Cattle and Horse Grazers Association and even though a State law of Oregon was held to be unconstitutional which attempted to give that authority to that organization. D-278 662 TARIFFS AID RATES III Brand Inspection Although the inspection for brands is a stockyard service, never¬ theless, Congress, in the Agricultural Appropriations Act effec¬ tive July 1, 1929, has provided in substance that a fee may be charged only when authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture and that the "fee shall not bo imposed except upon written request made to the Secretary of Agriculture by the Board of Livestock Commission, or a dulv authorized livestock association of the State from which such livestock has originated or been shipped to market." D-278 The Secretary found that a brand inspection charge of 8 ^ per head -assessed bv the Portland Union Stockyards Company was unreasonable in that 5/ per head for brand inspection would yield on income in excess of the reasonable cost of rendering the service, and directed the defendant stockyards company to pay to the complainant as roperation, on or before July 1, 1929, the difference between 8d a. head, the rate charged, and 5/ a head, the rate found to be reo.sono.blo, on cattle consigned by the complainant to the defendant’s stockyard subsequent to September 15, 1928, D-278 Certain livestock organizations maintain an inspection service at the Sioux City market for the purpose of inspecting livestock for brands, A separate charge is mo.de for this service, and, under on agreement-with the respondent commission firms, the charge is deducted from the proceeds of so.lo of bronded live¬ stock and remitted to the livestock organizations, either directly by the respondent firms or through the exchange, D-308 Upon the bonis of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Sec¬ retary fixed certain mo.ximum reoi.sono.ble ro.tes end changes for the following stockyard services: yendage, feed am. bedding, dipping, immmiizcation, testing cattle, disinfecting, sales pavilion changes, sale ring, branding, dehorning and castrating, and boarding horses. D-344 663 TARIFFS AND RATES III Brand Inspection The Wyoming Stockgrovers Association maintains cm. inspector who inspects the brands on the cattle or sheep at the Ogden end.North Salt Lake markets from the State of Wyoming. This inspection covers cattle received either by rail or by truck from that State. ' ' D-456 and 457 Buying and Soiling Pursuant to a stipulation entered into between octitioners, members of the Sioux City Livestock Exchange, end the Secretary, dated November 15, 1937, the Secreta.ry fixed certain selling changes and buying charges for cattle, calves, and sine, D-308 Cancelling Proposed New Rates, nffect of When the respondent restored the original change of tl.10 per bushel for corn, as set forth in a previous tariff schedule, cancelling its proposed increased, charge of $1*25 per bushel for corn before the termination of the Secretary’s hearing, the Secretary discontinued and terminated the hearing, D-17 Respondent stockyard having made a request in writing that it be allowed to withdraw its proposed now change for corn and hay and, in lieu thereof, to file a now tariff providing for the same rales and changes in effect at the time the proceeding was begun, the Secretary ordered that respondent’s request bo granted and that the proceeding bo discontinued and terminated without prej¬ udice when the new tariff had been filed and published and had become effective, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 306 of the Act. D-131 664 TARIFFS AND RATES III Food Charges for feeding of livestock at respondent’s stockyards to $1.30 per D-d- bushel appeared to the Secretary to bo mareasenable ossary to consider operating expenses, both direct read indirect. 'aid net profits D-5 Reasonable charges for feed should provide such a margin between the market price and the selling price as to allow for a reason¬ able spread and, at the same time, permit minor variations in market price v/ithout necessitating increasing charges in schedules. D-5 An increase of 28/ per bushel for corn, 15/ per bushel for oats, 50/ per cart, for bran and shorts, end 50/ per cart, for cotton- D-20 A rate or charge for corn'at the price of $1.3-5. per bushel, end for he.y at the price of $2.00 per cart., such charges including the feeding of livestock ert the stockyards, and being en in¬ crease of 25/ per bushel for corn end 25/ per cart, for hay oven end e-bove the prices specified, in ed former schedule of re.tos end charges on file with the Packers and Stockyards Administration, appears from the exaninertion of records and other information in the possession of the Department of Agriculture to be not justi¬ fied end, in effect, unree-.sone.blo. D-21 665 TARIFFS AND RATES III Food Charges An increase in tariff schedule for yardage charge on hogs of o/ per head, on sheep and goats of 1/ per head, on horses and mules of 10/ per head, and an increased charge for alfalfa hay and the feeding thereof in the amount of 25/ per cwt., and an additional charge for services which had theretofore been rendered as a part of the yardage services, without support¬ ing evidence, gave the Secretary reason to believe that the increases proposed were not justified, were unreasonable and discriminator''' - . D-23 t / An increase of 15^ per bushel over and above the price of $51.40 per bushel measure specified in respondent’s former schedule of fates and charges on file with the Packers and Stockyards Admin¬ istration gave the Secretary reason to believe, from an examina¬ tion of records and other information in the possession of the Department of Agriculture, that such increase was not justified aid was, in fact, unreasonable. D-24 It appearing that respondent’s Supplement No. 2 to its schedule of rates end charges for stockyard services. No. 2, filed with the Packers and Stockyards Administration on November 20, 1923, to become effective December 1, 1923, increases the rate or charge for corn 10/ per bushel and the rate or charge for hay 25/ per cwt. over and above the rates or charges listed in respondent’s previous schedule- and it further appearing to the Secretary of Agriculture, from an examination of the records and other information in his possession, that such increases are not justified and are, in fact, unreasonable, the Secretary determined a proceeding should be had for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and lawfulness of said new rates and charges. D-56 66.6 TARIFFS AND RATES III Feed Charges Upon the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearings the Secretary fixed certain maximum reasonable rates and charges for the following stockyard services* yardage, feed and bedding, dipping, immunization, testing cattle, disinfecting, sales pavilion charges, sale ring, branding, dehorning and castrating, and boarding horses. D-344 The Secretary found, from all the evidence, that the schedule of rates and charges of the respondent stockyards company now in effect were unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, and he prescribed maximum reasonable rates and charges for yardage, feed and bedding, testing, dipping, immunization, branding, dehorning and castrating, cleaning and disinfecting, weighing, special sales and bedding pens, D-425 Under order of the Secretary and approval of an agreement to said order by the respondent Cleveland Union Stock Yards Com¬ pany, the Secretary accepted the tariff of rates and charges for stockyard services and feed on the condition that it re¬ main in effect to the end of the vear 1934, at which time its effect would be studied and, if necessary, a readjustment either up or down or both, as the case might require to pro¬ duce 6-gfo upon the fair value of the business and yet maintain the equity of the tariff as a whole, would be made. D-442 ..How Become Effective Proposed new schedule of rates or charges becomes effective in accordance with Section 303(e) of the Act. D-82 667 TARIFFS AND RATES III How Become Effective Under order of the Secretary'and approval of an agreement to said order by the respondent Cleveland Union Stock Yards Com¬ pany, the Secretary accepted the tariff of rates and charges for stockyard services and feed oh the condition that it remain in effect to the end of the year 1934, at which time its effect would, be studied and, if necessary, a readjustment either up or down or both, as the case might require to pro¬ duce 6-kfo upon the fair value of the business and yet maintain the equity of the tariff as a whole, vrould be made, D-442 Posting Schedules Under the Act, market agencies are required to file schedules of rates, which thev intend to nut into effect, with the Packers and Stockyards Administration. D-15 Questions Involved in Hearings to Determine The proceeding to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of rates and charges of respondent Nashville Union Stock Yards, Inc., for feed and services presents for decision three prin¬ cipal questions, namely, (l) whether the existing rates and charges for stockyard services are just, reasonable, and non- discriminatory, (2) if so, whether the increased rates and changes for such services at such stockyards will be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, and (3) if neither of said schedules of rates and charges arc said to be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, then to determine a schedule which will possess those attributes. These questions are neither novel nor essentially unlike those involved in many proceedings throughout the country involving the reasonableness of rates and charges of public utilities of many different kinds. D-291 668 TARIFFS AND RATES III Special Charges Upon the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Secretary fixed certain maximum reasonable rates and charges for the following stockyard services: yardage, feed and bedding, dipping, immunization, testing cattle, disinfecting, sales pavilion charges, sale ring, branding, dehorning and castrating, and boarding horses. , D-344 The Secretary found, from all the evidence,.that the schedule of rates and charges of the respondent stockyards company now in effect were unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, and prescribed maximum reasonable rates end charges for yardage, feed and bedding, testing, dipping, immunization,.branding, dehorning and castrating, cleaning and disinfecting, weighing, special saJ.es and bedded pens. D-425 The tariff of the Denver Union Stock Yard Company sets out ra.tcs and charges covering services for branding, dehorning,, dipping, disinfecting, testing, immunizing, vaccinating, boarding horses, and special weighing. Exceptional services are rendered under special agreements. D-450 Suspension of New Schedules of Rates and Charges \ It appearing to the Secretary that inquiry should be made into the rca.sona.blerness and lawfulness of a proposed now. schedule of rales and charges for livestock ’’planted and resold" in the com¬ mission division of the stockyards of the respondent, the Sec¬ retary ordered that the proposed new schedule be suspended for a, period of thirty days beyond the time when such schedule would otherwise go into effect. D-6 669 TARIFFS AND RATES Suspension of Nev/ Schedules of Rates and Charges A request by the respondent stockyards company, for a postpone¬ ment of the hearing to determine the reasonableness and lawful¬ ness of a proposed new schedule of rates and charges for live¬ stock ’’planted and resold” in the commission division of the stockyards of the respondent, was granted by the Secretary upon the express condition tha.t the respondent -would agree that the suspension order of said tariff bo continued until the hearing thereon should bo completed and the Secretary had reached his decision, even though such suspension should extend beyond the oxoiration of the period ordered end authorized bv law. D-6 The stockyards company having made application with the Sec¬ retary to set aside end abrogate its stipulation with the Secretary that it would not object to the suspension of the proposed new rates end charges for yardage on livestock ’’planted and resold” in the commission division of its stockyard until after the hearing in the cone had been concluded and the Sec¬ retary had rendered his decision, on the ground that such rates or changes were now being collected at other principal stock- yards and on the further ground tha.t a decision in Docket No. 7 with respect to a. similar change has been delayed longer than it was anticipated cab the time of entering into the stipu¬ lation, the Secretary ordered that the stipulation be abrogaebcd and that the proposed now tariff become effective ten da.vs rafter the issuance of the order. D-6 The suspension of the proposed new ra.tcs and changes of the respondent stockyands company for reweighing livestock was voluntarily a.greod upon by the respondent for a, thirty-day period beyond the sixty-day period of suspension authorized under the lav;, and the Secretary agreed tha.t the respondent’s request for a. postponement of the hearing until a subsequent date be granted. D-7 III TARIFFS AFD RATES III Suspension of Row Schedules of Ratos and Charges It appearing to the Secretary that a hearing should be had to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of the nexfLy pro¬ posed schedule of rates and charges filed by the respondent stockyards company for reweighing livestock, the Secretary ordered that the operation of the tariff should bo suspended end its use deferred until the expiration of thirty days beyond the time when such schedule would otherwise go into effect. D-7 It appearing that the he awing cannot bo concluded within the originadL thirty-day period of suspension of proposed new tawiff rates because an investigation of the records of respondents, for the purpose of securing material facts beawing upon the issue involved, has not been concluded, the Secretawy ordered that said proposed new tariff be suspended for a. further period of thirty days. D-15 Pending the heawing to determine the reasonableness and ness of now rates and charges, the operation of the new should be suspended and its use deferred. 1 awful - tariff D-15 Postponement of heawing to a time beyond the sixty-dry .period allowed for the suspension of proposed new tariff rates or charges by Section 306 of the Act granted by the Secretawy in case where the respondent requested such postponement and agreed that the period of suspension of said new tawiff schedule should continue until the conclusion of the hearing. D-18 When it appears to the Secretary of Agriculture thest now tawiff rates arc not justified a! the time of filing and awe, in fact, unreasonable, the proper procedure is a. hearing called by the Secretawy for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and lawfulness of said new rates or changes. Pending such heawing, the operation of the newly-filed tariff should bo suspended, its use deferred for respondent thait of said increase in rales place specified therein. period of thirty days ' l' ~ y and notice given to a hearing upon the reasonableness and lawfulness ijj nci changes will bo held a.t a. time and D-20; D-21: D-23 671 TARIFFS AND RATES III Suspension of New Schedules of Ratos and Charges Suspension of the operation of proposed now tariff for additional thirty days, upon postponement of hearing. D-23 When the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that a proposed new tariff schedule is not justified and is, in fact, unreasonable), a proceeding under Title III of the- Act should be had for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and law¬ fulness of said new rate or charge. D-24j D-25;D-26 The Secretary having ordered a hearing to determine the reason¬ ableness and lawfulness of new rates or charges, he also ordered the operation and use of said now rates or changes suspended and deferred until the oxpiration of thirty days beyond the time when such schedule would otherwise go into effect. D-56 ‘The Secretory ordered the hearing on the lawfulness* of charges and rates sot forth in a proposed now sto'chyard services schedule postponed for an additional perioe of thirty days and the proposed now"rrates and charges suspended and deferred for a further period of thirty do.vs, it appearing that an investigation of the records of the respondent for the purpose of securing, material fa.cts bear¬ ing upon the issue involved could not bo concluded within the original period of suspension. D-82 Hearing postponed and opora.tion of proposed new ra.tcs and schedules deferred and suspended beyond the sixty-day period allowed in the Act when respondent, for good ca.usc shown, desires and 'requests such postponement. D-82 The operation of respondent’s Tariff Supplement No. 4 to Schedule No. 2, proposing m increased charge for hay and corn, ordered suspended by the Secretary and deferred until the expiration of thirty ’ays beyond the time when such schedule would otherwise go into effect, and notice of herring given to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of the proposed increases. D-131 672 TARIFFS AM) RATES III Suspension of New Schedules of Rates and Charges The Secretary ordered that the proposed new tariff of rates and charges of the respondent market agencies to be put into effect at the Union Stock Yards, Omaha,' Nebraska, be suspended for a period of thirty days beyond- the time when such schedule would otherwise go into effect, pending the hearing instituted to determine their reasonableness end' lawfulness. D-143 It appearing to the Secretary that the issues involved in the commission rate case could not be concluded within the first period of suspension of the proposed new rates and charges, the Secretary ordered suspension of the tariff for an addi-. tional thirty days from the expiration of the first thirty- day period of suspension, in accordance with the provisions .. of the Act. * D-143 It appearing to the Secretary that the hearing on the reason¬ ableness and lawfulness of respondent Nashville Union Stock Yards,', Inc., rates and charges for its services as a stock- yard owner cannot be concludea within the first period of suspension, the Secretary ordered the time of suspension of said rates and charges extended for a further oeriod of thirtv days• D-291 It appearing that an investigation of the records of the respondent to secure material bearing upon the issue of the v reasonableness and lawfulness of respondent's new schedule of proposed yardage charges cannot be concluded id thin the first thirty days of suspension, the Secretary ordered that said tariff designated as "Amendment No. 5 U. S. Y. cc T. Co. No. 9" be extended for a further period of thirty days from the oxpiration of the period of original suspension. D-472 673 TARIFFS AND RATES III Suspension of New Schedules of Rates and Charges Ordered by the Secretary that, pending the hearing with respect to the reasonableness and lawfulness of proposed new yardage charges, the ’’Amendment No. 3 to 'U. S. Y. & T. Co. No. 9" schedule of rates and charges of respondent be suspended until the expiration of thirty days from the time when such schedule would otherwise go into effect. D-472 It appearing that the hearing being hold involving, among other things, the use and operation of respondent's tariff No. 10 was not concluded within the first period of suspension,, the Secre¬ tary ordered said tariff No. 10 suspended for an additional thirty-day period. D-472 Order suspending Amendment No. 3 to respondent's Tariff No. 10 until the expiration of thirty days from the time when such schedule would otherwise have gone into effect, in view of the inquiry now being made into the reasonableness of rates and charges of respondent. D-472 Order suspending respondent's Amendment No. 3 to Tariff No. 10 for an additional period of ten days in view of the unreason- a t/ ableness of respondent's rentes and charges. D-472 Vaccination Charges The Secretary found that the rates or charges of the respondent as sot forth in its schedules of rates and charges for vaccinat¬ ing services were unjust and.unreasonable, and prescribed a maximum of 37o of tho book value of the company’s onsets, that the operating expenses of the company show thab the salaries paid are conservative, that the com¬ pany hc.s paid no dividends on its common stock since the date of its organiza.tion, and that the amounts expended for adver¬ tising items were limited, the Secretary permitted the respond¬ ent to increa.se its rales or charges for yarding livestock 2 / per hoax! over and above the rale or charge previously in effect, D-155 679 TARIFFS ATD RATES III Yardage Charges It appearing that respondent Peoria Union Stock Yards Company filed a new satisfactory tariff of rcates and charges for stock- yards services subsequent to the order of suspension end notice of hearing on the alleged unreasonable schedule of rates end oharges theretofore filed, which new tariff appears not to be unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory, the Secretary ordered the case dismissed without prejudice. D-187 So long as the resale yardage charges are reasonable and apply equally to all’ who operate upon the yard making the charges, the rates cannot be said to be discriminatory because another competing stockyard makes a less charge or no charge for the seme services. D-191 It is fundamental that a public utility cannot bo required to furnish a service without some compensation, cither direct or indirect, nor compelled to render one service below cost merely because it may bo making a; fair return or oven rn exorbitant profit oil other services. D-1S1 The fact that stockyard services charges to one group of patrons may be sufficient to defray its expenses and yield a fair return upon its investment does not entitle another group of patrons to receive services without charge. D-191 It cannot be said tha/fc a. stockyard company is bound to pursue a method of obtaining its revenues merely because such method ha.s been established by custom. ' D-191 680 € TARIFFS /AID RATES III # Yardage Charges Upon consideration of the entire record, the Secretary found that the charges of the defendant stockyard company for yard¬ age \jere not unjustly discriminatory against the complainant, the evidence offered by complainant shousing that defendant assessed the yard a. go charges against certain shipnents of live¬ stock consigned to complainant which were temporarily stopped at the defendant's Oixia.hr. market for branding and then rchilled to complainant at his ranch cab South Dakota, oven though the evidence further showed that the defendant a.ssossod no charges a.gc.inst livestock consigned to a commission firm which wa.s not sold at- defendant's Omaha, market, but was returned to the point of origin or forwarded to another market; hence, that the com¬ plainant wa.s not entitled to reparation for damages. D-207 The respondent' stockyards is entitled to mate a reasonable charge for the facilities and services provided complrinant, but when the facilities and services arc lessoned the charge must also bo lessened correspondingly, D-270 The Secretary found that defendant stockyards company charged complainant an unreasonable yarda.gc charge, it appearing that the services furnished the complainant were materially less than those services furnished to other patrons for which the same charge was made, D-270 v All who receive the benefits of carrying on a. business within respondent's stockyard, through the purchase and resale of livestock therein, should pa.y for services so received sub¬ stantially one-half of rates and charges imposed upon those who send their livestock to the market for sale. D-301 It ma.y bo that respondent has the right to render free service to one class of its patrons if, by so doing, it does not be¬ come necessary for it to maintain higher charges for services rendered to others, D-301 # 681 TARIFFS AND RATES III Yardage Charges It is unjustly discriminatory, as well as unreasonable, for the respondent to maintain a large section of a valuable property and to incur numerous expenses in the rendition of a free service to one class of patrons, and remunerate it¬ self through a charge on another class which is greater than necessary to cover the cost of rendition of the service to the latter class. D--301 Upon the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Secretary fixed certoin maximum reasonable rates and charges for the following stockyard services: yardage, feed and bed¬ ding, dipping, immunization, testing cattle, disinfecting, sales pavilion charges, sale ring, branding, dehorning and castrating, and boarding.horses. D-344 It may be that the respondent stockyard company has the right to furnish free yardage to one class of its patrons, if by so doing it does not become necessary to maintain higher charges for the services rendered to others. However, it is unjustly discriminatory, as well as unreasonable, for respondent to main¬ tain a large section of valuable property and to incur numerous expenses in the rendition of this service to one class of its patrons, and to remunerate itself for the use of these facili¬ ties through a charge on another which is greater than necessary to cover the cost of the rendition of the services to the latter class. It is found, therefore, that all who receive the benefit of carrying on their business within the respondent's stockyard, through the purchase and resale of livestock therein, should pay for such services substantially one-half the rates and charges imposed upon those who send their livestock to market for sale. D-344 682 TARIFFS /JD RATES III Yardage Charges For its services, the stocky arc. company assesses a charge upon each head of livestock. It also makes a separate charge for feed and bedding at regularly published rates. These charges arc assessed against the owners or shippers of livestock. The stockyards company also renders special services such as clipping, spraying, branding, testing, and immunizing, and for such services special changes are made and assessed o.gainst the persons requir¬ ing those services, D-402 The Secretary found from rsates end charges of the effect were unreasonable maximum r e as on ab1e r ate s all the evidence that the schedule of respondent stockyards company now in end unjustly discriminatory and prescribed and changes for yardage, feed and bedding. testing, cleaning dipping, inmunization, branding, dehorning and disinfecting, weighing, special, sales. and castrating, an d b e d d e d pens. D-425 Under order of the Secretary and s.pprove.l of an agreement to said order by the respondent Cleveland Union Stock Yards Company, the Secretary accepted the tariff of rates and charges for stockyard services and feed on the condition that it remain in effect to the end of the yean 1934, r.t which time its effect would be studied and, if necessary, a readjustment either up or down or both a.s the ca.se eiight require to produce &^r/o upon the fair value of the busi¬ ness and maintain the equity of the tariff a.s a, whole would be made, D-442 Upon stipulation between the Denver Union Stock Yards Company and the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary modified his order of February 17, 1937, fixing reasona.ble stockyards re.tcs and charges, by fixing a. charge of 4/ per head for delivering cattle and calves from truck unloading chutes to pens of commission firms, and the stockyards company agreed that the Secretary might make modifica¬ tions without further hearing with respect thereto, without the consent of the stockyards company, provided that no order should bo made fixing the ra.tes below the order of February 17, 1937; the stockyards company further agreed to submit quarterly reports of the truck unloading operations to the Secrotary. D-450 683 tariffs and rates hi Yardage Charges It may be that a stockyard company has the right to- render free services to one class of its patrons if, by so doing, it docs not have to maintain higher charges for services rendered to others. It is, however, unjustly discrimina¬ tory, a.s well as unreasonable, for a stockyards company to maintain a. largo section of valuable property and to incur numerous exponses in the rendition of free services to one class of its patrons and then remunerate itself through a. charge on mother class which is greater than necessary to cover the cost of rendering the service to the latter clans, D-450 It appearing from the evidence that a. charge of 25/ per ho aid for yardage services for drought cattle amounted to- more than $5,000 over the additional expense which the respondent com¬ pany ’was put to in handling the cr.ttle, the respondent com¬ pany was unjustified in charging and was not entitled to a, 33/ rate® D-451 The tariff of respondent for yardage services should not ha.vc boon different with respect i to charges for drought ca.ttlo on their way to various packers for slaughter than-the tariff on any other ca.ttlo consigned to packers end slaughterers, or other cattle not sent to the stockyards for sale or for effect¬ ing change of ownership, and it was unlawful, unrca.sona.ble, and discriminatory for respondent to amend its tariff schedule ' so tha.t the yardage charges on drought ca.ttlo would bo na.de under tha.t schedule affecting ca.ttlo brought to tho market for sale or change of ownership, and to charge complainant 33/ per head for yardage charges for such drought ca.ttlc. when the ra.to on cattle consigned to packers and slaughterers was only 25/ per hoa.d, D-451 684 TITLE III Generally, livestock is in the stockyards. rowcighcd each and every tine it is sold D-5 When tho livestock is driven off the scale at the stockyard, it bocones the property of the purchaser, and tho cnployoos or stockyard company tako possession of it and yard it for the buyer. b-311 Title to livestock, changes from the seller to the buyer and the livestock becomes the property of the purchaser when it is driven off the scales, unless, within a certain given time, certain defects are discovered which, under tho rules of the market, give the purchaser right to weigh the animal back to the com¬ mission firm. * D-383 Practically all livestock is sold by weight and delivered to purchasers when driven off the scales. D-450 Under the statutes of Louisiana, a sale of livestock may be voided in seventy-two hours for certain.vices unknown to the purchaser. The practical effect of this is to postpone payment for livestock until post-mortem examination has been completed, usually seventy- tyro hours after the sale. Respondent market agencies often advance owners the appraised value of the livestock at the time of the sale. This occasionally results in unadjusted sales, either over or under the post-mortem values. D-534 When a market agency established a course of conduct whereby it. permits another person to purcho.se livestock for it, giving his personal, check in payment for the livestock end having it covered by the,.market agency before it is presented to the bank for pa.y- mont, the acceptance by the seller of the*agent’s check is con¬ ditional only,, pending tho payment of it upon presentation, and no title to the livestock sold po.ssos until the check is paid or tho market agency sells the livestock. D-1043 When a. country buyer pureha.sod livestock and check in the/t the title to .Ve ill personal payment for the livestock, and tho evidence indicated country buyer was acting as agunt for a market agency, the ca.ttle parsed from the seller to the market agency upon tho delivery of the check by the country buyer to tho seller D-1159 685 TRADE CUSTOMS III All or practically all of the larger market agencies that operate in the Kansas City Stock Yards have cattle planted with then for sale from time to tine* It is not the usua.l practice of market agencies that have cattle planted with them to inquire of the name of the market a.gcncy or person from whom the cattle were purche.scd. D-39 It is customary for only one buyer at a. time to make a. bid in the pons whore the livestock is exposed for sale, and his bid is axeopted or rejected before another bid is received from any other buyer. The seller may occa.siona.lly, however, telephone or send for a. buyer to cone to his pens to inspect and bid upon the livestock, or the seller may leave his pens for the purpose of negotiating with the buyer. D-39 In connection with the existing node and system of respondent in delivering hogs to purchasers thereof, a. practice, ha.s grown up and obtained at respondent’s ■stockyards, under which the owner of hogs erroneously delivered to another packer obtains settlement from the other packer at the price paid for them by the owner• Under this custom, when the market goes down the owner makes the differ mice in the reel an oment cost, hv loses the difference in the replacement cost. and when* the market 'goes up D-9 7 Under business prentices prevailing at. the Buffalo Stock Yards, the market o.gencies ordinarilv receive payment from the ultimate purchasers in time so tha.t checks issued to the country shippers by the market agencies arc protected. D-180 It cannot be said tha.t a. stockyard company is bound to pursue a method of obtaining its revenues merely beca.usc such method ha.s been established by custom. D-191 It is the custom for some firms to arrange with country opora.tors whereby they honor dre.fts drc.wn by these operators in payment for livestock purchased by them in the country. It is the custom for these firms to require the country opora.tors to put a certain per- cente.go of their own money in the business. Ordinarily, the prentice is for those market agencies who engage in this cla.ss of business to honor drafts drawn for 75^ of the purchase price of the livestock. D-456 and 457 686 TRADE CUSTOMS III Tho practice of commission firms in permitting country buyers to draw drafts on them in payment for purchases of livestock is general in the territory tributary to the Kansas City market. The evidence indicates that tho sellers wire on draft when they have had no previous dealings with the parties or if the parties upon whom the drafts arc drawn are not known. D-475 It is customary for those regularly operating at public markets to do business by word of mouth and not in writing. D-475 Tho evidence clearly discloses that it is not the custom for c- market agency to agree to honor drafts in any amount without qualification. D-1276 687 TRADE NiJJES, USE OF III The Secretary found tha.t the Farmers Union Livestock Commission is the trade nemo under which the Farnors Educational & Cooperative State Union of Nebraska was engaged in the operation of a narket agency at the St. Joseph Stock Yards, St, Joseph, Missouri, at the tines in question, and that the Farriers Educational •& Cooperative State Union of Nebraska was registered, accordingly, under the Act, D-92 The evidence showing that the respondent Farriers Union Livestock Commission Corip on y was sonctinos referred to by shippers and other individuals as ’’Farmers Union”, that .upon stationery, letterheads, accounts salc, business cards, calenders, and other na.tcria.l carry¬ ing the firm name the name a.ppcarcd in bold typo a.s "The Farmers Union Livestock Commission Company”, and imncdia.tcly thcroundcr, tho words ’’Gammon & Gammon", and in other instances, words "Farmers Union" a.ppca.r in very bold type with the words "Gammon & Gammon" a.ppearing ir.modia.tuly thereunder, and following that the words "Commission Company", that when both companies onga.ge in ra.dio advertising it is difficult for tho listener to determine whether they are two different concerns or one concern a.s far an tho an¬ nouncement is concerned, tha.t there is some confusion in regard to tho delivery of nc.il to the two agencios, tha.t the uso of the words ’’Farmers Union” by respondent would sometimes deceive farmers who were not posted into believing tha.t respondent was the conplaln- ant a.gcncy, the Secretary found that the respondent wa.s engaged in and used an unfair and deceptive prentice and device in using the tra.de name "Farmers Livestock Commission Company", it appearing tha.t the complainant Farmers Educe.tione.l and Co-Operative Union of America, hr.d been opere.ting at the seme stockyards under the same name for approximately 13 years prior to tho existence of respondent company end had established such name in the minds of farmers and shippers to an extent tha.t the use of it by respondent tended to confuse the shippers and farmers with respect to tho identity of tho two r.gencics, even though the evidence further showed tha.t respondent ha.d, in good faith, purchased tho name from prior individuals, tha.t the respondent probably ha.d no in¬ tent to uso tho name to defraud farmers and shippers into believ¬ ing its a.gency wa.s one and the same a.s tho Co-Opcra.tivo a.gcncy, and tha.t the respondent ha.d, in every instance, a.ttemptcd a.s best it could to distinguish the two a.gencics in the minds of shippers and farmer s , D- 513 688 TRADE NA12ES, USE OF III Respondents J. L. Gcmimon, Fred M. Gammon, and S • V. Egan cl lowed by the Secretory approximately three months to cer.se and desist the use of the trade name ’’Farmers Union Livestock- Commission Company", it appearing that some consideration should be given then as to the tine allowed then before ceasing to use the nano, since it had been used by their successors for a. year and a half without objection on the port of the complainants. D-513 Respondent The Farmers Union Livestock Commission Company was ordered by the Secretary to cease and desist from using such name at the Springfield Stock Yards, Springfield, Missouri, it appearing from the evidence that, for many years prior thereto, the Farmers Educational and Co-Operative Union of miorica has bcc-n operating at the stockyards under the nano of Farmers Union Livestock Commission Company, ana that coalmen reference to and usage of both companies by the name of ’’Farmers Union” tended to confuse shippers and other individuals with respect to'with which firm they were dealing, causing shippers and others, a.t tines, to send their livestock to respondent when, in fact, they had in¬ tended to send it to the Co-Operative. D-513 689 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM, III OR MAKE EXCEPTION TO, REPORT AND PROPOSED ORDER OF EXAMINER When no testimony is introduced at the hearing by respondents or intervonors, and no testimony is heard cxcept'-tho report of in¬ vestigation referred to in the report of the Examiner, and each of the respondents, in person or by counsel, waives his right of exception to end appeal from the report of the Examiner end the order proposed by the Examiner, the issues may be concluded and the order entered without objection. D-2 Testimony taken at the hearing was reduced to writing and filed in the records of the Department of Agriculture, and a tentative report and. order was prepared by the Examiner and copies thereof furnished to the complainants and the respondent, all of whom waived the privilege of filing exceptions or objections to said tentative report. D-84 690 WAIVER OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT III The Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted by Congress largely to protect the interests of the shippers, and, if it has been violated, neither a shipper nor anyone else can obliterate the violation by stating that the transaction on the part of the registrant was satisfactory. P-1041 691 WITNESSES HI Examination and Cross-Examination of The attorneys for complainants and respondents examined or had the opportunity to examine all witnesses. D-39 In making his determination to grant or deny a rehearing, the Secretary must be allowed to permit an investigation by the Department of the respondent’s books and records to determine the v/eight of the respondent’s allegations for a rehearing, without subjecting the investigating staff of the Department to cross-examination by the respondent; otherwise, the Secre¬ tary would have to grant a rehearing to determine whether he should grant a rehearing. D-298 Counsel for respondent were not allowed, during the course of a hearing to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of the respondents’ commission rates and charges for selling livestock at the Denver Union Stock Yards, to question an employee of the Government with respect to how reasonable costs are determined or have been determined in the past by the Department of Agri¬ culture, since such evidence, if admitted, would be incompetent. The orders speak for themselves. The method of commission rate making adopted by the Secretary has been tested in the courts end has been approved, and it is inconceivable that a witness, merely because it happens to be an employee of the Department of Agriculture, should be called upon to testify with respect to the operations of the mind of the Secretary in the weighing of evidence which is necessary to enable him to arrive at his conclusions as to reasonable rates and reasonable costs. D-435 Expert Testimony The appraisal of the value of the services of market agency owners, in a rate proceeding, is not a subject for expert opinion. The usual procedure is to determine what such ser¬ vices can be purchased for in the market in the locality where the services are performed. D-311 Vi itnesses in Imoeachment of Testimony of Copies of accounts sale made out in the handwriting of the respond¬ ent, dated after the date respondent testified he had been keeping his ovra books and that by reason thereof the errors complained of had not occurred, which accounts sale did show the errors complained of, were introduced to impeach the testimony of respondent, D-184 After the auditor for the Packers and Stockyards administration had testified, the respondent was afforded an opportunity to testify and, after being sworn, did testify, then the'testimony of the respondent was impeached by copies of accounts sale made out in the handwriting of respondent and by recalling the auditor for further examination, and respondent was again given further opportunity to testify, but declined, D-184 Opportunity to Be Heard Objection in a proceedings for reparation for the.return of the payment of alleged discriminatory reweigh charges, by the defend¬ ant, to the testimony of individual dealer members of the Traders Livestock exchange, on the ground that since the individual members were not joined in the complaint or named in the body thereof there was no proceeding in which any trader could be a participant, was overruled by the Lxaminer, and the Examiner’s ruling was sus¬ tained by the Secretary, D-7 At a hearing ordered b^ r the Secretarv upon the reasonableness and -P 6/ X. lawfulness of oroposed tariff charges, respondents have the right to appear and show cause why an order in respect to said rate or charge should not be made by the Secretary in conformity with the provisions of Title III under the Act, D~8 At a heaning to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of a new rate or charge, the respondent and all interested parties have the right to appear end show cause why a further order in respect thereto should not be made by the Secretary, in conformity with the provisions of Title III of the Act. D-16 Full opportunity to testify was afforded to all interested parties. D-77 693 WITNESSES III 0 o-oort uni tv to Eo Heard JL J. V After the auditor for the Packers and Stockyards Administration had testified, the respondent was afforded an opportunity to testify and, after "being sworn, did testify, then the testimony of the respondent was impeached by copies of accounts sale made out in the handwriting of respondent and by recalling the auditor for further examination, and the respondent was again given further opportunity to testify, but declined. E-184 Prevention of Testimony of by Respondent t/ %J .L Market agencies which deliberately attempt to prevent the develop-* ment of testimony at rate hearings with respect to the potential selling capacity of their salesmen hamper, to their own detriment, the Secretary in arriving at reasonable commission rates and charges. "* * * the companies to be regulated will find it to their lasting interest to furnish freely the information upon which a just regu¬ lation can be based." Knoxville v, Knoxville Water Company, 212 Uo S. 1, 18. ~ " D-402 Respondent as In the case involving bovcott activities, practically all of the d.ealcrs who were respondents were called as witnesses by their counsel. D-246 In a proceeding to determine .if respondent commission company was liable for drafts drawn upon it by a country buyer for the payment of livestock, members of both the complainant firms and the respond¬ ent firm were called to testify, D-475 694 WITNESSES III Respondent Foiling or Refusing to Testifv, Significonce of J- >—? Cl f/ ? tJ In a case for reparation for the failure of the respondent market agency to honor a draft and accept delivery on a shipment of sheep, where the issue was whether or not the country buyer was acting as the agent of the respondent, the failure of the respondent to in¬ troduce any testimony in rebuttal of the statements of agency made by the country buyer was persuasive that the statements of the country buyer were true, "Conduct which forms a basis for infer¬ ence is evidence. Silence is often evidence of the most persua¬ sive character." vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 111. D-1131 Testimony of Interested 'fitness The witness for the Government testified that an offer of money was made to the truck driver. Two witnesses for the respondent testi¬ fied that no offer was made. Confronted with the problem of whether to accept the testimony of one witness or the directly opposite testimony of the two other witnesses, all of whom were in a position to .mow tile facts, and no motive to falsify being shown or suggested by the record, the Secretary accepted as true the testimony of the one witness for the Government, since the two witnesses for the respondent were interested oarties. D-3S3 '.hen the testimony of tiro or more witnesses as to a particular fact is diroctlv in conflict, no motive to falsify on the part of either witness being shown or suggested bv the record, the Secretary will accept the testimony of the witness having no interest in the pro¬ ceedings. D-3S3; D-oS5; D-SC8 Flo reason being shown by the record to discredit the testimony of the disinterosted witness, the Secretary will accept his testimony as correct as to the offer to the trucker having been made by the respondent, even though the testimony of respondent’s witness is directly opposite, since the’witness of the respondent is on interested party to, the proceedings. i V JL D-397 ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA IV As Evidence Auditor’s /report made by the auditors for the Packers and Stock- yards Administration, based upon an examination of the books of account and records of respondent, was introduced in evidence as Government Exhibit No. 1. D-25; D-26 An affidavit offered by responds.nt in which the complainant claimed to have made several shipments of livestock to respondent, and to have authorized respondent to make out the accounts sale in the names of others, was not legally admissible, and was immaterial in any event, as the shipper could not authorize the keeping of records other them as required by the Act. D-287 An exhibit of an audit of the records of respondent, as made by the Government’s auditor, was admitted as a part of the record in the case to determine respondent's unlawful trade practices. D-292 At the hearing to determine if respondent had obtained its poultry license through fraud, the application and balance sheet were offered and received in evidence. D-551 Necessary under the Act A plant account of the respondent stockyards company which did not show what parts of the property of the respondent were improved or built during the various years when expenditures were made, or on what basis the items were charged to the plant account, did not qualify, under the Act, as a sufficient account record or memoran¬ dum of the respondent company, since it did not disclose all the facts relating to the physical assets of the respondent. D-5 The respondent stockyards company was ordered by the Secretary to keep as a part of its accounts, records, and memoranda a true copy of the inventory made by the Government engineers, to which refer¬ ence was made by the Secretary in making his findings and opinions upon which tho order was based, together with a true account of the dates, descriptions, and costs of all changes in and additions to the physical property described in said inventory; also, as a part of its accounts, records, end memoranda, a true account of its depre¬ ciation fund, including tho amounts deposited in, credited to, and withdrawn from it, with the dates and purposes thereof. D-5 696 PART FOUR Digests Under Title IV of the Act Accounts, Records, Memoranda ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA IV Necessary under the Act The Auditor for the Packers and Stockyards Administration testified that in order for respondent’s records to be correctly disclosed respondent should keep and maintain the following records: 1. Scale tickets of every head of livestock purchased. 2. A copy of the bills rendered to him,by the soiling agency. 3. A purchase book. 4. A file of accounts purcha.sc, that is, the duplicate thereof. 5. A conplctc file of cancelled checks, showing checks issued by the respondent. 6. Check stubs corresponding to the checks issued, 7. Carbon copies of deposit slips sh.ovri.ng collections from his customers. D-184 Dealer ordered by the Secretary to keep and maintain the follov/ing accounts, records, and memoranda pertaining to his transactions as a registered dealer in livestock: 1. Copies of scale tickets issued by the stockyards covering purchc.ses and sales by him. 2. Copies of bills for all purchases of livestock by him. 3. Book, record, or register of ea.ch purcha.se and sale of livestock showing da.tc, number of hco.d, weight, dockage, if any, amounts and expenses incidental thereto. 4. A complete file of cancelled checks issued by him. 5. A chock stub corresponding to each check issued. 6. Copies of account sales rendered by market a.goncics in connection with sales for him. , D-271 697 ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA IV Necessary under the Act Market agency ordered to keep the following records: A. Copy of scale tickets issued by the stockyards company covering purchases and sales by respondent, B. Copy of bills for all purchases and sales of livestock by respondent, C. Book, record, or register of each purchase and sale of livestock showing date, number of head, weight, dockage, if any, amount due consignor or to be paid by purchaser, and expenses incidental thereto, D. a complete file of cancelled checks issued by respondent and vouchers supporting them, E. A check stub corresponding to every chock issued or complete cash receipts or disbursements journal with segregation of proceeds end general bank account, F. Copy of credit accounts sale rendered by respondent in ■ connection with sales of consignments and copies of credit accounts purchase, G. A general ledger for accounts payable, a ledger for accounts receivable, ledger either separate or combined, D-287 Market agency ordered to keep following records: a. Copies of scale tickets issued by the stockyards company covering purchases and sales by respondent, B, Copies of bills for all purchases and sales of livestock by respondent, C, Book, record, or register of each purcha.se and sale of livestock showing date, number of head, weight, dockage, if any, amount duo consignor or to be paid by purchaser, and expenses incidental thereto, D, A complete file of cancelled checks issued by respondent and vouchers supporting them, E, A chock stub corresponding to every check issued or complete cash receipts or disbursements journal with segregation of proceeds and general bank account, F, Copy of credit accounts sale rendered by respondent in connection with sales of consignments and copies of credit accounts purchased, G, A general ledger for accounts pa.yo.blo, ledger for accounts receivable, ledger either separate or combined. D-292 698 ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA IV Necessary under the Act Market agency ordercd to keep following records: 1, Copies of scale tickets issued by the stockyards covering purchases, sales, and roweighing of live¬ stock by him, 2. Ledger accounts reflecting complete and nominal accounts, cash book of bank balances including paid balance, 3, Book, record, or register of each purchase or sale of livestock showing date, number of head, weight, dockage, if any, amount and expenses incidental thereto, 4. A complete file of cancelled checks issued by him end stubs corresponding to ea.ch check issued, D-407 Poultry dealer ordered to sot up such records, accounts, and memo¬ randa. as will fully and correctly disclose a.ll transactions in its business, including a complete double entry set of books, a gen¬ eral ledger with all practical and nominal accounts, the ledger to be up-to-date and completely posted up to at least one week; a. purcha.sc ledger and a. sales ledger showing the various cla.sscs of fowl, and a. cash book or account showing cash on hand and in the bank, D-550; D-551 Respondent coop companies and poultry trucking companies ordered to 'keep such accounts, records, and memoranda a.s mil fully dis¬ close all transactions involved in their business, covering all # v expenses which are charged a.gainst their respective businesses and the purpose for which all items of expenses are made, D-553, 554, 555 The record indicating that the applicant for a poultry license had sufficient financial ability to take cane of his weekly.recurring obligations, but did not keep proper books of accounts, the Secre¬ tary ordered tha.t the poultry license be granted upon the condition that the applicant will thereafter keep such books and records as will accurately reflect the nature, character, arid volume of the business conducted by the applicant, - D-S86 The Secretary ordered the respondent dealer, upon resuming business after the period of suspension ordered, to keep tho following books of account: (l) a. ca.sh book showing all receipts, chocks issued, and disbursements made, (2) a. ledger containing all capital accounts and other accounts in addition to opcra.ting incomes end expenses, (3) check stubs, cancelled checks, bills, invoices, and such other accounts, records, and memoranda as will fully and correctly dis- clos e all transactions involved in his business a.s a. dealer, D-807 699 .ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA IV Necessary under the Act \ Poultry licensee ordered to maintain records of all his bills, purchases, sales,.and receipts of money, together with a bank account or check book so complete as to show the amount of cash in the bank; and a record of all the expenses in the business; in compliance with Section 401 of Title IV of the Act, made applicable to the poultry business by Section 503 of Title V of the Act. • • D-1173 Poultry licensee ordered to keep such accounts, records, and memo¬ randa as would fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in her business, including her fixed assets and periodic inventories. D-1189 Market agency and dealer ordered to keep the following accounts, records, and memoranda pertaining to his transactions as a dealer: (1) book, record, or register of each purchase and sale of live¬ stock, summarized periodically and showing date, number of head, weight, dockage, if any, amount, and expenses incidental thereto; (2) a check stub corresponding to every check issued; (3) a com¬ plete file of cancelled checks issued, copies of bills for all purchases of livestock, and copies of accounts sale rendered by market agencies in connection with sales made for him; (4) copies of scale tickets issued by the stockyard company covering purchases and sales made by the respondent. D-1199 The evidence adduced at the hearing having shown that the respond¬ ent poultry licensee is financially able to fulfill the obligations he incurs as a licensee, but that he does not keep the proper books of account to disclose a record of his business, the Secretary did not revoke his poultry license, but ordered that he set up the proper accounts, records, and memoranda to fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his business,* including a record of cash receipts, cash disbursements, and purchases and payments made in settlement of debts incurred because of such purchases. D-1210 Market agency ordered to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda necessary to fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his business. D-1222; D-1237 Poultry licensee failed to keep the proper accounts, records, and memoranda required under the net by keeping records relating to poultry transactions which were not written in English. D-1254 ACCOUNTS, ACCORDS, MEMORANDA IV Production of Notice was given to the respondent stockyards company by the Secre¬ tary for the access by the duly authorized agents of the Secretary to accounts, records, memoranda, and documentary evidence of the respondent, for the purpose of preparing for the hearing on the reasonableness and lawfulness of the proposed new reweigh charges of the respondent. D-7 Respondents ordered to produce evidence, based upon the records of their business,'to show facts that may be necessary to the determination of the reasonableness and lawfulness of the proposed tariff charge. D-8 Unfair Practices in Connection with Dealer who purchased and sold livestock in commerce but failed to keep scale tickets, invoices, cancelled checks, inventories, and other accounts, records, end memoranda which would fully and per¬ fectly disclose the number and kinds of livestock acquired and sold by him and the prices paid or received for said livestock' violated Title IV of the net, as amended. D-271 Dealer violated Title IV of the Act by failing to keep records which did not fully end clearly show all transactions involved v in his business. D-273 Market agency violated the Act by failing to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as are necessary to fully ond correctly disclose all transactions involved in its business. D-273; D-287; D-360; D-368; D-407 Market agency and dealer violated Title IV of the Act by foiling to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as were necessary to fully and correctly disclose all trcnsactions involved in its business. D-389 The Secretary found that the respondent order buyers, in the pro¬ ceedings to determine the reasonableness of commission rates and charges at the New Orleans Stock Yords, had violated the require¬ ments of Title IV of the Act by having failed to keep such records to fully and correctly disclose the trcnsactions of their business, and that the other respondents had failed to keep proper records of hay and feed costs, in violation of Title IV of the Act. D-534 701 ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA IV Unfair Practices in Connection with Market agency suspended from registration for a period of eighteen months for having admitted (l) its insolvency, (2) that while oper¬ ating as a registered market agency, it diverted and converted to its own use proceeds derived from the sale of livestock consigned to the respondent for sale on commission, end (3) that it had failed, while operating as a market agency, to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as to fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in its business. D-983 Market a.gency violated Title IV of the Act by having fa.iled to keep the proper accounts, records, and memoranda necessary to fully and completely report on all of his business transactions to another market agency clearing his business for him. D-1162 A market e.gency which fails to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda which would fully and correctly disclose all transac¬ tions involved in its business violates Section 401 of the act. D-1176; D-1177 ; D-1178; D-1213 The respondent market agency violated Title IV of the net by hav¬ ing failed to keep copies of accounts sale showing, among other things, the name of the true owner of the livestock involved in transactions covered by such accounts sa.le, by having failed to keep permanent records of its transactions with traders whose businesses are financed by it, and by having failed to keep books and records segregating the transactions of the respondent from the transactions of the West Coast Auction Sales Company, which is not a. registrant and whose business is not conducted at a posted stockyard. D-1182 702 ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA IV Unfair Practices in Connection with Poultry licensees violated the Act by failing to keep such’accounts, records, cold memoranda as fully end correctly disclosed all trans¬ actions involved in their business in that (l) they failed to keep vouchers or other explanatory details supporting many items of expense; (2) they failed to make and keep copies of accounts sale shoving the actual prices at which the poultry sold and the amount charged for their services, and (3) they failed to execute and keep copies of sales tickets fully disclosing ail transactions between themselves and the buyers. D-1146 Poultry licensee violated the Act, a.s amended, by failing to keep records and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing all trans¬ actions involved in her business. D-1251; D-1252; D-1253 Poultry licensee failed to keep the proper accounts, records, and memoranda, required under the net by keeping records relating to poultry transactions which were not written in English. D-1254 Poultry licensee violated the Act, as amended, by failing to keep accounts, records, and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing a.11 transactions involved in his business. D-1255; D-1259; D-1260 Poultry licensee violated the Act, as amended, by recording prices on saies tickets for the sale of live noultrv which sales tickets j. u j are assembled and used a.s bases upon which market quotations are disseminated throughout the country, which were at variance wit366.60, but reported to the shipper that the poultry weighed 1876 pounds and was sold for $360.86, charging a commission of 5 % on the sale as reported, when he should have charged a commis¬ sion of 5/o on the actual sale, resulting in the shipper being overcharged $5.40, violated the net, as amended. D-1'256 Poultry licensee which reported that poultry shipped on consign¬ ment for sale weighed 1668 pounds and was sold for $372,72, while, in fact, the poultry weighed 1683 pounds and was sold for $376.58, and the poultry licensee charged a commission of $22.50 instead, of $19.17, in accordance with the tariff on file, resulting in an overcharge to the shipper of $3.33, violated the Act, as amended• D-l2 58 COMMISSIONS V Charging Other Than Posted Schedules Poultry licensee who reported that poultry received on consignment for sale sold for $176.68, while, in fact, the poultry sold for $177.79, and the licensee charged a commission of $9.94 instead of $10.76 in accordance with the tariff on file, resulting in an undercharge to the shipper of 8262; 0-1063; 0-1064; 0-1070; 0-1071 ; 0-1073; 0-1074; 0-1075; 0- ■1076; 0-1077; 0-1078; D-1079; 0-1080; 0-1086 ; 0-1087; 0-1088; 0-1089; •1093; 0-1094; 0-1095; 0-1096; 0-1097; ^-1098 ; n-1099; O-1100, „-110i; n- ■1102; . L-llOo; .,-1104; 0-1112; 0-1113; O-lloS; 0-1149; 0-1196: 1,-1115; ;,-llo4; 1-1150; 0-1197; 0-1116 0-1155 0-1152 0-1198 0-1119; J./'-ll 56 ; 0—1155; 0-1207; 1,-1122; i,-1126; 0-1125; 0-1157; 0-1158; 0-1159; 0-1155; D-1168; 0-1171; 7-1208; 0-1209; 0-1229; 0-1126; 0-1127; 4 ,- 1140 ; 0 - 1147 ; 0-1172; I.-1192; 0-1251; j-1245. (Continued) 741 I > I' I 9 h -g&igl ■ . ■ - ' a S •\,J . 0 . i . CO Pi HEARINGS V Nature of Notice of hearing and order to show cause why a poultry license hould not be denied to the applicant* I')-545; D-770; 0-771; -772; D-773; D-774; D-775; IV776; D-777; 0-778; 0-779; D-780; 0-781; jj—782; 0-783; .0-784; 0-785; 0-786; i;-787; 0-788; 0-789; 0-790; 0-791; 0-792; 0-793; p-794; o-795; 0-796; 0-797; 0-799; 0-863; O-1002; 0-1118; 0-1124 HEARINGS V Nature of Notice of inquiry to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of poultry unloading.rates and charges filed with the Secretary by the respondent licensee poultry handlers, m-537; b-57o; Li-574 and 575 Order of inquiry to determine if respondent licensee obtained a poultry license fraudulently. 1-550; D-551 Complaint for reparation for alleged unfair and deceptive practice and device of respondent poultry commission merchant in making allowances to the purchasers of poultry for the poor condition of the poultry without authority from the seller. D-552 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of the schedule of rates and charges for live poultry coop rentals and related poultry services. l>-55o; 1-555 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of rates end changes filed by the respondent for trucking and loading live poultry. I.)-554- Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee has failed and refused to pay for poultry purchased by him an a dealer, 1-572 Order of inquiry to determine if respondent poultry licensee is engaging in unfair and deceptive practices and devices in the solo of live poultry. 1-599 Order of inquiry alleging that respondent poultry dealer purchased poultry end made payment therefor by giving bad checks. 1,-608; D-921 Inquiry and notice of hearing to show cause why the Secretary should not issue an order revoking, cancelling, and holding null and void the poultry license theretofore issued to respondents. D-610; D-l 154- Inquiry and notice of hearing to determine if the license of the respondent poultry dealer should bo suspended for his having stopped payment on a. chock given for the purchase of poultry, and complaint for reparation. n-611 742 HEARINGS V Nature of Complaint for reparation for an allowed discriminatory charge by the respondent Chicago Poultry merchants Association, a corporation, for unloading truckloads of poultry of the complainant. b-832 Ordur of inquiry with respect to alleged boycott activities of respondent poultry licensee. 0-854; D-1091 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensees used a false weighing device in poultry transactions. D-868 Complaint for reparation for amounts alleged duo- and owing to the complainant from the defendant licensee. j-881 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent licensee to sell poultry feed to shippers of live poultry ..aid their comnission men and dca.1 ors is viola.ting the Act, as emended, by charging prices for feed other than the prices posted in its schedules of rates and changes. -891 Compladnt for ropenation for the alleged refusal of the defendant poultry dealer to remit the proceeds from throe coops of chickens received from the complainant and sold by the defendant. 0-896 Complaint for reparation. 0-897; 0-1180; D-1204; 0-1206 Order of inquiry to determine if respondent poultry deader is insolvent and if he induced creditors to compromise claims agadnst him on his misrepresent cation of insolvency. 0-920 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee refused to sell live poultry to certain individuals bocanse those individuals had employed Louis Rose as their schochc-t. 0-931; 0-932; R-933 Order of inquiry to determine if a. licensed poultry deader has viola.tod and is violating the Act, a.s amended, by having failed to meet its obligations an they became duo. D-947 743 HEARINGS V Nature of Couplednt for reparation for alleged failure of the defendant poultry licensee to pay the full amount of the agreed price of poultry, P-951; P-976; P-1055; P-1121; D-1183; R-1184; P-1225; P-1239 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee is insolvent, P-978- 1-998; P-1176; P-1177; P-1178; P-1195 Complaint for reparation for the proceeds from live poultry sold to the defendant, D-990; P-1059; P-1067; P-1069; P-1092; P-1148; n-1151; j-1179; P-1191; P-1217; P-1240 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent ha.s failed to maintain such financial status as to receive a license under the Act, as amended• • o o o 1 — 1 1 -1010; P-1018; P-1044; P-1060; P-1066; J-1110; P-1111; P-1114; P-1120; P-1141; P-1142; P-1180; •’-1185; P-1189; P-1191; P-1206; “'-1210 poultry licensee would entitie it P-1067; P-1072; T -1156; P-1173; Order of inquiry alleging that the respondent poultry dealer falsely represented to a purchaser that poultry weighed more than it actuadly did, thereby collecting an amount in excess of the purcha.sc price of the poultry, P-1001 Complaint for reparation for alleged broach of contract for the purchase of live poultry, P-1015 Order of inquiry alleging an unfair pra.cticc on the part of the respondent poultry dealer of deducting from weights of poultry shipments and giving the amounts represented by the weight deduc¬ tions to poultry truckers for delivering poultry to the respondent dealer in preference to other poultry dealers. *'-1023 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee is making pa.ynonts to truckers of live poultry to induce them to deliver poultry to respondent in preference to other licensors. j-1024; ^-1025; P-1242 744 HEARINGS V Nature of Conplaint for reparation for OX b OOSG, allowed underpayment for a shipment b-1068 Complaint for reparation for the alleged unfair pra.cticc:- of respond¬ ent poultry dealer in inducing the complainant to accept a lesser oricc for poultrv than that to which the complainant was entitled, by misrepresenting that the poultry was dead or dying. 0-1090 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee is violating the condition upon which his license was issued, that is, of making payments in cash for all live poultry purchased by him. b-1106 Order of inquiry to determine if the license of the respondent poultry dealer should be revoked. 0-1128 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry commission merchant end dealer violated the provisions of Title V of the Act by failing to deliver to a buyer the poultry ho agreed to deliver. 1-1144 Order of inquiry to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of poultry commission rates end charges of any and all regulations end pra.cticcs established or observed by the respondents in respect to the furnishing of services end facilities in connection with the receiving, buying, or selling on a commission basis or otherwise, marketing, feeding, watering, holding, delivering, shipping, weigh¬ ing, unloading, loading on trucks, trucking or handling in commerce of live poultry, and to determine whether respondents oxc keeping proper accounts, records, and memoranda. 0-1146 Complaint for reparation for the balance due on live poultry. >-1167; 0-1170 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent has failed to maintain such financial status as to receive a license under the Act, as amended, failed to keep the proper accounts and records. poultry licensee would entitle her and if she has 0—1189 ; 0-1210 the r^spond- Com.plaint for reparation and order of inquiry charging ent poultry licensee to have sold poultry at a price higher then the price reported to the seller of the poultry. 0-1190 Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee engaged in the unfair practice of buying poultry on credit, knowing that he was financially unable to pay for sane, and of falsely representing to the Secretary on his application for a license that ho was financially able to fulfill the oblige.tions thaat he would incur as a. licensee. 0-1194; 0-1195 745 HEARINGS V Na.ture of Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of respondent poultry dealer’s trade practices of falsely weighing poultry and of failing to weigh one coop of chickens. '-1215 Comnlaint for reparation for suns of nonev due the conploinant fro i the defendant for purchases of poultry nade by the defendant’s alleged agent, • h-1218 Order of inquiry to deternine if the respondent poultry licenseo lacks sufficient working capital to nake hin eligible for a poultry license if an application were nade at this tine, b-1219 Order of inquiry to determine if the financial condition of the respondent poultry licensee has become so impaired, since the issuance of his license, an to make it impossible for him to discharge his obligations. 3^-1220; h-1221 Complaint for reparation for the alleged unfair trade practice of tho respondent poultry licensee in securing delivery to itself of a shipment of live poultry consigned to the complainant. 0-1226 Complaint for reparation for tho alleged unfadr practice of the respondent poultry dealer in refusing to return to the complainant an advance of $150.00 on a consignment of poultry, delivery of which was refused, b-1228 Order of inquiry to determine if tho poultry license of the respond¬ ent should be revoked for financial reasons, k-1244; h-1245 746 HEiilllGS V Nature of Conplaint for reparation for tho alleged failure to pay for live poultry purchased. 1-1248 Conplaint for reparation for tho balance due on account of sales of live poultry to the defendant, “<-1249 Order of inquiry to dctorninc if the respondent poultry licensee is engaging in unfair trade practices by demanding and collecting a greater compensation for handling live poultry on commission than the rates and charges specified in the schedules filed by him and in effect at tho time the live poultry v-ras sold in interstate commerce. L-1251; b-1252; }j- 1253; I.-1254 Order of inquiry alleging that respondent poultry licensee violated the Act, as amended, by charging, demanding, and collecting greater, less, or different compensation for handling live poultry on com¬ mission than, tho rates and charges specified in the schedule filed by him and in effect at the time the live poultry was sold in inter¬ state commerce, and other unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive prentices and devices, b-1255; J-1256 Order of inquiry to determine if poultry licensee is violating tho Act, as amended, by changing, demanding, and collecting a greater or less compensation for handling live poultry on commission than tho rates and changes specified in the schedule filed by it^ and in effect at the time the live poultry was sold in interstate commerce, j-1258j :;-1259j D-1261 Order of inquiry alleging that respondent poultry licensee changed, demanded, and collected c. greater or loss compensation for handling live poultry on commission than the rates and charges specified in the schedules filed by him and in effect at the time the live poultry was sold in interstate commerce, and failed to 1c cop CIO counts, records, and memoranda, fully and correctly disclosing all transactions in¬ volved in his business, all in violation of the Act, as amended. D-1260 747 HEARINGS V Nature of Order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee violated the Act by lacking payments to truckers or others in consideration for the sale of live poultry to respondent. 1-1271 Order of inquiry to determine the lawfulness of respondent poultry licensee’s trade practices in falsifying sales tickets. 1-1272 Order of inquiry alleging unfair practices by the respondent poultry licensee in making payments to truckers of live poultry in addition to regular drayago charges to influence the delivery of poultry to respondent. . 1-1282 Necessity for "When the Secretary has reason to believe that on applicant for a license' to engage in the business of handling live poultry in interstate Connerce is not financially able to handle such business, a hearing should be had to afford the applicant an opportunity to show cause why the application for license should not be denied. '.— 520 * 748 HEARINGS V On Default of Respondent The hearing to determine the liability of the defendant for reparation for poultry purchased from the complainant was held notwithstanding the nonappearance of the defendant, it appearing that the defendant filed an informal answer stating that he did not deny the indebtedness and that "within a •very short time it will be paid to the last cent", that a notice of the time and place of the hearing was sent to the defendant’s last known address and was returned with the envelope marked "out of busi¬ ness", that the local supervisor for the Department informed a representative of the defendant as to the time and place of the hearing, that the Examiner also telephoned a representative of the defendant who stated that ho could not be present at the time for which the hearing was set, that the Examiner informed the defendant he would dolav holding the hearing until the afternoon, which he did, but that even then no one appeared for the defendant, D-1248 The hearing to determine if the complainant was entitled to reparation for tho balance due on account of sales of live poultry to the defendant was held at tho place designated even though tho defendant made no appearance, it appearing also that the defendant failed to file an answer to the complaint. D-1249 HEARINGS V Postponement of It having been found impossible to complete the necessary prepara¬ tion in order to hold the hearing to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondents 1 rates and charges for unloading poultry on the date set therefor, the Secretary ordered that the hearing be postponed to October 16, 1936, and again to October 19, 1936. ~ D-537, 573, 574, and 575 The order to show cause why the application for a poultry license should not be denied provided that a hearing should be hold on February 6, 1937, but, the time not being convenient for the applicant to appear, the Examiner, at the request of the applicant, postponed the hearing until February 11, 1937. D-687 On order of the Secretary, the date of the hearing in this pro¬ ceeding was postponed from the 8th day of August, 1938, to the 17th day of October, 1938. D-1146 Postponement of Some But Not All of Issues Involved It appearing at the hearing that the complainant end the respondent were in the process of adjusting end settling the claim for repara¬ tion, the hearing with respect to the reparation feature of the case was postponed indefinitely, but the hearing with respect to the un¬ fair practice of selling poultry on consignment without returning the full purchase price thereof to the complainant was completed. D-1190 Reopening of Whereas, by order of February 24, 1936, the Acting Secretary issued a notice of hearing end order to show cause why the application for a poultry license should not bo denied and the applicant appeared end testified but no action was taken upon the record then made up, end it is believed that such record does not correctly reflect the financial status of the applicant at the present time, the Secretary ordered the hearing reopened to aliow the applicant further opportunity to show cause why his application for license should not be denied. D-530; D-533 750 HEARINGS V Reopening of After consideration of the petition of the respondent licensee poultry handlers for a reopening of the case, for a revocation of the previous order of tho Secretary and for a consolidation of tho case with Dockets 573, 574, and 575, the Secretary ordered that tho case be again reopened for tho purpose of talcing additional testimony, nowly-discovered testimony, testi¬ mony as to changed conditions, end for any other protinont and relevant purpose, end that all Dockets 557, 573, 574, and 575 bo consolidated and heard together and that one order be issued therefor. D-537 It appearing to the Secretary that, after the original hearing to determine the lawfulness end reasonableness of poultry unload¬ ing rates and charges had ended, the cause should be reopened for further hearing, the Secretary ordered that tho proceedings bo reopened end that a new hearing bo had, D-557 It appearing to the Secroteny that a homing should be held for affording the respondent coop companies end live poultry truck¬ ing company an opportunity to present evidence in support of their petition for a modification of the Secretary’s order of July 1, 1937, tho Secretary ordered that the proceedings be reopened. D-553, 554, and 555 At the time of the reopening of the poultry coop end trucking rate proceedings, for the purpose of determining if the Secretary’s order of July 1, 1937, should be modified, all previous orders end the records in tho previous hearing were incorporated into th'e present proceeding by reference. D-553, 554, end 555 On Juno 13, 1940, the Sccretmy ordered that the petition of certain slaughter house associations, praying for an opportunity for a homing to show why they should be me.de respondents, and to show why the respondent coop companies should bo permitted a modification of their coop rental charges to permit them to refund 2Cy per coop to the buyers of poultry for each coop rented, be granted, and that e. copy of the .order bo served upon the petitioners and upon the respondents by registered mail and published in the Fedoral Register, D-553, 554, and 555 751 HEARINGS V Reopening of After the orders of inquiry were issued in Dockets 573, 574, and 5 7 5, to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of respondents' rates and charges for unloading poultry at New York, New York, and at Jersey City, New Jersey, the Secretary deemed it advisable to reopen Docket 537, which had been concluded approximately three months prior thereto, to permit the additional evidence to be taken in Dockets 573, 574, and 575 to apply equally to Docket 5o7, in order that the rates and charges fixed at the determination of the latter hearing should be uniform with respect to all licensees in that vicinity. The basis, for reopening Docket 537 was a motion filed by the respondents in Docket 537, in which it was represented that the case should be reopened for the purpose of giving consider¬ ation to newly-discovered testimony and for the talcing of testimony with respect to changed conditions. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 It appearing that, under a previous date, the Secretary had issued an order that the applicant be given an opportunity to show cause why his application for a poultry license should not be denied, and the applicant failed to appear in person or by attorney at the hearing, although duly called and served by subpoena, the Secretary ordered that the hearing be reopened and that the applicant be given another opportunity to show cause why the license should not bo denied; the Secretary further ordered that, upon the applicant's failure to appear and show cause, his application would be denied. D-601 The case in which the application for a. poultry license was denied because of insufficient free working capital, on May 13, 1937, was reopened by the Secretary on July 20, 1937, to determine if an ad- ditional examination would reflect an improved financial condition enabling the granting of the license. D-623 The applicant for a poultry license he.ving given assurance that on or before July 20, 1937, it will comply with the regulations of the Department such as to entitle it to receive a license, the Secretary ordered that his previous order denying the applicant's license should not become effective until July 20, 1937, and that action upon the petition to reopen and to consider the case again should bo hold in abeyance until that time. D-637 752 HEARINGS V D Reopening of The Secretary having reason to believe that the application for a poultry license was not made in good faith but was actually made on behalf of another for the purpose of enabling the other person to engage in the live poultry business under a fictitious name, the Secretary ordered the reopening of. the case and joined the alleged true party in interest, and ordered that a..second hearing be had for the purpose of determining if either the applicant or the alleged true party in interest should be denied a poultry license. D-707 It appearing that, since the Secretary made cm order denying the application for a poultry license, the applicant has considerably improved its financial condition, the Secretary ordered that the applicant be granted a further hearing. D-1014 753 INSOLVENCY V Tho evidence adduced at the hearing to determine if the respondent poultry dealer had misrepresented his insolvency in order to compro¬ mise indebtednesses having shown that tho compromises with creditors wore made in good faith and that the respondent had been engaging in business at a loss for a considerable period prior to the date of the order of inquiry, which resulted in his business failure, but that respondent had now curtailed his activities to a great extent and was now solvent, the Secretary ordered that the proceedings against respondent bo dismissed, D-920 It^ appearing from tho record made at the hearing that the respond¬ ent licensed poultry dealer has ceased to do business as a dealer, and has, since such cessation, made no payment to creditors from whom he purchased the poultrv and to whom he is indebted, and that ho is insolvent, the Secretary ordered that his license No, 831 be revoked, D-947 It appearing from tho evidence that the respondent licensee had been twice robbed of cash from his business and that because thereof he was unable to meet his obligations as they become due in the usual course of business, and that he had purchased live poultry from various receivers and tendered payment therefor by checks which were returned because of insufficient funds, the Secretary found the respondent to be insolvent, and ordered his license suspended for throe months, D-978 The respondent poultry dealer having testified at the hearing that he purchased live poultry from certain poultry dealers end is unable to pay for it, that his place of business has been closed for non¬ payment of rent, and that he is, at tho present time, employed throe days a week by a poultry dealer to dress poultry, tho Secretary found respondent to be insolvent and ordered his poultry license revoked. D-998 754 JURISDICTION V Over Designated Areas By an Act of Congress approved August 14, 1935 (Public No. 272, 74th Congress, U. S. C. A., Title VII, Sec. 181-229), there was passed an amendment to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, which added Title V, relating to live poultry dealers and handlers. This amendment authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to ascertain, from time to time, and to designate the cities where practices and devices exist which result in losses to producers of live poultry and in enhancing the cost to the consumers. He is also directed to designate the markets and places in or near such cities where live poultry is received, sold, or handled in sufficient quantity to constitute an important influence on the supply and price of live poultry and poultry products. The amend¬ ment prescribes the method of designation and, also, for the giving of notice to the public, D-553, 554, and 555 Over Eggs The Secretary of Agriculture has no jurisdiction under the Packers and Stockyards Act concerning the handling, buying, or selling of eggs in interstate commerce, but the Secretary may refer to evidence adduced at the hearing in connection with the sale of eggs in order to arrive at a conclusion with respect to a poultry transaction, when such transaction was part of a total sale of eggs and poultry, and one check was given for the entire sale. D-921 The Secretary does not have jurisdiction under the Act, as amended, over a claim for reparation which was incurred in connection with the purchase of eggs. ' D-1217; D-1218 755 JURISDICTION V Over Intrastate Transactions A poultry dealer who purchases the great majority of the poultry sold' at his retail store within the state in which the store is operated, making only three or four purchases without the state during the year, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Secre¬ tary of Agriculture under Title V of the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended. D-904 The Secretary has jurisdiction to determine if payments by a poultry licensee to influence the truckers to deliver the poultry to the licensee is an unfair practice, even though the shipment originated in Illinois and the poultry was delivered by the trucker to the licensee in Chicago, Illinois, since the interstate poultry business and the intrastate poultry business are not handled sepa¬ rately but one is affected by the other. D-1025 Over Trucking and Coop Services The Secretary has jurisdiction over the respondents who are engaged in furnishing trucking and coop services in connection with the handling of live poultry from the time it is unloaded from the cars until it is delivered to the slaughter houses, since these services wore found by the Supreme Court, in the case of Schcchtcr poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, to be interstate ser¬ vices, and since the evidence further shows that the cars come from points without the 1 State of New York and the services of the respondents constitute merely one step rendered in connection with the transportation of poultry in interstate commerce from the pro¬ ducer to the slaughter house. D-553, 554, and 555 JURISDICTION V To - -Awejyd ‘jjppar ati on Section 503 of Title V of the Act, as amended, incorporates as a part of Title V the provisions of Section 202 and the provisions of Sections 401 to 404, inclusive. Section 504 incorporated as a v part of Title V the provisions of Sections 305- to 316, inclusive. Section 309 authorizes the entry of reparation orders in proper cases and Section 504 makes the provisions of Section 309 ’’applic¬ able to licensee with respect to services and facilities covered by Title V.” The Secretary has, therefore, legal basis for the entry of a reparation order against a poultry dealer who misrep¬ resents the condition of chickens to the owner in order to get the chickens at a lower price, such misrepresentation falling within the morning of the word ’’service” as used in Section 504 of the Act, as amended. D-1090 757 LICENSES V Request for an additional thirty days r time before a prior order of revocation should become effective, for the purpose of giving the respondents additional time to qualify for a license, allowed. D-S10 The Secretary concluded that the determination of any issue in this proceeding should not be made to depend upon the exercise of authority conferred by the net affecting other licensees. D-1146 "Then a poultry licensee does not engage in the business of handling live poultry .on consignment, except on rare.occasions, it is not required' that his poultry license be worded to cover the selling of live poultry on commission, and he is not required to file a schedule of rates and charges for furnishing such service. D-1190 Application for Title V of the Packers and Stockyards Act requires those engaged in furnishing services and facilities in connection with the handling of live poultry in the designated areas to apply to the Secretary of Agriculture for a license. D-553, 554, and 555 In making application for a. poultry license, the applicant may show debts which are "collectible on demand" a.s current assets on his balance sheet. D-682 Denial for Financial Reasons It appearing from the evidence that the applicant for a poultry license had consistently lost money in its operations since the date of its application for a license, and, at the date of the hearing, was practically insolvent, that the balance sheet of tho applicant company was inaccurate in material matter and, therefore, rejected, that the status of the applicant was such at the date of the hearing that it would bo unable to fulfill its financial obli¬ gations incurred as a licensee, the Secretary ordered the applica¬ tion for license denied, D-519 Application by respondent for a poultry license denied by tho Sec¬ retary because the respondent failed to show sufficient current assets in its hands to insure the prompt payment of recurring weekly obligations. D-520; D-527j D-530; D-533; D-583; D-592; D-625; D-680; D-S81; D-683; D-690j D-700; D-705; D-709j D-723; D-725; D-727; D-733; D-736; D-748 758 LlCmJSbS V Denial for Financial Reasons The evidence at the second hearing indicating that the applicant for a poultry license still had a deficiency in its free working capital, and that it would be unable to meet its obligations which would be incurred in connection with the purchase of live poultry, if given a license, the Secretary ordered that the application for a poultry license bo denied. D-583 It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the applicant has neither sufficient current assets nor sufficient cash on hand with which to insure the prompt payment of its re¬ curring weekly obligations, the Secretary ordered that its appli¬ cation for a poultry license bo denied, but that the applicant be given thirty days from the receipt of the order within which to furnish a bond or some other form of satisfactory indemnity to secure the prompt payment of such obligations, as required in Amendment 2 to B,A,I, Order ho. 557, effective March 5, 1936, D-585; D-586; D-596 It appearing from a consideration of the entire record that the applicant for a poultry license is financially unable to fulfill the obligations that it would incur as a licensee, the Secretary ordered the application denied, D-594; D-595; D-597; D-706; D-717- D-719j D-750j D-777; D-811; D-821; D-840; D-864; D-875; D-898j D-915; D-925j D-923; D-1014; D-1113; D-1116 D-1123j D-1135] D-1147; D-1153; D-1208; D-1229j D-1231; D-1245. A request by the respondents for cm additional thirty days’ time before a prior order of revocation should become effective, for the purpose of giving the respondents additional time to qualify for a license, was allowed by the Secretary. D-610 Further testimony in the nature of records introduced at the reopening of the- hearing, indicating that the applicant still had insufficient free working capital to qualify for a poultry license, the Secretary again ordered the license denied, D-623 759 LICANSNS V Denial for Financial Reasons It appearing from tho record that the free working capital of the applicant for a poultry license was insufficient to insure the prompt payment of its recurring weekly obligations, the Secretary ordered the application for the poultry license denied, with the provision, however, that the applicant might qualify as a licensee (a) by putting sufficient additional free working capital into tho business, or (b) by filing with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, D. C., raid thereafter maintaining a bond with satis- factory sureties to suitable trustees sufficient in the judgment of tho Chief of the Bureau of animal Industry to insure the prompt payment of its weekly recurring obligations incurred by the appli¬ cant in tho purchase of live poultry as a licensee under the Act, as amended, or (c) by furnishing a trust fund agreement satisfac¬ tory to said Chief to insure the prompt performance of its finan¬ cial obligations incurred as such licensee. D-625; D-639 It appearing from the evidence adduced au the hearing that the applicant’s purchases of live poultry in interstate commerce for fifty-one weeks prior to the date of the application ffefr a poultry license averaged $3,447.24 per week, that on said date the applicant had current liabilities amounting to $6',135.49 and current assets in tho sum of $2,769.20, the Secretary doomed the financial status of the applicant to be insufficient to insure the prompt payment of the applicant’s recurring weekly obligations, and denied tho application for a poultry license under the net D-637 It appearing from the evidence that the applicant’s financial status was such that tho applicant was short of tho necessary free working capital to meet its weekly obligations, the Secretary ordered the application for a poultry license denied even though the applicant stated that each commission man with whom the applicant did business would be willing to guarantee the amount that the applicant owed to that particular commission man; provided, however, that the applicant should have twenty days from the date of the order in which to'-add tho required money to his free working capital or to execute and maintain a surety bond or a satisfactory equivalent of such amount, as proscribed in Amendment 2, B. A* I. Order No. 357. D-640 LICENSES V Donial for Financial Reasons The record disclosing that for fifty-two weeks prior to the date of application for a poultry license the applicant had insuffi¬ cient capital in his hands to insure prompt payment of his recur¬ ring weekly obligations, the Secretary ordered the application for a poultry license denied, D-647 The record having disclosed that the applicant for a poultry license is insolvent said is, therefore, unable to insure the prompt payment of its recurring weekly obligations, the Secretary ordered the ap¬ plication for a poultry license denied. D-662 It appearing at the hearing that the applicant for a poultry license does not keep records which disclose the amount of his purchases of live poultry in interstate commerce, does not have records to show what his current assets or current liabilities are, and, al¬ though affordod ample opportunity, has failed to show that he has sufficient funds to insure the prompt payment of his rocurrin Q weekly obligations, the Secretary ordered his application for a poultry license denied, D-67S The applicant for a poultry license havin „ failed to show, both at the hearing and in oral argument before the Secretary, that he was financially able to fulfill the obligations he would incur as a *j o poultry licensee, the Secretary ordered his poultry license denied. appl i c ati or. for a D-675 Denial for Other Reasons The applicant having testified at the ho succeeded in the poultry business by his that his application for a license under Secretary dismissed the proceeding* aring that he had been wife, and having requested the ai.ct be withdrawn, the D-6S5 761 LICENSES V Denial for Other Reasons The Secretary denied the application for a poultry license because the applicant failed to present, either at the hearing or within a reasonable time thereafter, evidence indicating that she kept any books or records showing her current assets and her current liabilities, or evidence from which dier current assets and current liabilities could be ascertained. D-717 The applicant for a poultry license having failed to appear at the hearing and sustain the burden of proof resting upon him to show that he was financially able to fulfill the obligations that he would incur as a poultry licensee in the usual course of business, the Secretary ordered that his application for a license be denied. D-916 It appearing at the hearing that the applicant for a poultry license had not given the Department's accountant access to her booms and records but had failed to appear vrtd support her application by fur- ther proof, as required by the order to show cause, the Secretary ordered that the application for a poultry license be denied, D-1054 The Secretary having found that the respondent’s application for a poultry license should be denied for financial reasons, he concluded that it was unnecessary to pass upon the question of denial of the license for the reason that the respondent- has engaged in handling live poultry within two vears prior thereto after its application for a poultry license had been originally denied by the Secretary and he had been fined $50.00 therefor, D-1113 It appearing that the applicant for a license to contract the un¬ loading of poultry had, within two years prior thereto, as a member of another firm, violated Title V of the ^ct bv making unloading charges in excess of the maximum rates prescribed by the Secretary, the.only explanation advanced by him for such violation being labor difficulties, the Secretary found that the applicant was unfit to engage in the activity for which he had made application, D-1168 LICNNSliS V Granting of Based, upon the waiver of a creditor’s claim for repayment of a debt due him by the applicant, and a subsequent audit made by the Department, the Secretary ordered, that the applicant be granted a. license under Title V of the Act, as amended, to engage in buying and soiling live poultry in interstate commerce, D-525 It appearing at tho hearing that the applicant for a poultry license under Title V of the Act has current assets equal to current liabilities, end, in addition thereto, cash equal to the average volume of business handled by the applicant during the credit period proved ling in Now York City, end that applicant is able, financiailly, to fulfill the obli -cations which she will incur a.s a licensee, tho Secretary ordered that a license bo J t/ issued to her. D-526 It appouring to the Secretary, from the evidence adduced at the hearing, that the applicant for a license to engage in the business of buving and selling live ooultrv in interstate commerce has cur- rant assets equal to its current liabilities, end, in addition thereto, has cash in on amount equivalent to the average volume of business handled by it during the credit period prevailing at the poultry market where it intends to do business, end that applicant is financially able to fulfill the obligations which it will incur as a licensee, tho Secretary ordered that the license for buying, selling, and handling noultry bp issued. D-528 ; D-531 * D-552; D-582; L)-5S8j D-589; D-590; D-591; D-600 The Secretory having found that the applicant for a poultry license is engaged in the business of handling live poultry in commerce, that it is financially able to fulfill the obligations it would incur as a licensee, and that it has not, within t vr o years prior to its application for tho license, engaged in any.practice of the character prohibited by the Act, he ordered that a. license be issued. •D-542; D-543; D-544; D-545; D-543; D-547; D-558; D-559; D-562j D-564 D-560; D-561 Granting of Upon the oonsideration of the entire record, the Secretary found that the proof of the applicant’s financial ability to fulfill its obligations which it rill incur as a licensee was sufficient to support the application for license, raid the Secretary granted tho poultry license. D-563; D-587; D-592; D-593; D-601; D-604; D-605; D-606; D-607; D-609; D-612; D-614; D-615; D-616; D-617; D-618; D-620; D-621; D-622; D-624; D-625; D-628; D-629; P-631; D-532; D-633; D-634; D-635; D- 806 ; D-638; D-641; D-642; D-643; D-844; D-645; D-646; D-648; D-64S; D-650; D-651; D-652; D-653; D-854; e-ooO; D-657; D-S59; D-661; D-o63; D-664; D- 606 ; D-uS7; D- 668 ; D-672; D-674; D-676; D-678; D-679; D-682; D-684; D-S85; D-687; D- 688 ; D-690; D-691; D-692; D-C394; D-397; D-598; D-699; P-701; P-702; D-705; D-709; D-710; D-712; P-713; D-714; P-715; D-716; P-718; P-720; D-724; D-726; P-729; D-730; P-731; D-732; D-734; P-737; D-738; D-740; D-741; P-742; D-743; D-744; P-745; P-747 5 P-749; D-753; D-757; D-760; P-761; D-762; D-763; D-7S4; P-765; D-768; P-769; D-770; D-771; D-772'; D-775; D-774; D-775; D-776; D-.778; D-779; D-781; D-782; D-7S3; D-784; D-785; D-786; D-787; D-78S; D-789; D-790; D-791; D-793; D-794; D-795; . D-796; D-797; D-799; D-800; D -8 01; D-802; D-803; D-804; D-805; D-808; D-809; D-810; D-612; D-813; D-814; D-815; D—816; D-817; D-818; D-819; D-820; .0-822; D-823; D-825; D-826 ; D-827; D-828; D-829; 6 - 80 J; D-881; 6-853; D-834; D-835; D-836; D-857; jj- 808 ; D-do9; D-841j D-8i2; D-845; D-844; jj-845 j D—846; D-847; 6-848; D-850; D-851; D-852; D-855; D-856; D-857; D-858j D-860; D -8 61; D-862; D-865; D- 8 S 6 ; D-867; D-869; D-870; D-871; D-872; D-873; D-874; D-876; D-877; D-878; D-879 ; D-882; D-883; D-084; D-885; P- 886 ; D-887; D- 888 ; D-889; D-390; D-892; D-893; D-S01; D-902; D-903; D-905; D-906; D-907; D-910; P-911; P-913; P-914; D-917; D-918; 0-919; D-9 22; D-925; D-924; D-935; D-936; D-937; 0-939; P-940; D-941; D-942; D-943; D-9 44; D-945; D-946; D-952; D-953; D-954; D-955; D-9 57; D-960; D-961; D-962; D-963; D-964; D-965; D-966; D-967; D-S 68 ; D-969; D-970 D-971; ■ D-972 j •D-973; D-974; D-975; D-984; D-9 85; D-986; D-987; D-988; D-989; D-S91; D-992; D-993; D-9 9 4; D-995; D-996; D-997; D-999; D-l002; D-1003; D-1005; D- •1006; D-1007; D-1008; D-l009; D -1011 ; D-l012; D-l015; D-l016; D~ •1026; D-l028; D-1029; D-1030; JJ-1051 ; D-1032; D-lOoo; j^-1034; D- •1055; D-1036; 6-103 7; D-1058; D-1045 ; j- 10 ' 46 ; u-101-7; D-l048; D- •1049; D-l050; D-l051; D-l052; D-l053 ; D-105S; D-1057; D-1061; D- •1062; D-l063; D-l064; D-1070; D-l071 ; D-l073; D-1074; D-1075; D- •1076; D-l077; D-l078; D-1079; D-1080 D-1087; D-1088; D-1089; D- ■1093; P-1094; D-l095; D-l096; D-l097 ; D-l098; D-l099; D-l100; P- •1101; -P-1102 * D-l103; P-1104; D-1115 »; P-1118; P-1119; P-1122; D- •1124; P-1125; P-1126; D-l127; P-1133 ; D-l134; P-1136; D-1137; D- •1138; P-1139; D-l140; D-l150; 1-1152 ; D-l155; D-l171; D-l192; D- •1196; D-l198; D-l207 764 (Con- tinuod) LICENSES V # \ 1 Granting of Tho evidence adduced at the second hearing for the application for poultry license indicating that the applicant corporation has been dissolved and, in lieu thereof, a partnership has been formed under ■which the applicant mil be financially able to fulfill its obli¬ gations incurred as a. poultry licensee, the Secretary ordered the application for a. poultry license to be granted the partnership. D-586 The applicant having furnished a satisfactory trust fund agreement subsequent to tho prior order of tho Secretary denying it a poultry license, the Secretary ordered that the applicant be granted a poultry license and that tho prior ord^r be superseded. D-597 It appearing from'a showing as to the financial status of the appli¬ cant, as submitted by a Government accountant at the hearing, that the current assets of the applicant partnership were 7.5,904.75, the current liabilities wore $650.00 leaving a free working capital of $5,254.75 while the weekly purchases were only in the amount of $2,218.60, tho Secretary determined that the applicants were entitled to a poultry license. D-609 It appearing from the testimony of a Government accountant that ap¬ plicant for a. poultry license has, in addition to assets of various kinds, free working capital of more than enough to cover the average weekly purchc.so of live poultry, tho Secretary determined that the financial status of the applicant is such as to entitle it to a poultry lic-mso« I)-612 It appearing from tho financial showing ma.de at the hearing that tho applicant is entitled to a poultry license, the Secretary ordered throb a license be issued. D-614; D-615; D-664 It appearing upon a. reopening of Docket No. 626 that the applicant corporcation for a poultry license was organized in 1931, the.t over since thrat dccto it has promptly pe.id all its obligc.tions, and that the deficiency in free working capital disclosed in a prior hear¬ ing hc,s been eliminated by the filing of a waiver by certain cred¬ itors of their right to the payment of corporate loans, the Secretary ordered the poultry license granted to tho applicant.. D-626 765 LICENSES V Granting of Tho applicant, upon a second application for a poultry license, after the first application was denied because of insufficient free working capital, was able to show sufficient current assets in excess of current liabilities, end tho Secretary granted tho applicant a poultry license. iJ-6-1-7 It appearing from tho evidence at the hearing that tho applicant for a poultry license has conducted his business for a period of six years, has not defaulted in tho payments of any bills for the purchase of live poultry, aid that he nas sufficient free working capital to cover his average weekly poultry purchases, the Secre¬ tary ordered his application for a poultrv license granted, 10-30)3 Tho applicant for a poultry license having now furnished a surety bond guaranteeing his financial obligations incurred or which may bo incurred as a poultry licensee, raid it appearing that he should now bo granted a poultry license although his first application was denied, the Secretary ordered that a poultry license be granted. D-G73; D-870 The applicant for a poultry license which was denied in the first instance submitted a now application to the Buror.u of Animal In¬ dustry in which ho sot forth a financial statement certified by a certified public accountant which, when examined, together with the records of applicant, by cii accountant of the Department, dis¬ closed that ho had sufficient working capital to fulfill the ob¬ ligations that he would incur as a licensee, raid the Secretary ordered his application for a poultrv license bo granted. D-675 0- -L *- e The applicrait having been first denied a poultry license because of insufficient free working capital, but later having added suffi¬ cient capital to his business to enable him to pay his weekly recur¬ ring obligations, the Secretary ordered that the applicant ba grentod a poultry license. D-685; D-690; D-VObj D-7S5 7S6 LICENSES V Granting of The record indica.ting that the applicant for a poultry license had sufficient financial ability to take cane of his weekly recurring obligations, but did not keep proper books of .accounts, the Sccre- tany ordered tha.t the poultry license be granted upon the condition that the a.pplicant would thereafter keep such books and records c.s would accura.tely reflect the nature, character, .nd volume of the business conducted by the applic nt. D-686 The Secretany ordered that the .application for a. poultry license bo granted to the applicant even though the evidence disclosed that the applicant ha.d been guilty of an unfair practice and dc vice in the selling of ooultrv in intersta.tc commerce within two vc ars prior to the. application for a. license, in that the a.pplicant had tampered with scales, altering the true weight of the scales, the Secretary having further found tha.t the applicant was' financially able to meet his obligations and tha.t four other licensees ha.d written the Department urging the acceptance of the a.pplicant for a. license, and tha.t this was a. case involving the use of the discretion on the part of the Secretary. The evidence at the triad of the a.pplicant for the a.llegod tampering of scad os indicated that the tampering was done by an employee, and the Secretary was of the opinion tha.t the a.pplicant should not be ma.de to suffer for a. technical violation of la.w where the record showed thc.t the viol a.ti on was done by an employee. D-705 It appearing tha.t the respondent, Charles Tim. F.utt, is the true party in interest and is financially a.blc to tra.de and do business ill buy¬ ing and selling poultry and that ho is willing to bo substituted for the original applicant, Gottlieb IT. Hutt, the Secretary ordered tha.t a. poultry license be granted to the true party in interest, Charles Wm. Hutt. b-707 The applicant for a. poultry license ha.ving furnished sa.tisfa.ctory security after the original hearing upon which the applicant was denied, the Secretary ord^r^d tha.t the original order be revoked and that the ..pplica.tion for a. poultry license b., granted. D-727 * ft ( LICENSES V Granting of It appearing from a review of tho record, that the .applicants for a poultry license are financially able, end that they are entitled to end should bo granted sopaara.to poultry licenses, the Secretary ordered that poultry licenses be granted to each of them. D-860 It appearing at tho hearing that the applicants for a poultry license, Fred Patton and Ollio Reese, had been succeeded in business by Fred Patton and Marion Reese, end that the successors were financially able to discharge the obligations which they would incur as a poultry licensee, the Secretary ordered thr.t tho proceedings with respect to Fred Patton and Ollio Reese be dismissed, end that their successors Fred Patton end Marion Rceso be granted a license. D-962 It appearing from tho evidence adduced eat the., homing that the wife of the a.ppliccnt already has a poultry license granted from tho Secretary, but that the applicant is in active charge and management of the business and the prior license was granted to tho wife merely because the working capital was deposited in the name of the wife, the Sucr^tmy ordered that a poultry license be granted to tho applicant upon a transfer of the bank a.ccount from tho wife to the applicant and a surrender of the life’s license. D-1071 Obtaining by Fraud O u The responsibility for tho incorrect statements of financial ability appearing on the respondent’s balance sheet, submitted with his ap¬ plication for a. poultry license, was, first, upon the bookkeeper for the respondent, secondly, upon tho Certified Public Accountant who certified to the balance sheet without knowing tho facts; to a great extent, the moral responsibility was upon tho respondent, and the legal responsibility entirely so, and tho obtaining of a poultry license under such conditions renders tho license voidable at the instance of tho Secretary. D-550 768 / LICENSES V Obtedning by Fraud Respondent who, upon application for a poultry license, submitted a balance sheet showing the total amount of assets to be $36,839.09, while the assets as shown on the books of the respondent amounted to only $>9,051.16, who showed on the balance sheet a reserve for depreciation in the amount of $5,100 which did not appear on the books, who shoved certain liabilities on the balance sheet which wore not explained on the books of respondent, who testified to the ownership of certain real estate while, in fact, the real es¬ tate was owned by respondent’s wife, was found by the Secretory to have obtained the poultry license by means of false, fraudulent, and misleading statements as to the financial worth and volume of business done by respondent, thereby misleading the Sccrctany into issuing a license, and the Sccrctany hold that a. poultry license issued under such circumstances, if not void, van at leant void¬ able at the instance of the Secretary. D-550 Respondent who submitted a fab so balance sheet with its applica¬ tion for a. poultry license, the effect of the balance sheet tend¬ ing to show net worth in excess of the actual not worth, and which kept its records in such a. manner tha.t it showed purchases of poultry in amounts greatly less than the actual purchases, in order to evade a. state ta.x, and which set uo a. snccia.l credit account to the wife y j. 4. of one of the stockholders for the purpose of protecting the cor¬ porate a.ssets from attachment by a. probable judgment creditor, and which otherwise juggled its accounts so tha.t they did not show a. correct and accurate record of the business of the respondent, v obtadned its poultry license by means of fa.lse, fraudulent, and misleading statements a.s to the financial, worth and volume of business done by respondent, rendering the license, if not void, at lca.st voidable at the instance of the Secretary. D-551 The Secretary indicated that under ordinary circumstances the acts of the respondent in obtaining a. poultry license by submitting a. fa.lse and misleading ba.lance shoot and by keeping fadse and mis¬ leading books and records v r ould result in the imposing by the Sec¬ retary of the• revocation of the poultry license so obtadned, and that his action in this ca.se in not invoking the extreme penadty should not be taken a.s a. precedent or a.s an indication of what action ma.y bo taken in similar ca.ses arising in the future, the mitigating circumstances in this case being that the administration of the Poultry Amendment to the Act was ill its initiad stages, end tha.t the applicants might ha.vc boon unused to the regulations imposed and required. D-551 76S LICENSES V Revocation of A license granted by the Secretary upon a false raid misleading balance sheet submitted by the applicant is subject to revocation by the Secretary if the true condition of the applicant’s business at the time of the application vrero such that the applicant could not meet the financial requirements as required by the regulations promulgated by the Secretary under Title V of the Act. D-610 It appearing from the record made at the hearing that the respond¬ ent licensed poultry dealer has ceased to do business as a dealer, raid has, since such cessation, made no payment to creditors from whom ho purchased the poultry and to whom he is indebted, and that ho is insolvent, the Secretary ordered that his License No. 831 bo revoked. D-947 The respondent poultry dealer having ho purchased live poultry from cortai, able to pay for it, that his place of non-payment of rent, and that ho is, throe days a week by a poultry dealer tary found respondent to be insolvent testified at the hearing that n poultry dealers and is un- business has been closed for at the present time, employed to dress poultry, the Secrc- and ordered his poultry license revoked. D-S98 The poultry license of the respondent poultry dealer was rove 1c o d by the Secretary because the poultry dealer failed, according to the evidence, to maintain the financial status which enabled it to re¬ ceive a license under the Act, as emended, in the first instance. D-1000 A licensed poultry dealer’s explanation that the funds from its business were used to purchase reed property on which it expected to make a loan for the purpose of replacing the funds diverted from the business is insufficient to exempt the respondent from the opera¬ tion of the statute which requires a showing of financial responsi¬ bility, raid, in the absence of such showing, the license must be revoked. D-1066 It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the respondent poultry licensee is unable to meet its current obliga¬ tions raid that it has a doficicney in free .working capital, in violation of the Act, as amended, the Secretary ordered the poultry license revoked, D-1066; D-1072 770 LIClaNSiiS V Revocation of Tho evidence at the hearing having disclosed that the respondent poultry dealer had failed to make payment for live poultry pur¬ chased by it in interstate commerce raid that it did not maintain such financial condition as mould enable it to fulfill its obliga¬ tions incurred as a licensee, the Secretary concluded that such acts constituted flagrant violations of the provisions of Title V of the Act, raid ordered that its poultry license bo revoked. D-1110 It appearing from the evidence adduced at tho hearing that a license to handle live poultry was issued to Hyman Segal upon the state¬ ments in his application that his total outstanding obligations amounted to !^27o.92, whereas, in fact, his indebtedness was con¬ siderably in excess of this amount, and, it appearing further that he has, in violation of Title V of the Act, failed to maintain such finances as are necessary to enable him to meet his obligations as a poultry licensoc as they become duo in tho usual course of busi¬ ness. the Secretary ordered tha.t his poultry license bo revoked. D-llll It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing tha.t tho respondent poultry licensee is financially unable to fulfill the obligations that he incurs an a licensee and tha.t at tho time he ma.de application for a. license he ha.d liabilities fur in excess of tho amount stated in his application, tho Secretary found tha.t he frequently and repeatedly viola.tou the provisions of Title V of the net. and ordered his poultry license revoked. D-1142 It appearing from tho evidence adduced, ’at the hearing tha.t tho bond theretofore posted by the respondent poultry licensee to cover its obligations incurred as a. poultry dca-ler has boon cancelled, tha.t the respondent poultry licensee did not in good, faith obtain waivers from certain creditors nor c enrol v with the terms thereof, it having been shown tha.t payments ha.d boon ma.de on the a.ccount of said creditors a.ftor tho waivers ha.d been executed, and tha.t the respondent did not have sufficient working capital to fulfill the obligations tha.t it would incur as a liconsoo, the Secrota.ry ordered tha.t the poultry license bo revoked. D-1154 771 LICANSDS V Revocation of The ovidonee adduced at the hearing having disclosed that the respondent poultry dealer had failed to make a payment for live poultry purchased by it in interstate commerce, that it did not maintain such financial condition as would enable it to fulfill its obligations incurred as a licensee, and that it had failed to keep such accounts, records, and memoranda, necessary to fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in its business, thereby flagrantly and repeatedly violated the provisions of Title V of the Act, the Secretary ordered that the poultry license of the respondent be rovokou. D-1156 The evidence adduced at the hearing indicating that the current a.ssets of the respondent voro four times loss than his current accounts payable, and that ho had failed to comply v.ith Section 401 of Title IV of the Act, a.s amended, by failing to keep ’’such accounts, records, and memoranda a.s fullv and clearly disclosed all transactions involved in a. dealer’s business”, the Secretary ordered that his poultry license be revoked, D-1173 Section 502(h) of the Act, a.s amended, provides, in substance, that the Secretary sha.ll issue a. license to an applicant unless, among other things, he finds that the applicant is financially unable to fulfill the obligations that he would incur as a licensee. It would be a. useless act by Congress to require that a sound financial con¬ dition must bo shown in order to obtain a license and then to per¬ mit the licensee to engage in business if c. dav or two later he became financially irresponsible. Such an interpretation would not afford the public that protection that the statute was intended to afford. By continuing to engage in business, well knowing that his financial condition would'not and did not -oermit the nayment of his obligations, the respondent poultry licensee fla.grantiy violated the lav;, and the license was revoked. D-1173 A poultry licensee who obtains credit for its poultry transactions by falsely giving assurances that checks in payment of previous purcha.scs were in the metis, or that if credit were given for the immediate purcha.scs the respondent vvould return immediately with a. chock covering pe.ymunt for the previous purchases, neither of which statements wore true, flagrantly violates Title V of the Act, end its license is subject to be suspended or revoked under Section 505 thereof. " D-1176; D-1177; D-1178 772 LICENSES V Revocation of The respondent poultry licensee having admitted an indebtedness duu for the purchase of poultry^ and having admitted that he was finan¬ cially unable to carry on his business, the Secretary ordered repar¬ ation for the indebtedness,and the revocation of the poultry license. D-1180; D-1185; D-1191 The respondent poultry lieonsoe having admitted the truth of the matters charged in the order of inquiry, end waived a hearing, the Secretary found that he had flagrantly violated the Act, c.s amended, by having falsely obtrined a poultry license by shoving his financial status to bo satisfactory while not having, in fact, at the time of his application for a license, fully disclosed all of his liabilities, and being, in fact, financially unable to fulfill the obligations incurred as a licensee, raid the Secretary ordered that his license be revoked* D-1194 It appearing from the evidence taken at the hearing that the re¬ spondent poultry licensees are financially unable to fulfill their obligations that they incur as licensees, and that they have fla¬ grantly and repeatedly violated the Act by having, at numerous times, frdled to pay the agreed purcha.se price for poultry delivered, the Secretary ordered thc.t their poultry license be revoked. D-1221 The respondent poultry dealer having admitted thc.t ho had failed to pay for poultry purchased in interstate commerce, and waived an oral hearing, and consented to the revocation of his license, the Secretary ordered that his poultry license be revoked, D-1239 It appearing from tho evidence adduced at the hearing that the re¬ spondent poultry licensee has repeatedly violated tho Act by having failed to discharge his obligo.tions which he currently incurs in his poultry operations, tho Secretary ordered thc.t his license to engage in the business of buying, selling, end handling live poultry be revoked. D-1244 773 LICENSES V Revocation of It appearing at the hearing that the respondent poultry dealer was urnblo to discharge his obligations incurred as a poultry dealer, but was sixty years of age, had been in the poultry business for thirty-five years, and had become financially embarrassed buca.uso of financial reverses, and that ho offered to pay ^10.00 per month on the old accounts, the Examiner offered him an opportunity to submit an affidavit showing that he is now paying cash for live poultry, end that the parties to whom he is indebted arc willing to accept monthly payments until the indebtedness is liquidated in full. The respondent not having complied, however, idth the sug¬ gestions of the Examiner, the Secretary, upon a consideration of the whole record, determined that the poultry license should bo revoked, D-1245 Revocation of Suspension of Upon a further consideration of the record, it appearing to the Secretary that there was an honest difference of opinion between the parties as to the terms and conditions of the particular trans¬ action involved, and in view of the fact that the complainant has acknowledged full settlement of his claims for reparation, the Secretary ordered that his previous suspension order against the respondent poultry licensee be revoked, and that the respondent be notified of the action. D-oll Suspension of The evidence adduced at the hearing indicating that the respondent poultry licensee had purchased poultry in his capacity as a dealer and had failed and refused to pay for it, the Secretary ordered his license suspended for a period of thirty daj^s. P-572 774 LICENSES V Suspension of / In a proceeding to determine if the respondent poultry licensee had engaged in the unfair practice and device of having refused to remit to a poultry shipper for the full amount of the agreed price of the poultry, the Secretary indicated that no order suspending the poul¬ try license was being issued solely because the respondents had made full restitution to the complainant prior to tho date of the order. D-599 The purchase by the respondent of live poultry in commerce upon the basis of a cash transaction and the giving of a check in pay¬ ment therefor, when there were insufficient funds in the bank to meet the check upon its presentation for payment, is an unfair and deceptive device in connection with the purchase of live poul¬ try in commerce and, although the respondent later made arrangement to pay off the amount represented by tho check in monthly install¬ ments, the Secretary ordered tho poultry license of tho respondent suspended for a period of thirty days, with the provision that the suspension should become effective only if respondent should again violate Title V of the Act within a period of three years therca-fter. D-608 The failure of a. poultry dealer to pay tho purchase price of a canload of fowl, through the device of stopping payment on a. chock drawn therefor, constitutes an unjust, unreasonable, and discrimin¬ atory pra.ctice in connection with the buying, selling, and handling of live poultry in commerce, the respondent dealer having admitted at the hearing that he had no right to withhold payment of the check,, and heaving made payment therefor, after the institution of the .complaint for reparation and prior to the hearing. Because of tho uni awful practice, the Secretary ordered his poultry license suspended for a period of thirty days, provided that the suspension .should not be made effective unless within a period of three years from the date of tho order the respondent again violated a provision of the Act, a.s amended. D-611 Although the evidence adduced c,t the hearing indicated that the poultry licensees were a. partnership of father and son, and that tho son had pleaded guilty of a criminal change of having used a false weight scale in weighing poultry, and although the respond¬ ents admitted tho allegations in the inquiry of such act on the part of the son, and pleaded for leniency before the Sccrotany, the Secretary found that the use by the respondents of a false weighing device, when buying live poultry in interstate commerce, constituted a flagrant violation of the Act, as amended, and ordered the license of the respondents suspended for a period of ninety days. D-868 775 LICENSES V 1 Suspension of Respondent licensee poultry-feed dealer who filed a schedule of rates and charges for poultry feed with the Secretary and then charged commission men and poultry dealers a price for the feed other than the prices scheduled violated the Act, as amended, and the Secretary suspended his license for a. period of thirty days. D-891 Respondent poultry dealer, who ma.de payment by bad check for a consignment of poultry, engaged in and used an unfair and deceptive practice and device in that it solicited and accepted live poultry in commerce knowing tha.t it was not financially able to meet the obligations incurred in connection with the handling of said poultry, and the Secretary ordered tha.t it make reparation to the complain¬ ant in the amount of the check c.t 6 % p^r annum from the date of the issuance of the check, and tha.t it cea.so end desist from continuing such violation, end the Secretary ordered it suspended for a period of six months. D-921 ' It appearing from the evidence; tha.t the respondent licensee had been twice robbed of ca.sh from his business and that because thereof ho was unable to meet his obliga.tions a.s they became duo in the usual course of business, and that he ha.d purchased live poultry from var¬ ious receivers and tendered payment therefor by chocks which were returned because of insufficient funds, the Secretary found the respondent to bo insolvent, and ordered his license suspended for three months. D-978 It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the re¬ spondent poultry licensee has current liabilities in excess of cur¬ rent assets end that she has failed to post a. bond to guarantee the pa.ymont of her current transactions, the Secretary ordered tha.t her license to handle live ooultry in intersta.to commerce be sus- ponded for thirty days. D-1189 LICENSES V Waivers, Effect of on Grunting of A waiver executed by a creditor of an applicant for a poultry license, subordinating the right of the creditor to the payment of all other liabilities, has the effect of eliminating the deficit in free working capital of the applicant, or, in other words, has the effect of enhancing the amount of applicant’s free working capital, D-1011 Working Capital, What Constitutes Lend and buildings thereon cannot be considered as current assets required for working capital in the poultry business because it cennot bo considered as liquid cash or quick assets. D-610 Real estate, legal title to which is in the wives of the partner licensees, cennot bo considered as working capital of the partner licensees, even though'the wives testified at the hearing that, if necessary, they would assign the property to their husbands or permit their husbands to borrow money upon it, D-G10 Accounts receivable pant duo, representing sales of meats on a credit basis of about five or six weeks, may bo properly included as current assets in a statement accompanying an application for a poultry license, when it appears that all of such accounts r.ru collectible and will be paid in the regular operations of the business. D-827 A loan of ^3,000 made from his brother to the applicant for a poultry license, representing cash which was put into the business, is not to be considered as such a current liability as to require its deduction from the total current assets shown on the statement accompanying the application for a poultry license, when the brother has submitted a waiver for the loan. D-828 Liquidation by a poultry dealer of a loan against eggs in inventory by soiling the eggs does not change tnc status of the poultry dealer's working capital account, since the curtailment of the loan is accom¬ panied by a corresponding reduction in inventory. D-1000 The working capital required by the Secretary in this case was an amount of current onsets equalling one-fourth of the average weekly purchases of live poultry. D-1000 777 LICL1SAS V Working Capital, what Constitutes A waiver executed by d creditor of an applicant for c. poultry license, subordinating the right of the creditor to the payment of all other liabilities, has the effect of eliminating the deficit in froc work¬ ing capital of the applicant, or, in other words, has the effect of enhancing the amount of applicant's froc working capital, D-1011 Free working capita.! may be increased by converting current liabil¬ ities, in the nature of an amount duo on the building in which the applicant conducts its business, to a. mortgage or other long-term obligation, D-1014 In order to determine if an applicant for a poultry license ha.s sufficient free working capital, it is proper for the Government accountant to use a credit period, when adjusting accounts receiv¬ able and accounts payable on the books of the applicant, of the same dura.tion of time ns the time within which a. particular amount of froc working capital is required, D-1153 In order for an applicant for a poultry license to meet the finan¬ cial requirements sot by the Administration, the applicant must have current a.sscts equal to its current liabilities and, in a.ddi- tion thereto, free working capital in an amount equivalent to approximately 25/o of the average weekly purchases of live poultry, D-1153 In a proceedings to determine if the respondent poultry licensee had sufficient free working capital to cover his average weekly purchases of poultry, the Secretary allowed, as a current asset, a. piece of real estate owned by the respondent and his wife, D-1210 778 LIVL POULTRY, PL TROD OF HANDLING V The method of handling live poultry in the Nov/ Yaok area forth in detail in this proceeding. D-537; D-573; D-574 cuid 575; D-553, 554, is set and 555 779 LIVE POULTRY ON CONSIGNI'ENT V The fact that the respondent is licensed as a poultry dealer raid that he took title to the live poultry in question before reselling it, raid that he handled the poultry on a margin, depending on mar¬ ket conditions, instead of on a. commission ba.sis, an wan formerly the practice, is not controlling in the ca.sc when making a* dctcr- mination as to whether the poultry wan shipped to the respondent on a consignment basis or an an outright sale, the evidence showing (l) that the difference in the method of ranking a charge for the service of handling the poultry does not change the respondent's relationship to the transaction, (2) that on its accounts sale the respondent holds itself out an a "general commission merchant", (3) that the eggs shipped Y/ith the poultry were admittedly handled on a, consignment basis, (i) in accounting for the eggs, commission as a. separa.to item wa.s not deducted from the proceeds of sale as shown on the account sole, (5) the amount sale shows the net price, since the commission was deducted from the price before making up the account sale, and (6) the account sale for both the eggs and live poultry show that the produce in question was handled "for a.ccount and risk of R, T. Leach", the complainant* It is roo.sona.blo to conclude, therefore, from all the evidence, that the live poultry involved was handled on a consignment bo,sis. D-921 When the issue wa.s whether the respondent poultry deader ha.d sold live poultry on consignment or the transaction was a purcha.se and sale transaction, and the evidence in the case was conflicting in that the complainant testified one way and the respondent the other, corrobora.tive evidence in the na.turo of a letter written by the com¬ plainant to the respondent concerning the shipment of poultry, which roa.d in part: "Tie ask you to please do your best and got every cent possible for us out of this shipment", and of a. reply sent by the respondent to the complainant, which ream! in pant: "We will sell it and return the best possible price wc think it is worth" was suf¬ ficient, together with testimony from an employee of the respondent to the effect that the poultry was to bo handled so that "the high¬ est net price that wc could got for the merchandise" would bo returned to the complainant, to esta.blish that the poultry had boon shipped on a. consignment basis. D-1190 780 LIVE POULTRY OF COT T SirjITT.'HtTT V When cl poultry liocns'oo does not engage in the business of handling live poultry on consignment, except on rare occasions, it is not required that his poultry license bo worded to cover the selling of live poultry on commission, end he is not required to file a schedule of rates end changes for furnishing such service. D-1190 781 ORDERS V Application for poultry license ordered denied, for financial reasons. D-519 Ordered that the application of respondent for a. poultry license be denied; provided, however, that the appliccnt may qualify as licensee (l) by paying sufficient additional free capital into the business to meet the requirements of the Department, or (2) by filing with the Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C., end thereafter maintaining, a satisfactory bond to guarantee the payment of applicant's weekly recurring obligations incurred in the purcha.se of live poultry as licensee under the Act, as amended, or (3) by furnishing a. trust fund agreement satisfactory to the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry for the same purposes; action toward the enforcement of the order c.s authorized by the Act to bo "postponed for twenty days from the date of the service of the order for the purpose of allowing the applicants an opportunity to so qualify for a license; further ordered that a copy of the order shall be served upon applicants by ru 0 isteruu mc.il, D-520; D-530; D-533; D-583; D-592; D-639 782 ORDERS V the K ct, C.3 Ouliondod, to ong a^o in the poultry bu sinoss; further ordered tlicit a copy of the order bo served upon the r.pplicejit by registered me. il. D-52.5; D-592; D-609; D-614; D-615; D-616; D-317; D-618; D-620; D-621; D-622; D-624; D-625; D-626; D-628; D-629; D-631; D-632; D-633; D-634; D-635; D-636; D-638; D-641; D-642; D-643; D-644; D-645; D-646; D-647; D-648; D-649; D-650; D-651; D-652; D-653; D-654; D-656; D-657; D-659; D-661; D-663; D-664; D-667; D-668; D-672; D-673; D-675; D-676; D-678; D-679; D-682; D-684; D-685; D-687; D-688; D-690; D-691; D-692; D-694; D-697; D-69 8; D-699; D-701; D-702; D-703; D-709; D-710; D-712; D-713; D-714; D-715; D-716; D-720; D-724; D-726; D-729; D-730; D-7 31; D-732; D-7 54; D-737; D-738; D-740; D-741; D-742; D—743; D-744; D-7 45; D-747; D-749; D-7 53; D-760; D-761; D-7 62; D-765; D-764; D-765; D-768; D-769; u-770; D-771; D-772; D-773; D-774; D-775; D-776; D-778; D-779; D-781; D-782; D-783; D-784; D-785; D-786; D-787; D-788; D-739; D-790; D-791; D-79.3; D-794; D-7D5; D-796; D-797; D-799; D-800; D-801; D-802; D-803; D-804; D-805; D-808; D-809; D-.810; D-812; D-813; D-814; D-815; D-816; ■■P-817; P-818; D-819; D-820; D-822; D-823; D-825; D-826; D-827; P-328; P-829; D-830; D-831; D-833; D-834; D-835; D-836; D-837; D-838; D-839; D-841; D-842; D-843; D-844; D-845; D-846; D-847; D-848; D-850; D-851; D-852; D-855; D-856; D-857; D-858; D-860; D-861; D-862; D-865; D-866; D-867; D-869; D-870; D-871; D-872; D-873; D-874; D-876; D-877; D-878; D-879; D-882; D-883; D-884; D-885; D-886; D-887; D-888; D-889; D-890; D-892; D-893; D-901; D-902; D-903; D-905; D-906; D-907; D-910; D-913; D-914; D-917; D-918; D-919; D-922; D-923; D-924; D-935; D-9 36; D-937; D-9 39; D-940; D-941; D-942; D-943; D-94-i; D-945; D-943; D-9 52; D-95o; D-954; D-955; D-957; D-9 60; D-961; D-962; D-9 63; D-964; D-965; D-9 66; D-967; D-9 68; D-969; D-970; D-971; D-972; D-975; D-974; D-975; D-984; D-985; D-986; D-987; D-988; D-989; D-991; D-992; P-993; D-994; D-995; D-9 96; D-997; D-999 ; D-l002; D-l003; D- 1005; P- -1006; : D-1007; D-1008; D-l009 ; D-1011; D-1012; D-1013; D- 1016; D- -1026; : D-1028; D-1029; D-1038; D-1045; D-1046; D-1052; P-1053; D-1056; D-1070; D-1071; P-1073; D-1079; P-1080; D-1087; D-l096; D-1097; D-l098; D-1104; D-1115; D-1118; D-1127; D-1133; D-1134; D-l150; D-1152; D-1155; D-l047; D-1057; D-1074; D-1080; D-1099; D-1119; D-llob; D-l171; D-1048; D-l061; P-1075; D-1089; D-l100; D-1122; D-1157; D-l192; D-l049; D-10S2; D-l076; D-l093; J-1101; D-l124; D-l138; D-1196; D-l050; D-1063; D-l077; D-l094; D-1102; D-l125; D-ll39; D-1198; D-1051; D-1064; D-l078; D-lOy5; D-1103; D-1126; D-ll40; D-1207 783 ORDERS V Ordered that a license for buying, be issued to the applicant, D-526; D-528; D-531; D-532; D-542; D-547; R-558; D-559; D-560; D-561; D-587; D-588; D-589; D-590; 10-591; 0-606; 0-607; 0-612; 0-666; 0-705; selling, and handling poultry D-543; D-544; D-545; D-546; 0-562; 0-563; 0-564$ 0-582; D-595; 0-600; D-604; 0-605; 0-718 Ordered that the application for a poultry license be denied, and that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered mail, D-527; 0-583; 0-595; 0-647; 0-675; 0-717; 0-719j 0-723; 0-725; 0-733; 0-748; 0-750; 0-777; 0-780; 0-821; 0-840; 0-864; 0-875; 0-898; r '-925; 0-926; 0-1014; 0-1054; 0-1208; 0-1229 Ordered that the proceedings instituted to determine if the applicant should be denied a poultry license be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be sent to the applicant by registered mail, 0-529; D-613; 0-627; 0-665; 0-677; 0-693; 0-792; 0-824; 0-849; 9-859; 0-833; 0-880; ..-1004; 0-1014; .,-1027; ^-1058; 0-1086; n 0-751; 0,-752; 0-755; 0-904; 0-934; 0-988; 1112; 0-1128; 0-1149; ,-1197 ✓ 784 ORDERS V Ordered that the order of the Acting Secretary, in Docket 537, dated July 27, 1936, be revoked; further ordered that the respondent licensees, and each of them, on and after March 19, 1937, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for the services now rendered by them, as contractors, the rates and charges shown therefor in a schedule of rates and charges now on file with- the Secretary of Agriculture; further ordered that on and after March 19, 1937, neither of respondent licensees, nor any of them, shall publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any services in excess of the rates or charges hereinbefore authorized to be charged and collected for the furnishing of such services; further ordered that at least five days prior to the date upon which this order becomes effective each and every one of the respondent licensees publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended, and the regulations there¬ under, a schedule showing all the rates and charges for the services furnished by respondent licensees at New York City and Jersey City, end all rules and regulations changing, affecting, or determining such rates or charges, and that no rate or charge which is shown for any such services be in excess of the rate or charge hereinbefore authorized for such service; further ordered that a copy of the order be transmitted by registered mail to each respondent. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 Ordered that the respondent’s license be suspended for a period of thirty days from a certain date, but that such suspension shall not become effective if the respondent shall on or before such date file with the Department a true and correct balance sheet correctly showing its financial status, prepared and certified to by a reliable certified public accountant, provided that such financial status justifies the issuance of a license, and provided, further, that, upon an examination of the books of accounts and records by an accountant for the Government, the same shall be found to be true and correct; further ordered that the respondent shall immediately set up certain books of accounts and records; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon respondent by registered mail and that a copy thereof be transmitted to each and every licensee engaged in and doing business within the City of New York, and places included within the designation thereof. D-550; D-551 785 ORDERS V Respondent ordered to cease and desist from the unfair practice or device of selling live poultry in commerce at an agreed or ascertainable price and thereafter compromising with the pur¬ chasers as to such prices and weights without the consent of the shipper; further ordered that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of withholding accounts sale from shippers and of refusing and refraining from remitting the net proceeds arising from the sale of poultry shipped to it for sale on consignment; further ordered that the respondent shall, within thirty days from the date of the order pay to the shipper the sum of $326.16 as reparation; further ordered that since there is no evidence in the record tending to Justify a finding that the withholding of money and of refusal to pay money to the shipper was due to an improper motive on the part of the consignee, there shall be no sus¬ pension of license. D-552 V 786 ORDERS V Ordered that the respondents, the New Jersey Coop Company, Inc., sand the New York Coop Company, Inc., on and after thirty days from the date of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for coop rentals the rates shown therefor in their schedules filed with the Secretary on the twelfth day of December 1935, designated and known as-New Jersey Coop Company Tariff,No. 1, and New York Coop Company Tariff No. 1; further ordered that the respondent, the New York Live Poultry Trucking Company, Inc., on and after thirty days from the date- of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for trucking and cartage services the rate or rates shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges filed with the Secretary on the twelfth day of December 1935, and designated end known as the New York Live Poultry Trucking Company Tariff No. 1, and amendment No. 1 there¬ to, effective February 10, 1936; further ordered that the respond- end, the New York Live Poultry Trucking Company, Inc., on and after 30 days from the date of the order, cease and desist from demanding or collecting for loading services the rate or rates shown therefor in the schedule of rates and charges filed with the Secretary on tho twelfth day of December 1935, and designated and known as the New York Live Poultry Trucking Company Te-riff No. 1; further ordered that the respondent coop companies on and after 30 days from the date of the order shall not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for tho furnishing of any service or facility in connection with tho rental of coops in excess .of the rates and charges hereinbefore found and determined to be just and reasonable for the furnishing of such service; further ordered that the respondent trucking company on and after 30 days from the date .of the order shall not publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any service or fanility in connection with the loading of live poultry in excess of the rates and charges hereinbefore found and determined to be just and reasonable for tho furnishing of such services; further ordered that, at least 10 days prior to tho effective date of these orders, the respondents publish, give notice of, and file with the Secretary, in accordance with the Act, as amended, and tho regulations thereunder, schedules effective on the thirtieth da-y from the date of the orders, showing all rates and charges for tho services and facilities furnished by thorn-in New York, Now York, and Jersey City, Now Jersey, and the places and mar.-* kets designated therein by the Secretary and all rules and regulation changing, affecting, or determining such rates or charges, and that no rate or charge so shown for any such facility or service be in excess of any rate or change hereinbefore determined to be just and reasonable for such facility or service; further ordered that the respondents keep such accounts, records, and memoranda, as will fully disclose all transactions involved in their business, covering all expenses which are charged against their respective business and the purpose for which all items of expenses are made; further or¬ dered that a copy of these orders be transmitted by registered mail to tho respondent, D-553, 554, and 555 787 ORDERS V Ordered, on June 22, 1959, that the petition of the respondent coop companies for further modification of the orders of July 1, 1937, he denied; further ordered that the orders of July 1937, as modified by the order of August 13, 1937, remain in full force and effect, except that the respondents shall not be required to submit the monthly reports specified in the reports of August 15, 1937, further ordered that this order shall be¬ come effective 3C days from and after the date of the signing of the order, and that a copy of the order bo served upon the panties by registered mail. D-655, 554, and 555 Ordered on June 15, 1940, that the proceedings in these cases be reopened and that the petitioners and all interested parties be afforded an opportunity to appear and present evidence with respect to the matters and things allogod in the petitions; further ordered that the record heretofore made in these proceed¬ ings shall be considered in connection with the record ma.de at the hearing herein granted in passing upon the merits of the petitions; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the petitioners and upon the respondents by registered mail and published in the Federal Register. D-553, 554, and 555 Ordered that license of respondent poultry dealer be suspended for thirty days, mth ica.ve to apply for a revocation of sus¬ pension upon proper evidence that payment had boon made in full to certain vendors of poultry. D-572 Ordered that the application for a*, poultry license be dismissed without prejudice, D-584; D-598 Ordered that the application for a. poultry license be denied, but that the applicant be given thirty days from the receipt of a copy of the order, which shall be served by registered mail, within which to furnish a bond or some other form of satisfactory indemnity, sufficient to secure the prompt payment of its obligations which it rail ordinarily incur during the coverage credit period of one week. D-585; D-586; D-596 Ordered that the applicant, ^aspoth Live Poultry Company, a partnership, bo granted a. poultry license and that all proceed¬ ings in connection with the ulspoth Live Poultry Company, a corporation, be- dismissed; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered mail. D-586 788 ORDER V Ordered that the application for a poultry license be denied without prejudice; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered mail and that the order become effective twenty days from and after such completed service. D-594; D-597; D-623; D-637; D-673; D-680; D-681; D-683; D-690; D-700; D-706; D-709; D-727; D-736; D-915 Ordered that the applicant be granted a poultry license; further ordered that this order supersedes the order of the Secretary dated April 12, 1937, denying a poultry license to the applicant; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered mail. D-597 Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice and device of contracting for the purchase of poultry at an ascertainable price, end then remitting in payment therefor a sum less than said ascertain¬ able price; further ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of buying poultry in commerce at and for an ascertainable price, and then withholding from the shipper an amount alleged to be for handling charges when the payment of handling changes had not been agreed upon; further ordered that the order be transmitted to respondent by registered mail. D-599 Ordered that respondent’s poultry license bo suspended for a period of thirty days from January 15, 1937; provided, however, that such suspension shall become effective only if within a period of three years from the date of the order the Secretary shall have roa.son to believe that the respondent has violated any of the provisions of the Act, as amended, whereupon a supplemental order will issuo without further hearing making the suspension effective for a. period of thirty days from a specified date. D-608; D-611 789 ORDERS V Ordered that the poultry license issued to the respondent be revoked, effective as of a certain day, unless the applicant qualify as a licensee prior to said date (a) by paying suffi¬ cient additional free working capital into the business to insure payment of its weekly recurring obligations, or (b) by filing with the Bureau of Animal Industry at Y/ashington, D. C., end thereafter maintaining a bond with satisfactory sureties to suitable trustees sufficient in the judgment of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry to insure the prompt payment of its weekly recurring obligations incurred by the applicant in the purchase of live poultry as a licensee under the net as amended, or (c) by furnishing a trust fund agreement satisfactory to said Chief to insure the prompt performance of its financial obligations incurred as such licensee; action toward the enforcement of the order to be postponed until after the effective date of revocation for the purpose of allowing the applicant an opportunity to qualify for the license; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered mail. D-610 Previous order of suspension ordered revoked by the Secretary, and ordered that respondent be notified of the action taken by the Secretary. D-611 Ordered that the application of Benjamin Simon for a poultry license be again denied, and that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered modi. D-623 Ordered that the application for a poultry license be denied, with the provision that action toward the enforcement of tho order be postponed for twenty days from tho date of the service of the order upon tho applicant, for the purpose of allowing the applicant an opportunity to qualify under certain conditions; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered mail. D-626 Ordered that tho proceeding to determine if applicant should bo entitled to a poultry license be dismissed. D-630; D-658 790 ORDERS V Ordered thr.t the application for a poultry license bo denied; provided, however, that the order should not become effective if the applicants should, within twenty days from the date thereof, add the required sum to their capital account or, in lieu thereof, execute and maintain a surety bond or other satisfactory equiva¬ lent of equal amount as proscribed by'Amendment II, B.a.I. Ord^r 357; further ordered thr.t a copy of the order be served upon the applicants by registered mail. D-640 Ordered that the application for a poultry license bo denied without prejudice, and that a copy of the order shall bo served upon the applicants at their place of business, and that the order shall become effective twenty days from and after such completed service. D-662 Ordered that the applicants bo granted a poultry license on con¬ dition thr.t they keep such books and records in connection with their business as meet with the approval of the Bureau of Animal Industry, D-686 Proceedings to determine if the applicant for a poultry license has engaged in an unlawful practice end device in the buying of poultry dismissed by the Secretary, and ordered that a copy of the order of dismissal bo sent to the respondent by registered mail. D-704 Ordered that the order to show cause why the applicant, Gottlieb H. Hunt, should not bo denied a. poultry license be dismissed; further ordered that applicant, Charles Tin. Hutt, trading and doing business as Charles Wm. Hutt Company, be granted a. poultry license; further ordered that a. copy of the order be served upon the a.pplicant by registered 2 na.il. D-707 Ordered that the previous order entered in this case, denying a license to the a.pplicant, bo revoked; further ordered that the applicant bo granted its poultry license and that a. copy of the order be served upon a.pplicant by registered mail. D-725; D-727 791 ORDERS V Ordered that the application of Benny and Abe Shuster, partners, trading and doing business as Shuster Brothers, for a poultry license be denied, and that a copy of the order be served upon their attorney of record by registered mail. D-811 Ordered that the complaint for reparation for alleged discrimi¬ natory unloading charges be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant and respondent by regis¬ tered mail• D-832 Licensee ordered to cease and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory practice and device of exerting undue pressure upon a trucker of live poultry in commerce, through a labor union or otherwise, through which the trucker is prevented from delivering or hauling live poultry to the receiver’s vendee] further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the attorney for the respondent by registered mail. D-854 Ordered that the applicant. You K. Moy and Wah C. Hoy, partners, trading and doing business as Wing Sang Company and as Wing Chong Company, be granted a poultry license for each of said businesses and that a copy of the order be served'upon the applicants by registered mail. D-860 Ordered that the respondents ’ poultry license be suspended for a period of ninety days from the effective date of the order; further ordered that respondents cease and desist from engaging in the business of buying, selling, and handling live poultry, as authorized by the license, for and during the full period of ninety days from the- effective date of the order; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon respondents by regis¬ tered mail, and that the oraer become effective upon the tenth day following such service. D-868 Ordered that the. complaint for reparation for alleged debt due and owing from the respondent be dismissed; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the parties by regis¬ tered mail, < D-881; D-1092 7S2 ORDERS V Ordered that the license issued to the respondent Metropolitan Poultry Peed Corporation, authorizing it to engage in the business of selling poultry feed in connection with the market¬ ing of live poultry in interstate commerce, be suspended for a period of thirty days and that during such period the respond- end cease and desist from engaging in the business as aforesaid, and shall, thereafter, cease and desist from charging prices for poultry feed to be used in feeding poultry shipped in inter¬ state commerce, or loaded in cans or trucks for the purpose of shipment in interstate commerce, which shall be greater or less than or different from the prices, rates, and charges then on file with the Secretary, as required by Section 306 of Title III and Section 504 of Title V of the Act; further ordered that the facts and circumstances concerning respondent's feed violations of the Act, as amended, be published by the Bureau of Animal Industry, as authorized by Section 505 of the Act; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person, and that the order shall become effective ton days from and after such completed service. D-891 Ordered thait the complaint for reparation for alleged failure of defendant poultry dealer to remit for three coops of poultry bo dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the parties by registered mail. D-896 Ordered that the complaint for reparation be dismissed vdthout prejudice, and that, in conformity with complainant’s request, the origina.l complaint, together with all exhibits attached thereto and made a part thereof, be returned to the complainant and that the file be closed. D-897 Ordered that the proceeding against I. Cohen, on individual, be dismissed; further ordered that a poultry license be granted to I. Cohen end L. Barnstcin, partners, and that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant by registered modi, D-911 Ordered that the application for a poultry license be denied, and that a copy of the order be served upon the o.pplicant by registered modi, the order to take effect ten days from the dodo of service. D-916; D-13,16; D-1123; D-1231; D-1245 ORDERS V Ordered that the proceedings instituted against respondent poultry dealer to determine if ho had induced creditors to compromise his indebtednesses by misrepresentations of insol¬ vency and to determine if he was insolvent bo dismissed, and tha.t a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered modi. D-920 Ordered that the respondent poultry dealer pay to the complainant reparation in the amount of a bad check given, with interest at 6 % from the date of the check; further ordered that the respond¬ ent cca.sc and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice or device of soliciting livo poultry either for purchase on its own account or for sale on consignment, when it is not finan- ciadly able to make prompt payment therefor; from the unfair and deceptive practice of accepting livo poultry purchased by it or delivered to it for sale on consignment, when it is financially unable to make prompt payment therefor; and from the unfa.ir practice of fadling to remit promptly to the shipper the.net proceeds of live poultry sold for the a.ccount of the shipper; further ordered that the license of the respondent dealer be suspended for a. period of six months and that the order become effective twenty days from the da.tc of its exe¬ cution, and tha.t a copy thereof be served upon counsel of record.for respondent by registered mail, D-921 Ordered tha.t the proceedings to determine if the respondent poultry licensee had unjustly and unfairly refused to sell livo poultry to certain individuails be dismissed, and tha.t ca copy of the order be served by registered mail upon counsel of record for the respondent, D-931; D-932; D-933 Ordered that license Ro • 831, issued to poultry dealer under the provisions of Title V o,f the Act, a.s amended, bo revoked; further ordered that the order become effective ten days alter receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo served by regis¬ tered mail, . D-947 Ordered that the complaint for reparation for the alleged failure on the pant of the defendant to pay the contract price for poultry be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the panties by registered mail, D-951; D-1121 794 ORDERS V Ordered that the proceedings in re Fred Patton and Ollie Reese, trading end doing business as The TT cnhouso, be dismissed; further ordered that Fred Patton and Marion Reese, trading and doing business * as The Henhouse, be granted a poultry license end that a copy of the order be served upon the applicants by registered modi • Li-962 Ordered tho.t the complaint for reparation for the alleged fail¬ ure of the respondent licensee to accept a truckload of poultry in accordance with in agreement with the complainant be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant and the respondent by registered mail. D-976 Ordered that the license of the respondent poultry dealer be suspended for a period of three months from the date of the order, end that a copy of the order b.e served upon the respond¬ ent by registered mail. B-978 Ordered tho.t the complaint for reparation for proceeds from the sale of live poultry be dismissed and tho.t a copy of the order be served upon the complainant end dofendont by registered mail. D-990 Ordered tho.t the poultry license of the respondent be revoked, the order to take effect in thirty de.ys from the receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall be transmitted by registered ino.il. D-998 License of respondent poultry dealer ordered revoked, provided tho.t the order of revocation may be modified and the license mo.y be reinsto.ted upon a showing to the Secretary by the dealer tho.t it is maintaining a financial sto.tus which would entitle it to o. license under Title V of the Act, as amended; further ordered that the respondent dealer cease and desist from the unfair end deceptive practice and device of engaging in business as a licensee under Title V of the Act, as amended, without maintain¬ ing a financial condition which would entitle it to receive Cc license under said act, as amended; further ordered tho.t the order become effective ten ditys from the receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shall bo served upon the respondent by registered mail. R-1000 Ordered that the proceedings to determine if the respondent poultry dealer ho.d misrepresented to a purchaser tho true weight of poultry be dismissed. D-1001 795 ORDERS V Ordered that the proceedings to determine if the respondent poultry licensee is financially unable to carry on in business be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail. D-1010; D-1044; D-1060; D-1106; D-1120 Ordered that the complaint for reparation for alleged breach of contract in the purchase of poultry be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant and the defendant by registered mail* D-1015 Ordered that the proceedings to determine if the respondent poultry commission merchant is financially unable to fulfill its obligations that would incur as a licensee be dismissed; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail. D-1018 Poultry dealer ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and deceptive practice of (a) paying to truck drivers who are em¬ ployed by shippers to transport live poultry in interstate commerce any sum in addition to the charge for tra.nsporta.tion; (b) giving them any other thing of value as an inducement to them to deliver poultry to the respondent; (c) making any arbi¬ trary deductions from the weight of live poultry consigned to or purchased by them; (d) failing to render a complete report to the shippers of live poultry correctly disclosing the gross weight and the gross proceeds of the shipment received by re¬ spondent dealer on the sale of the poultry and nil deductions therefrom, together with a statement explaining such deductions; further ordered that the order shall become effective ton days from receipt of a copy thereof by respondent, which shail be transmitted by registered mail, D-1023 795 ORDERS V Ordered that the respondent poultry licensee cease and desist from the unfair practice of paying to truck drivers who are employed by shippers to transport live poultry to Chicago, Illinois, 25/ or any other amount of money or giving any other thing of value to them as an inducement to then to deliver live poultry to the respondent; further ordered that the order shall become effective ten days from the date of receipt of a. copy of the order by respondents, which shall be served by registered mail. D-1024; D-1025 Ordered that the defendant in a proceedings for reparation pay to the complainant the difference between the amount remitted end the contract price within ten days; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the parties by registered mail. D-1055 Ordered that the defendant poultry dealer pay as reparation to the complainant 5271,4S with interest at 6% from the date of the complaint for reparation; further ordered that said amount be paid within thirty days from the date of the signing of the order, and that a copy of the order be served upon the complain¬ ant and defendant by registered mail. D-1059 Poultry license ordered revoked, and a copy of the order ordered served upon the respondent by registered mail. D-1066 Ordered that the defendant pay $<269.05 as reparation to the com- , plainant for poultry purchased* within thirty days from the date of the order; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the counsel of record for the complainant and for the ' defendant. P-1.057 Ordered that the complainant poultry shipper bo .awarded reparation against the defendant poultry licensee, with interest thereon from the date of the accrual of the cause of action, for excessive shrinkage in a shipment of gecso, no explanation having boon made for such shrinkage; further ordered that such sun with interest be paid on or before thirty days from the date of the order and that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant and the defendant, by registered mail or in person. D-1068 7?7 OKDJixcS V \ Ordered that the complaint for reparation for the alleged failure of the defendant to pay for poultry purchased by a third person bo dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served by registered mail on the complainant raid on the defendant. D-1069 Ordered that the poultry license of the respondent bo revoked, and that a copy of the order be served by registered mail upon the licensee, and that the order sha.ll become effective ten days from cuid after the date of service* D-1072 Ordered that the complainant poultry shipper bo awarded reparation in the amount of $59.92, with interest from the date of the sa.lo of chickens until paid, and that the said sum bo paid within thirty days from the date of the order; further ordered that respondent poultry dealer cease end desist from the unfair and deceptive prac¬ tice and device of giving end transmitting to sellers of live poultry false and misleading information as to the conditions of such livo poultry and the market value thereof; further ordered that a. copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by regis¬ tered mall or in person and that tho order shall become effective ton days from and after such completed service; further ordered that the Bureau of Animal Industry publish tho facts and circum¬ stances concerning the respondent's violation of the Act, as authorized by Section 505 of tho Act, as amended. D-10S0 Ordered that the boycott changes against the respondent Askin bo dismissed; further ordered that the remainder of the respondents cease and desist from subjecting the .complainant, Abraham Butler, or any other licensee, to an undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage by refusing to extend the usual credit period without any reasonable basis for such refusal; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon each of the respondents by registered raa.il and that the order shall toko effect twenty days on and alter its execution. D-1091 Ordered that tho poultry license of the Independent Meat and Poultry Market, Inc,, to handle live poultry in interstate com¬ merce bo revoked; further ordered that a copy of tho order be. served upon respondent by registered mail and that the order be effective fifteen days from the date of its execution. B-1110 798 ORDERS V Ordered that the poultry license bo revoked and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered nail, and that the order take effect fifteen days from, the date of its o execution. D-llll Ordered that the application for a poultry license bo denied, and that a copy of the order be served upon the attorney of record by registered ma.il end that the order shall tadcc effect fifteen days from the date of its execution. D-1113 Ordered, that the proceedings instituted to determine if the poultry license of the respondent should be revoked be dismissed, end that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mail. D-1114; D-12E0 Ordered that the application for a poultry license be denied. D-1135 Ordered that the poultry license be revoked for frequent and repeated violations of the Act by tho licensee, and that a copy of tho order be served upon the respondents by registered nail or in person. D-1141; D-1156; D-1221 Ordered that the .poultry license bo revoked for frequent end re¬ peated violations of Title V of the Act by the licensee; that tho oreer shall become effective fifteen days from the date thereof, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail. D-1142 Ordered that all proceedings in connection -with the inquiry and notice c.lloging a violr.tion of Title V of tho Act be dismissed; that the complaint for reparation for the alleged failure -of the respondent to deliver poultry to a buyer be dismissed; end that a copy of tho order be served upon the parties by registered nail. D-1144 799 ORDERS V Ordered that the respondent poultry licensees (l) cease and desist from engaging in and using the unjustly discriminatory practice of charging a greater or less compensation for their services than the rates and charges on file and in effect at the time, (2) cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair and deceptive practice and device of failing to render a true, written account sale covering each transaction, (3) cease and desist from engag¬ ing in and using the unfair and deceptive practice and device of giving tips to carmen or others acting as representatives of shippers who consign live poultry to the respondent for sale, (4) cease and desist from engaging in and using the unfair, un¬ justly discriminatory practice and device (a) of recording and reporting prices other than the actual prices at which live poultry is sold, (b) of making settlements with buyers upon the basis of prices other than the prices at which the sales were actually made, (5) cease and desist"from engaging in and using the unfair and unjustly discriminatory practice of requiring buyers to purchase classes of live poultry which they do not desire, in order to obtain classes of poultry desired for their trade, (6) keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as fully and correctly disclose all transactions in their business, includ¬ ing (a) vouchers and other documents containing explanatory details covering items of expense, (b) copies of account sale, showing the actual prices at which poultry is sold and all charges deducted from the sales prices, and (c) copies of sales tickets executed by the salesmen and buyers evidencing each transaction; (7) further ordered that tariffs bo accepted for filing providing for rates and charges to be observed by the': respondents, as set forth in the order; that the order shall become effective ten days from the date thereof; and that 0 . copy of the order bo served by registered mail upon the respondents or their counsel of record. D-1146 Upon the evidence of record, the Secretary concluded that the same orders issued to those respondents which petitioned the Secretary for specific consideration should be issued to those respondents which did not so petition. D-1146 The Secretary concluded that the determination of any issue in this proceeding should not be made to depend upon the ex¬ ercise of authority conferred by the Act affecting other licensees. D-1146 POO ORDERS V Ordered that the application for a poultry license be denied and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person. D-1147; D-1153; D-1172; D-1229 Ordered that the defendant poultry dealer pay to the complainant the sum of $100.44, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per ■annum from the date of the arrival of poultry at the defendant’s place of business until paid; further ordered that said sum shall be paid within five days from and after the date of the order and that a copy of the order shall be served upon the complainant and the defendant by registered mail or in person. D-1148 Ordered that the complaint for reparation against the respondent poultry licensee be dismissed and that a copy of the order be served upon the parties by registered mail or in person. D-1151 Ordered that the poultry license-of the respondent be revoked, and that the order of revocation become effective at the expira¬ tion of five days from the receipt of a copy thereof by respond¬ ent, which shall be served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person. D-1154 Ordered that the proceedings for reparation for a balance due on live poultry bo dismissed, and that a copy of the order bo served upon the parties by registered mail. D-1167 Ordered that the application of Jacob Simels for a license to contract for unloavding. poultry be denied, end that a copy of the order bo served upon him by registered mail or in person. D-1168 Ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the defendant poultry licensee in the amount of $70.05, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum until paid; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the parties by registered mail and that the order take effect fifteen days from and after the date of the order. D-1170 ORDERS V 4 > Ordered that the poultry license be revoked; further ordered that if at any time the applicant procures a license to engage in th<* handling of live poultry under Title V of the Act, as amended, he shall maintain certain records of account; further ordered that the order shall become effective within ten days from the date thereof, and that a copy of the order shall be served upon the respondent by registered mail. • D-1173 Ordered that the poultry license of the respondent be revoked, to become effective ten days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order by respondent, which shall be served by registered mail or in person. D-1176; D-1178; D-1239 Ordered that the proceedings instituted to determine the finan¬ cial condition of the respondent poultry licensee be dismissed without prejudice, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person. D-1177 Ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the respondent poultry licensee in the amount of $70.62, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint for reparation; further ordered that the poultry license of the respondent be revoked; further ordered that the order become effective thirty days from the date of the signing thereof, and that a copy be served by registered mail upon the complainant and the respondent. D-1180 Ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation in the sum of 048.36, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from seven days after the date of the delivery of the poultry in ques¬ tion to the defendant; further ordered that the defendant pay said sum with interest within ten days from and after the date of the order; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the complainant and the defendant by registered mail or in person. D-1183 802 ORDERS V Ordered that the complaint for reparation be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the parties by registered mail. D-1179; D-1184; D-1190; D-1204; D-1206 Ordered that the poultry license of Frank Houser to handle live poultry as a dealer bo revoked, and that the order become effec¬ tive fifteen days from the date of the order; further ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the respondent in the sum of $111.92, with interest at the rate of Q/o per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint with the Secretary; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person. D-1185 Ordered that the respondent poultry licensee keep accounts, records, and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing all transactions in¬ volved in her business, including her fixed assets and periodic inventories; further ordered that the respondent’s license to handle live poultry in interstate commerce be suspended for thirty days; further ordered that the order shall take effect five days from the receipt of a copy thereof by the respondent, which shall bo transmitted by registered mail. D-1189 Ordered that the respondent poultry licensee cease and desist from engaging in the unfair and deceptive practice and device of fail¬ ing to deliver to the owner of live poultry consigned to him for sal*- a true written account of such sale showing, among other things, the price of each kind of poultry sold and such other facts as may be necessary to complete the account; further ordered that the order become effective.on and after thirty days from the date thereof, and that a copy be served upon the respondent by regis¬ tered mail. D-1190 Ordered that the complainant be awarded .$524.73 as reparation against the respondent poultry licensee,with interest thereon from the date the poultry was purchased; further ordered that the poultry license granted to the respondent be revoked for repeated violations of the Act as amended; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person and that the order become effective fifteen days from the date of the order. D-1191 803 ORDERS V Ordered that the poultry license issued to the respondent to engage in business as a dealer for the purpose of operating a wholesale and retail live poultry slaughterhouse be revoked; further ordered that the order become effective fifteen days from the date thereof, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person. jj-1194 Ordered that the inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee is insolvent bo dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail. D-1195 Ordered that the proceedings in connection with the application for a poultry license be dismissed without prejudice, and that a copy of the order be served upon the applicant at his last- known address by registered mail or in person. D-1172; D-1209 Ordered that the respondent poultry licensee keep such accounts and records to fully and correctly disclose all transactions in¬ volved in his business; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail, and that the order shall become effective ten days from the receipt thereof by respondent. D-1210 Ordered that the respondent poultry dealer cease and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice and device of (l) removing or permitting to bo removed poultry belonging to a shipper before being weighed, for the purpose of making it unnecessary to account to the shipper for the poultry, and (2) operating a scale in such a manner cm to result in showing the weights of poultry in amounts less than the actual weights; further ordered that the license of the respondent to handle live poultry be suspended for a period of sixty days, provided that the suspension shall not become effective unless and until the respondent again engages in cither, or a similar practice of the character prohibited by the order; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail, and shall become effective fifteen days after the date of such service. D-1215 ORDERS V Ordered, that the complainant be awarded reparation against the defendant poultry dealer for the sum duo him on an open account for the sale of poultry to the defendant, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the last delivery; further ordered that shid sum shall be paid within thirty days from the date of the order; further ordered that the claim of reparation for an amount due from the sale of eggs be dismissed; further ordered that the order shall be served upon the, parties by registered mail or in person. D-1217 Ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the defendant poultry dealer for the sale of live poultry to the defendant during the first week in January 1939, with interest thereon at the rate of 6)6 per annum from January 15, 19 39; further ordered that such sum, with interest thereon, shall be paid within thirty days from the date of the order; further ordered that the claim for an amount due from the sale of eggs be dismissed; further ordered that the order be served upon the parties by registered mail or in person. D-1218 Ordered that the order of inquiry to determine if respondent poultry licensee should be permitted to retain his poultry license be dismissed, and that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail. D-1219 Ordered that the complaint for reparation bo dismissed, end that a copy of the order be served upon the parties in person or by registered mail, to become effective in ten days after such com¬ pleted service. D-1225; D-1226; D-1228 v Ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the defendant poultry licensee in the sum of $>70.15, together with interest thereon at 6^ per annum from February 20, 1939, until paid; further ordered that such amount shall bo paid to the com¬ plainant within thirty days from the date of the order, and that a copy of the order shall be served upon the complainant and the defendant by registered mail or in person. D-1240 805 ORDERS V Ordered that tho respondent poultry licensee cease end desist from the unfair and deceptive practice and device of making payments or giving anything of value for the purpose or vdth the effect of inducing truckers or others to deliver to him live poultry which they have been employed to transport to a designated city, market, or place and to sell for or on behalf of tho owners of said poultry; further ordered that the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person, and that it become effective ten days from and after such service, D-1242 Ordered that License no, 687, granted to the respondent to buy, sell, end handle live poultry in interstate commerce, be revoked, end that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail or in person, to become effective fifteen days from tho date of such service D-1244 Ordered that the poultry license of the respondent be revoked, and that the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail, to become effective thirty days from the date it is signed, n-1245 806 ORDERS V Ordered that the defendant pay the complainant the sura of 094.95 as reparation, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the poultry was sold to the complainant until paid; further ordered that a copy of the order ho served upon the parties by registered mail or in person, and that the order become effec¬ tive fifteen days from the date it is signed. D-1248 Ordered that the defendant pay to the complainant ^oO,13 as reparation, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from tile date of the sale of the poultry to the defendant until paid; further ordered that a copy of the order be served on the complainant and on the defendant by registered mail or in person, and that the order become effective thirty days from the date it is signed, D-1249 Ordered that the respondent poultry licensee cease and desist from the unfair and discriminatory practice of charging, collecting, or demanding a grcaatcr or less compensation for handling live -poultry in interstate commerce on commission'than the rates and charges specified in the schedule on file and in effect at the time the live poultry is sold; further ordered that the respondent keep accounts, records, and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing all transactions involved in its business, including the actual weight of the poultry; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered mall and become effective ten days from the receipt thereof by the respondent. D-1251 Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and discriminatory -practice of changing, demanding, or collecting a greater or loss compensation for handling live poultry in inter-** state commerce on commission than the rates and changes specified in the schodulc on file and in effoct at the time the live poultry is sold; further ordered that the respondent keep accounts, records, and memoranda, which fully and correctly disclose all the trens- c.ctions involved in his business, including the actual weights of iiv^ poultry received, the price at which it is sold, and the commission changed for handling it; further ordered that a. copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mall, and that the order shall become effective ten clays from the receipt thereof by the respondent. D-1252 807 ORDERS V Poultry licensee ordered to cco.sc end desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory prentice of falsely reporting to a shipper that live poultry was sold o.t a less price than it was actuo„lly sold for, end failing to a.ccount to shippers for the net proceeds due from the sale of the live poultry; further ordered that the respondent keep accounts, records, and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing all transactions involved in his business, including the oxtual price for which live poultry is sold; further ordered that a copy of the order be served upon the respondent by registered mail and become effective ten days from recuipt thereof by respondent. D-1253 Poultry licaiisoe ordered to cea.se and desist from the unfedr and unjustly discriminatory and deceptive praxtice and device of failing to account correctly to shippers for the net proceeds from the sale of live poultry; further ordered to cea.se end desist from the unfair and unjustly discriminatory and deceptive praxtice and device of purchasing and taking into his own account poultry consigned to him without fully reporting the faxts to the shipper; further ordered to keep accounts, records, and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing all transactions involved in his business, including the net proceeds received from the sale of live poultry; £tybhor ordered- th&tiva copy ofttb© order bo served- upon respondent by registered mail and'that the order become effective ten days a.fter such completed service. D-1254 Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive praxtice and device of failing to account to shippers for the net proceeds from the sale of live poultry; further ordered to cea.se and desist from the unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive nraxtice and device of purchasing poultry consigned to him or talcing the poultry into his own account without reporting fully the faxts to the shipper; further ordered to keep accounts, records, and memoranda, fully and correctly disclosing all transactions involved in his business, including the net proceeds received from the sale of live poultry; further ordered that a. copy of the order be served upon the re¬ spondent by registered mail, and that the order become effective ten days from receipt thereof by the respondent. D-1255 Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist from changing, collect¬ ing, or demanding a greater or less compensation for handling live poultry in interstate commerce on commission than the ra.tes and charges specified in the schedules in effect a.t the tine the live poultry wa.s sold; further ordered to cease and desist from falsely reporting to the shipper tha.t live poultry was sold at prices materially less than those actually received, and from failing to account to the shipper for the net proceeds due from the sale of live poultry; further ordered that a copy of the order bo served on the respondent by registered mail, and that the order become effective ton days from receipt thereof by respondent. D-1256 808 ORDERS V Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and discrir.iina.tory practice of charging, collecting, and demanding a greater or less compensation for handling live poultry in inter¬ state commerce on commission than the rates and charges specified in the schedule on file and in effect at the time the live poultry is sold; further ordered that a copy of the order be served on the respondent by registereu mail, and that the order become effective ten days from receipt thereof by the respondent. D-1258 Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist from the unfair and discriminatory practice of charging, collecting, and demanding a greater or less compensation for handling live poultry on com¬ mission in interstate commerce than the rates and charges specified in the rates on file and in effect at the time; further ordered to keep accounts, records, and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing all transactions involved in its business, including the correct tariff changes for all live poultry sold on commission; further ordered that a. copy of the order be served on the respondent by registered mail, and that the order become effective ton days from receipt thereof by respondent. D-1259 Poultry licensee oreered to coc.se and desist from the unfair and discriminatory practice of changing, collecting, and demanding a greater or less compensation for handling live poultry in inter¬ state commerce on commission than the rates and charges specified in the schedule on file and in effect at the tine the livestock is sold; further ordered to keep a.ccounts, records, and memoranda fully and correctly disclosing a.11 transactions involved in his business, including the actual price at which the live poultry is sold; further ordered that a. copy of the order be served on the respondent by registered mail, and that the order become effective ton days from receipt thereof by respondent. D-1260 Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist from the unfair end discriminatory practice of charging, collecting, or demanding a, greater or less compensation for handling live poultry in inter¬ state commerce on commission than the rates end charges specified in the schedule on file and in effect at the time the live noultrv is sold; further ordered that a copy of the order be served on the respondent by registered mail, and that the order become effective ten days from receipt thereof by respondent. D-1261 ORDERS V / Poultry licensee ordered to cease and desist fron the unfair end unjustly discriminatory ond deceptive practice and device of pay¬ ing anyone transporting live poultry to it at the rate of l/2^ a pound, or any other couponsation in addition to the regular dray- age charges; further orderuu that a copy of the order bo served upon the respondent by registered nail, and that the order bcconc effective ten days fron the date of such service. D-1271 Poultry licensee ordered to keep such accounts, records, and nenoranda an fullv and correctlv disclose all transactions in V t/ its business, including (l) vouchers and other documents con¬ temning explanatory details covering items of expense, (2) copies of accounts sales, showing the actual prices at which poultry is sold, and all charges deducted fron the sales prices, and (3) copies of the sales tickets executed by the salesmen and buyers evidencing ea.ch transention; further ordered that a copy of the ordor be served upon the respondent in person or by registered mail, and that the order become effective ten days after such completed service. D-1272 ' Poultry licensee ordered to cca.se and desist from the unfair pren¬ tice of (a) paying to truck drivers \iho are employed by shippers to transport live poultry to St. Louis, Missouri, the sum of l/2/ per pound or any other sum of money, or (b) giving then any other thing of value as an inducement to them to deliver live poultry to the respondent; further ordered that the order become effective ten days from the receipt of a. copy thereof by the respondent, which shall be served by registered mail or in person. D-1282 810 ORDERS V Amendments to Ordered, 021 August lb, 1957, that the effective date of the orders entered in these cases on July 1, 1957, be postponed and deferred until July 1, 1958, or such tine thereafter as nay be specified by further order of the Secretary: further ordered that on and after October 1, 1957, respondents shall not nublisli, demand, or collect any rate or charge for the furnishing of any service or facility in connection vdth the rental of coops and the trucking and cartage of live poultry in excess of the rales set forth in their petition; further ordered that respondents file amendments to their tariffs on or before September 20, 1937, showing' all changes in their rates or charges as proposed in their petition; further ordered that from October 1, 1937, and until otherwise ordered by the Secretary, respondents shall keep detailed records of their transactions, shomng the number of coops rented, the number of coops unloaded at the terminals, the number of coops from each can which arc canted from the terminals to the West Washington Market, ana the revenue derived from each class of their business, and shall submit a. monthly report of the sane to the Secretary not la.tcr than the 10th dav of ca.ch month after the effective dale of this order; further ordered tha.t a copy of tho order shall bo served upon the respondents by regis¬ tered mail, D-553, 554, and 555 Upon request of the representative of tho applicant for a. poultry lioense for an additional thirty days to qualify for a license, the Socrotany ordered that the prior order bo amended to suspend <-«.ction for the enforcoi-ient tneroof for cci auuitionnl tnirty days. D-583 Ordered by tho Secretary that his prior order of June 8, 1938, be modified in so far as it provides for the suspension of the re¬ spondent’s license to sell poultry feed for poultry shipped or to be shipped in interstate commerce; further ordered that such sus¬ pension shall not become effective except upon further order of the Secretary; further ordered tha.t this order shall become effec¬ tive from tho date of its execution and that a. copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent by registered mail, D-891 ORDERS V Collateral Attack on In a proceedings to determine the reasonableness and lawfulness of poultry coop and loading charges, it is not necessary for the Secretary to show that practices and devices resulting in losses to poultry producers existed at the tine the Secretary issued his order designating the areas under Title V of the Act. In that order of designation, it is specifically stated that find¬ ings of tho facts as authorized by the statute were made by the Secretary through independent investigation, correspondence, public hearings, and statements made by well-informed persons. That order is not subject to collateral attack in a rate pro¬ ceedings. D-553, 554, and 555 Postponement of Effective Date of The applicant having requested tho Secretary by letter to modify the Secretary’s order, dated February 10, 1937, to allow the appli cant twenty additional da.ys to conform thereto,' the request for postponement being duo to the sickness of the applicant, the Secretary ordered the previous order modified to provide that action for its enforcement be postponed for twenty days from the service of the supplemental order; further ordered that tho sup¬ plemental order be served upon the applicant by registered mail.' D-520 Upon stipulation by the respondent coop companies and poultry trucking company for the Secretary to put into effect a temporary tariff of rates and charges somewhat different from the rates and charges prescribed in his order of July 1, 1937, covering coops, trucking, and unloading services, the Secretary on various occa¬ sions postponed the effective date of his original order end, on February 3, 1939, he postponed the effective date of the original order indefinitely. D-553, 554, and 555 812 ORDERS V Postponement of Effective Date of The applicant for a poultry license having given assurance that, on or before July 20, 1937, it will comply with the regulations of the Department such as to entitle it to receive a license, the Secretary ordered that his previous order denying the appli¬ cant’s license should not become effective until July 20, 1937, and that action upon the petition to reopen and to consider the case again should be held in abeyance until that time, D-637 An extension of thirty days ’ time was allov/ed the applicants for a poultry license for the purpose of complying with a prior order of the Secretary which required additional working capital or a satisfactory bond before the granting of a license. D-640 Upon petition by the respondent, the Secretary ordered that the effective date of his order, suspending respondent’s license to sell poultry feed for poultry shipped or to be shipped in inter¬ state commerce, bo postponed for sixty days. D-891 813 PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT V Prosumption of Constitutionality of In. making determinations under the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended, the Secretary must presume that the statute is constitutional until it may be found otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction, D-55S, 554, and 555 814 POULTRY TRANSPORTATION CHARGES V In instances where poultry receivers take the live poultry at i\fcw York for sale, the freight and all terminal charges are deducted from the shipper’s proceeds, but in cases where receivers buy live poultry at country points and pay for it on the basis of weights at the shipping point, the receiver takes all the risk and pays all the transportution and terminal charges. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 / 815 PRACTICES AND DEVICES V Boycott Poultry licensee who, working through the Commission Drivers’ Union in Chicago, Illinois, threatened, to and did put the complainant poultry licensee trucker out of business by using the union to exert influence on commission houses to refuse to give trucking jobs to the complainant until the complainant had agreed to pay a debt due to the respondent from the com¬ plainant’s brother, which the complainant was not legally bound to pay, engaged in the unfair practice end device of boycott, and was ordered by the Secretary to cease and desist from continuing such violation. D-854 The case in which a poultry licensee conspired, combined, and o.grecd with a Commission Drivers’ Union to exert influence on poultry commission houses not to give a poultry licensee trucker any business until the trucker had agreed to pay a debt of his brother, which ho was not legally bound to pay, wan found by the Secretary analogous to the caso of American Livestock Commission Company v. U nited States , 279 U. S. *435, wherein the Supreme Court condemned boycott activities as an unfr.ir prentice. D-854 Poultry commission men, both wholesalers and retailers, who held a meeting and decided to "make it uncomfortable for Butler", the complainant retell poultry dealer, by charging him more than the market price for poultry end by refusing him the usual credit terras previously granted to him and presently granted to others of like circumstances, because ho was sympathetic with and per¬ mitted one of his employees to join one of the 0. I. 0. labor unions, wore found by the Secretary to he.ve violated the Act, as amended, by having subjected the complainant Butler to an undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage. D-1091 816 PRACTICES AND DEVICES V Credit Extension Poultry commission men, both wholesalers and retailers, who held a meeting and decided to "make it uncomfortable for Butler", the complcdncsit retail poultry dealer, by charging him more them the market price for poultry and by refusing him the usual credit terms previously granted to him and presently granted.to others of like circumstances, because he was sympathetic with and per¬ mitted one of his employees to join one of the C. I. 0. labor unions, were found by the Secretary to have violated the Act, as amended, by having subjected the complainant Butler to an undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage. D-1091 A poultry licensee who obtains credit for its poultry transactions by f lsuly giving assurances that chocks in payment of previous purchases were in the mails or that if credit were given for the immediate purchases the respondent would return immediately with a check covering payment for the previous purchases, neither of which statements \tgto true, flagrantly violates Title V of the Act, and its license is subject to be suspended or revoked under Section 505 thereof, D-1176; D-1177; D-1178 Engaging in Business without Sufficient Financial Requirements A poultry dealer who engages in business without having assets equal to the assets shown in his original application for v license, after having been advised and notified of such deficiency by the Secretary in a. previous order, wilfully and negligently violates Title V of the Act, as amended, D-610 A poultry licensee flagrantly violates Section 502(b) of Title V of the Act by soliciting and obtaining credit in connection with its purchases of live poultry when it must have known that it would be unable to make payment for the same, D-1176; D-1177; D-1178 817 PRACTICES AIM'D DEVICES V False Food Charges Respondent licensee poultry feed dealer who filed a schedule of rates and charges for poultry feed with the Secretary and then charged commission non and poultry dealers a price for the feed other than the prices scheduled violated the Act, as amended, and the Secretary suspended his license for a period of thirty days. D-891 False Reports The notion by respondent to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that no unfair practice had been shown and that, there¬ fore, no award for reparation could be made was denied by the Secretary, who held that the acts of the respondent in failing to make a true and, correct account sale of the poultry and in entering into compromise agreements after its authority had ceased, relative to live poultry received and sold on consign¬ ment, all showed and constituted an unfair prentice or device. D-552 No legal obligation rests upon a poultry dealer to inform tho owner or shipper as to the condition of the poultry received by the dealer for sale; yet, if the dealer undertakes to give such information, the statute casts upon him the duty of inching a full and truthful report. D-1090 Poultry licensee violated the Act, as amended, by recording prices on sales tickets for sales tickets are assembled quotations a.re disseminated at varicnce with the prices sold and paid for. the salo of live poultry, which arid used as bases upon which market throughout tho country, which wore at which the poultry was actually D-1272 Illegality of Section 505 of Title V of tho Act, as amended, incorporates as a part of Title V the provisions of Section 202. The two sections make it unlawful for any ’’live poultry dealer" to "engage in or use ony unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device" in interstate commerce. D-1090 818 PRACTICES AND DEVICES V Poultry Merchants Acting Both as Dealers and Cor.ir.iissionnon In view of the fact that operating conditions in the poultry business nay bo changed by the ostablishnont of a now terminal building in How York City to such an extent as to require fur¬ ther study by the Secretary before appropriate orders can be entered relative to rates and the practice of poultry commission merchants of acting in the joint capacity of commission merchants and dealors, the Secretary concluded that consideration of this issue should be deferred until January 1, 1941, or until such tine thereafter as he may deem reasonable, D-1146 Price Control and Manipulation Poultry licensee violated the net, as amended, by recording prices on sales tickets for the sale of live poultry, which salos tickets aro assembled and used as bases upon which market quotations are disseminated throughout the country, which wore at variance with the prices at which the -poultry was actually sold and paid for. D-1272 PRACTICES MD DEVICES V RodGiving Receivers do not maintain regular employees for the purpose of unloading poultry cars at the terminals. They contract with others to do this work at a stipulated charge. Those with whom these contracts arc made arc kftowh as ’’contractors’'. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 Requiring Poultry Buyers to Purchase Undesirable Stock Poultry licensee violated the net by requiring buyers to purchase classes of live poultry not desired in order to obtain the class of live poultry desired for their trade. D-1146 Unloading The procedure in unloading a car of live poultry is as follows; A gang of five non is used for the purpose. As soon as the inspection is completed, said the receiver is ready to have the car unloaded, the gang begins to weigh the coops, which have been placed on the unloading platform ready for use. Each receiver owns and operates scales on the unloading platform, Thu unloading gang places the empty coops on the scales, where they are weighed by a wciglmastcr employed by the receiver, who records the tare weight on each coop. The unloading gang then removes the empty coops and places then in stacks, from which they are later removed when they arc to bo filled with poultry. There are from 80 to 110 coops required to hold a car of live poultry. " D-537, 573, 574, and 575 The tine for unloading live poultry deponds upon the will of the receiver. Market conditions determine daily whether the unloading is delayed or is done promptly, D-553, 554, and 555 820 PRACTICES AND DEVICES V Weighing Although the evidence adduced at the hearing indicated that the poultry licensees wore a partnership of father and son, and that the son had pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of having used a false weight scale in weighing poultry, and although the respondents admitted the allegations in the inquiry of such act on tho part of the son, and pleaded for leniency before the Secretary, the Secretary found that tho use by tho respondents of a false weighing device, when buying live poultry in inter¬ state commerce, constituted a flagrant violation of the Act, as amended, and ordered the license of the respondents suspended for a period of ninety days, D-868 The respondent poultry dealer having satisfactorily explained in writing the charges made against it of representing poultry to weigh more than it actually did weigh, resulting in an over¬ charge to a purchaser, the Secretary ordered tho proceedings disnis s ed, D-l001 An attempt to justify the difference between the weight repre¬ sented to the shipper and the weight of the poultry upon arrival at the place of business of the licensed dealer, on the ground that the deductions in weight made must have been to cover for over-feed, was not available to the respondent licensed dealer, he having admitted that it was tho practice to charge tho shipper for the feed and that no showing was made to the shipper'of the deduction in wuight made by the respondent, D-l023 The license of the respondent poultry dealer was suspended by the Secretary for a period of sixty days, for the unfair practice of removing or causing to be removed one coop of chickens from the other coops of chickens during the tine of weighing so that tho one coop would not be weighed, the respondent’s excuse for the removal of tho coop that it had been sold and the buyer wanted to separate it at once from tho other poultry being insufficient to justify the act, D-l215 821 PRACTICES and devices V Weighing The respondent poultry dealer was held liable for the unfair practice and device of his employee in removing the "poise set screw" from the scales while weighing empty coops, thus making the coops weigh several pounds heavier than they actually were, and of replacing the "poise set screw" when weighing the coops filled with chickens, thus making the filled coops weigh less than actually, resulting in the seller getting short weights in the sale of poultry, and the respondent was suspended as a poultry licensee for sixty days for this and other practices. D-1215 R99 PROCEDURE V Amended, and Supplemental Complaints, etc* Inquiry and notice to applicant to show cause why his application for a poultry license should not be denied, because of cm alleged unfair practice and device in the buying and selling of poultry within two years prior to the application for license, was amended by the Secretary to change the time of the alleged unfair practice to the summer of 1935 instead of the summer of 1936 as set forth in the original inquiry* D-704 The inquiry and notice to determine if the respondent’s poultry license should be revoked was amended by the Secretary to include an allegation that the respondent had violated and was violating the provisions of Title V of the Act, as amended, and that such violations were fla 0 rant and repeated, D-1128 On May 4, 1939, after the original complaint for reparation had been filed on February 23, 1939, the complainant filed an amended complaint reducing the amount of reparation alleged to be due from the sale of live poultry, D-1249. Answer No answer to the inquiry to determine the lawfulness of respond” ont poultry feed dealer’s c.cts of charging prices for feed other than the prices filed with the Secretary having been made by the respondent prior to the date of hea.rin 0 , the Examiner authorized the counsel for respondent to dictate an answer at the hearing. D-891 Briefs and Written Arguments After a copy of the Examiner’s recommendations as to findings of fact, conclusions, and proposed order were served upon the respond¬ ents on September 12, 1936, counsel for the respondents filed exceptions to the Examiner’s report on October 21, 1936, and on November 27, 1936, said counsel filed amended exceptions which were submitted in lieu of the exceptions previously filed. He e.lso sub¬ mitted a brief in support of the amended exceptions, and appeared before the Secretary and ma.de oral argument on December 21, 1936, D-553, 554, and 555 823 PROCEDURE V Complaint, Inquiry, Petition i When there is no allegation in the complaint that the poultry unloading charges arc unreasonable, the Secretary docs not investigate the reasonableness thereof. D-832 For good cause shown by the complainant, the Secretary ordered that the original complaint, together with all exhibits attached thereto and made a part thereof, be returned to the complainant, and that the file be closed. D-897 An informal complaint in two letters to the Secretary of Agri¬ culture is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the provi¬ sions of the Act in a proceedings for reparation for the alleged breach of contract by the defendants in the purchase of live poultry. D-1015 In a proceedings for reparation, it is proper for the husband of a poultry licensee, who acts as the manager of her business, to file a complaint for reparation in behalf of the poultry licensee wife, D-1190 Consolidation of Dockets and Issues After consideration of the petition of the respondent licensee poultry handlers for a reopening of the case and for a revocation of the previous order of the Secretary and a consolidation of the case with Dockets 573, 574, and 575, the Secretary ordered that the ca.se be aga.in reopened for the purpose of talcing additional testimony, newly-discovered testimony, testimony as to changed conditions, and for any other pertinent and relevant purpose, and tha.t o.ll Dockets 537, 573, 574, and 575 bo consolidated and hoard together and that one order be issued therefor. D-537 PROCEDURE V Consolidation of Dockets cold Issues Dockets 537, 573, 574, and 575 wore concerned with the same issues with respect to the reasonableness and lawfulness of the respond¬ ents rates and charges for unloading poultry, and, it being agreeable to all the respondents that the dockets bo consolidated and that the evidence adduced at the prior hearing in Docket 537 should apply equally to Dockets 573, 574, and 575, and that the issues be determined in one order by the Secretary, the Secretary ordered Dockets 537, 575, 574, end 575 consolidated, D-537, 573, 574, and 575 At the opening of the hearing in Docket No, 553, counsel for the Government moved tha.t the proceedings in Docket No, 553 bo consolidated with those to be held in Docket No, 554 and Docket No, 555, Counsel for the respondent New Jersey Coop Company, Inc,, in Docket 553, who was also counsel for the respondents New York Live Poultry Trucking Company, Inc,, Docket No, 554, end Now York Coop Company, Inc,, Docket No, 555, agreed to the consolidation. By order of the Examiner, the causes were consolidated, D-553, 554, and 555 Where the complaint for reparation and inquiry were based upon the same transaction, both the complainant and the respondent waived further notice end consented to the hearing end disposition of the reparation complaint on the record made in the inquiry proceedings, D-1144 Disqualification for Bias and Prejudice The fact that the Examiner in the reo£>cncd proceedings did not act as Examiner in the original proceedings docs not disqualify him, nothing appearing in the record to support the contention of the respondents, that the Examiner had insufficient knowledge of the proceedings or that he was biased or prejudiced, D-553, 554, end 555 825 PROCEDURE V Exceptions, Tine for Filing Under the applicable rules and regulations, twenty days are allowed within which to file exceptions to the Examiner's proposed findings of fact and order, D Copies of the Examiner's report, which contained findings of fact end recommendations with respect to appropriate orders, wore served upon the respondents end the respondents were ^ivon forty days in which to file exceptions. Upon their request, the-tine for filing exceptions was extended for another forty-day period, ' D c -583 -1146 C C 826 PROCEDURE V Findings of Fact, and Exceptions to After a copy of the Examiner's recommendations as to findings of fact, conclusions, and proposed order was served upon the respond¬ ents on September 12, 1936, counsel for the respondents filed exceptions to the Examiner's report on October 21, 1936, and on November 27, 1936, said counsel filed amended exceptions which were submitted in lieu of the exceptions previously filed. He also submitted a brief 'in support of the amended exceptions, end appeared before the Secretary end made oral argument on December 21, 1936, D-553, 554, and 555 Under the applicable rules and regulations, twenty days are allowed within which to file exceptions to the Examiner's proposed findings of fact and order. D-583 At the time the Examiner's report of proceedings, findings of fact, and recommended order of denial of a poultry license were served upon the applicant, the applicant was notified in writing that it would have twenty days in which to file exceptions to the 'Examiner's findings of fact and proposed order. The appli¬ cant, during that period, filed no exceptions and made no request for an oral argument before the Secretary. The Secretary was, therefore, compelled to enter an order denying the application for a poultry license. D-821; D-840 When the Examiner makes his report which includes his findings of fact and recommended order, and the report is served upon the applicant for a poultry license, and the applicant thkes no exceptions to the recommended order within twenty days after it has been filed with the Secretary, as provided in paragraph 11 of the Secretary's Rules of Practice, the Secretary must then make his findings of fact and order. D-875 Copies of the Examiner’s report, which contained findings of fact and recommendations with respect to appropriate orders, were served upon the respondents and the respondents were given forty days in which to file exceptions. Upon their request, the time for filing exceptions was extended for another forty-day period. D-1146 827 PROCEDURE V Intervention The Secretary denied the petition of the Five Borough Live Poultry Association, Inc,, to intervene in the proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the proposed modified rates and charges of the respondents in rendering coop end trucking services in connection with the sale of live poultry, it appearing that said petitioner is not legally a party in interest to the proceedings, D-553, 554, and 555 At the time of the reopening of the poultry coop and trucking services rate case, the application of certain slaughter house organizations in the City of New York to intervene, on the ground that the members of the association wore licensees under Title V of the Act and were directly affected by the order which became effective on October 1, 1957, was denied by the Examiner on the ground that Title III of the Act does not provide for formal intervention. However, the Secretary did permit the applicants to examine witnesses, it being understood that neither counsel for the respondents nor counsel for the Government would be bound by anything developed by the interveners, D-553, 554, and 555 On June 13, 1940, the Secretary ordered that the petition of certain slaughter house associations, praying for an opportunity for a homing to show why they should be mo.de respondents, and to show v/hy the respondent coop companies should bo permitted a modification of their coop rental .charges to permit them to refund 20/ per coop to the buyers of poultry for each coop rented, be granted, and that a copy of the order be served upon the petitioners and upon the respondents by registered mail and published in the Federal Register, D-553, 554, and 555 828 e PROCEDURE V Oral Arguments before tho Secretary After a copy of the Examiner's recommendations as to findings of fact, conclusions, and proposed order was served upon tho respond¬ ents on September 12, 1936, counsel for the respondents filed exceptions to the Examiner's report on October 21, 1936, and. on November 27, 1936, said counsel filed emended exceptions which were submitted in lieu of the exceptions previously filed. He also submitted a brief in support of the amended exceptions, and appeared before the Secretary and made oral argument on December 21, 1936. " D-553, 554, and 555 Tho applicant for a poultry license supported its application for a license by oral argument. D-563 In connection with the proceeding to determine if the applicant should bo denied a poultry license, tho applicant was permitted to appear before the Secretary in oral argument. D-685 At the time the Examiner's report of proceedings, findings of fact, and recommended order of denial of a poultry license were served upon the applicant, the applicant was notified in writing that it would have twenty days in which to file exceptions to the Examiner's findings of fact and proposed order. The appli¬ cant, during that period, filed no exceptions and made no request for an oral argument before tho Secret;ary. The Secretary was, therefore, compelled to enter an order denying the application for a poultry license. D-821; D-840 The request by the respondent poultry dealer that oral argument before the Acting Secretary of Agriculture be held.in Chicago, Illinois, instead of in Washington was denied. D-921 Rules of Practice Under the applicable rules end regulations, twenty days allowed within which to file exceptions to the Examiner proposed findings of fact end order. one s D-583 829 PROCEDURE V Service of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. Ordered by the Secretary that a copy of the notice? of hearing and order to show cause for application for poultry license be served upon the applicant five days before the date of the hearing, D-532; D-533 On Juno 13, 1940, the Secretary ordered that the petition of certain slaughter house associations, praying for an opportunity for a hearing to show why they should be made respondents, and to shovr why the respondent coop companies should be permitted a modification of their coop rental charges to permit them to refund 20^ per coop to the buyers of poultry for each coop rented, be granted, and that a copy of the order be served upon the petitioners and upon the respondents by registered mail and published in the Federal Register. . D-553, 554, and 555 The notice of hearing and order to shovr cause why the application for a. poultry license should not be denied was served upon the applicant by registered mail. D-558; D-559; D-560; D-561j D-562; D-5S3; D-564; D-600j D-601; D-666; D-667; D-668; D-800; D-801• D-802j D-803j D-804] D-805; D-808; D-809; D-810; D-811; D-812j D-813j D-814; D-815j D-816; D-817 ; D-818; D-820; D-821; D-822; D-823; D-824;' D-825; D-826 j D-827; D-828; D-829 i D-830; D-831 ; D-833; D-854; D-835j D-836; D-837; D-838; D-839; D-840; D-841 ; D-S42; D-843• D-844; D-845; D-846; D-847 ; D-848; D-84'9 j D»850i D-851; D-852; D-855; D-856; D-857; D-858; D-859; TJ-850; D-861; D-862; D-863; D-864j D-865; D-366; D-867 j D-869 ; D-870; D-871 i D-872; D-873; D-874; D-875; D-876; D-877; D-878j D-879; D-880] D-882; D-883; D-884; D-885j D-886; D-887; D-C88j D-889; D-890. It was ordered by the Secretary that a copy of the notice of hearing and order to show cause why the application for a. poultry license should not bo denied be served on the applicant by registered mail or in person, at least five days before the dale of the hearing, D-582; D-583- D-584; D-585; D-586; D-587; D-819. PROCEDURE V Scrvico of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. The Secretary ordered that a copy of the notice of hearing*and order to show cause why a poultry license should not bo granted be served upon the applicant,. at its place of business, not less than five days before the date of the hearing. D-588; D-589; D-590; D-591; D-592; D-593; D-594; D-595; D-596; D-597 j D-598. The Secretary ordered that a copy of the notice of hearing end order to show cause why the applicant should not bo denied a poultry license be served on the applicant not less then five days before date of the hearing. D-604; D-605; D-606; D-607; D-616; D-617; D-618; D-620; D-646; D-647; D-648; D-649; D-650; D-651; D-652* D-653; D-654; D-656; D-657; D-658; D-659. It was ordered by the Secretary that a copy of the notice of hearing and order to show cause why the applicant should not be denied a poultry license be served upon the applicant by registered mail or in person. D-609; D-612; D-613; D-614; D-615; D-621; D-622; D-623; D-624; D-625; D-627; D-628; D-629; D-630; D-631; D-632; D-633; D-634; D-635; D-636j D-637; D-638; D-639; D-640j D-641j B-642; D-643; D-644; D-645; D-661j jj-662; D-865; b-664; b-665; D-705; D-707; D-709; D-710; D-713; D-753; D-757; D-1168. 831 PROCEDURE V € Service of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. It was ordered by the Secretary that a copy of the notice of hearing and order to show cause why the applicant for a poultry license should not be denied be served upon the applicant at his business address by registered mail, D-672; D-673; D-674; D-675; D-676; D-677; D-678; D-681; D-682; D-683; D-684; D-685; D-686; D-687; D-691j D-692; D-693; D-694; D-697; D-698; D-699; D-702; D-703; D-704; D-705; D-712; D-714; D-715; D-718; D-719; D-720; D-723; D-724; D-725; D-726; D-730; D-731; D-732; D-733; D-734; D-736; D-737; D-741; D-742; D-743; D-744; D-7'45; D-747; D-748; D-751; D-752; D-755; D-760; D-761; D-762; D-763; D-768; D-769; D-892 j D-893; D-898; D-901; D-902; D-905; D-906; D-907; D-910; D-911; D-913; D-914; D-917; D-918; D-919; D-922; D-923; D-924; D-925; D-955; D-9 3 6; D-937; D-938; D-939; D-940; D-941; D-944; D-945; D-9 46 ; D-9 52; D-95o; D-9 54; D-9 55; D-961; D-952; D-963; D-964; D-965; D-966; D-967; D-970; D-971; D-972; D-973; D-974; D-9 75; D-984; D-987; D-988; D-989; D-991; D-992; D-993; D-994; D-997; D-999; D-1002; D-1003j D- 1004; D- -1005; D-1008; D-l009; D-lOil; D-l012; D-1028; D-1029; D-1030; D-1031; D-1036; D-1037; D-1038; D-1045; D-1050; D-1051; D-l061; D-l062; D-1075; D-1076; D-1088; D-1089; D-1099; D-1100; D-1116; D-1119; D-1134; D-1135; D-1149; D-1150; D-1196; D-1197; D-1052; D-1053; D-1063; D-1064; D-1077; D-1078; D-1092; D-1094; D-1101; D-1102; D-1122; D-1123; D-l136; D-1157; D-1152; JJ-1153; D-1198; D-1207; D-1013; D-1016; D-1032; D-1033; D-1046; D-1047; D-1054; D-1056; D-1070; D-1071; D-1079; D-1080; D-1095; D-1096; D-1103; D-1104; D-1125; D-1126; • *\ 00 .-o 1 — 1 i-( 1 D-1159; D-1155; D-1171; D-1208; D-1209; D-679; D-680; D-688; D-690; D-700; D-701; D-716; D-717; D-727; D-729; D-738; D-740; D-749; D-750; D-764; D-765; D-903; D-904; D-915; D-916; D-926; D-934; D-942; D-943; D-957; D-960; D-968; D-969; D-985; D-986; D-995; D-996; D-1006; D-l007; D-1026; D-l027; D-1034; D-1035; D-1048; D-l049; D-1057; D-1058; D-1073; D-1074; D-I086; D-1087; D-1097; D-1098; D-1112; D-1115; D-1127; D-1133; D-1140; D-1147; D-1172; D-1192; D-1229; D-1231. The complaint for reparation for a sum for live poultry the defendant was served upon the defendant, under Secti of the Act, sold to on 3 09(a) D-990 832 PROCEDURE V Service of Complaint, Inquiry, etc. A copy of the Examiner's report was served on the defendant at its last known address and was returned marked "out of business". This is considered legal service, D-1248 A copy of the Examiner's report was served on the Agricultural Marketing Service and a copy was mailed to the defendant at his last known address and was returned unclaimed. This constitutes legal service, D-1249 833 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYMENTS V Payments to Carmen Poultry licensee violated the Act by giving tips to carmen or others acting as representatives of shippers. D-1146 KLBATLS ru-jU ILLEGAL PaYI.jENTS V Payments to Truckers A licensed poultry dealer who rendered accounts sale to poultry shippers or owners showing the poultry to have weighed less than it actually weighed, paying the amounts represented by such weight deductions to the truckers of the poultry in order to induce the truckers to deliver the poultry to the licensed dealer in preference to the other licensed dealers, indulged in an unfair and deceptive practice and device in violation of the Act, and was ordered by the Secretary to cease and desist from the continuation of such violations. D-1023 The respondent poultry licensee having admitted that he generally made small payments to truck drivers for delivering poultry to him in preference to other licensees, that in his opinion it was the common practice for Chicago poultry dealers to do so, and that he charged the payments to operation expenses, was found by the Secretary to have engaged in an unfair practice and dovice, since such payments constituted an unnecessary expense and an undue burden upon the handling of live poultry in inter¬ state commerce in Chicago, Illinois, D-1024; D-1025 Payments of small amounts to truckers of poultry by licensed poultry dealers, in addition to their regular transportation charges which are paid by the shipper, to induce the truckers to deliver the poultry to a licensed dealer in preference to other licensed dealers, tends to enhance the competitive struggle for business end add an unnecessary expense to the poultry industry. The amounts involved do not seem to bo the test of whether there is any effect on interstate commerce. Any redded expense on account of the marketing of live poultry directly affects the business, since the interstate business and the intrastate business arc not handled separately. The Secretary found that the making of such payments constituted an unfair practice in connection with the buying of live poultry. L-1025 The respondent poultry licensee having admitted that he has engaged in the unfair end deceptive practice and device of making payments of one—half cent per pound to truckers of live poultry to induce them to sell poultry to him at below the price offered by the highest bidder, the Secretary issued a cease and desist order against such continued violaction. D-1242 835 REBATES AND ILLEGAL PAYIWTS V Payments to Truckers Poultry licensee who induced, a transportation company to deliver live poultry to it for sale by paying the company l/2pf a pound, in addition to the regular drayage charge, violated the Act, as amended. B-1271 Poultry licensee violated the Act, as amended, by making payments of suras of money as gratuities' to transportation agents of live poultry shippers to influence the agents to deliver the poultry to said licensee for sale. D-1282 Payment of gratuities to truckers or transportation agents of shippers of live poultry by poultry dealers or commissionmen is an unfair practice under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended, since shippers of live poultry have the right to have their agent operate free from the influence of persons whose interests are at variance with their own, and since the payments of sums of money as gratuities, in addition to the regular drayage charges, imposes an unnecessary expense and burden upon the handling of live poultry in interstate commerce. D-1282 856 REMITTANCES V A poultry shipper who establishes a course of conduct with a poultry dealer whereby the shipper permits the dealer to issue checks in payment for the poultry upon delivery thereof, and before inspection of the poultry to determine if adjustments should be made, and then later to make adjustments in accord¬ ance with the true condition of the poultry and to stop pay¬ ment on the original check and to forward a new check in the corrected amount, is not entitled to reparation for the full amount of the original check issued by the dealer if it appears that the condition of the poultry warranted the dealer in making an adjustment, stopping payment on the original check and forwarding a corrected check. D-1121 Bad Checks A purchase by the respondent of live poultry in commerce upon the basis.of a cash transaction and the giving of a check in payment therefor, when there were insufficient funds in the bank to meet the check upon its presentation for payment, is an unfair and deceptive device in connection with the purchase of live poultry in commerce and, although the respondent later made arrangements to pay off the amount represented by the check in monthly installments, the Secretary ordered the poultry license of the respondent suspended for a period of thirty days, with the provision-that the suspension should become effective only if respondent should again violate Title V of tho Act within a period of.throe years thereafter. ~ D-608 Poultry dealer who admitted that she paid for poultry purchased by checks which wore in two instances returned unpaid because of insufficient funds was suspended as a licensee for a period of thirty days for having violated Title V of the Act, her explanation that the reason for such conduct was because she had taken sick, had a nervous breakdown, and had to pay the money for physicians' bills instead being unsatisfactory and not sufficient to justify her actions as a poultry licensee. D-608 857 REMITTANCES V Bad Checks Poultry dealer who made payment by bad check for a consignment of poultry engaged in end used on unfair and deceptive practice and device in that it solicited and accepted live poultry in commerce knowing that it was not financially able to meet the obligations incurred in connection with the handling of said poultry, and the Secretary ordered that it mako reparation to the complainant in the amount of the check at Q% per annum from the date of the issuance of the chock, and that it cease and desist from continuing such violation, and the Secretary ordered its license suspended fer a period of six months, D-921 Refusal to Make in Full Poultry licensee engaged in cm unfair and unjust practice and device in the purchase of live poultry when it failed end refused to remit to the shipper the full contract price thcretofor agreed to, but insisted on deducting lpf per pound for handling charges, nothing having boon said in the contract of sale with respect to hcndling charges. D-599 Poultry licensee violated the Act, as amended, by falsely reporting to the shipper that poultry was sold for an amount loss than the actual amount received therefor, resulting in the shipper's receiv¬ ing less, then the actual proceeds due from the sale. D-1255 To Third Persons without Authority A poultry dealer who remits the proceeds from tho sale- of poultry to cm employee of the owner of the poultry, under instructions transmitted by the employee to the dealer, and who has no knowledge of the true owner of tho poultry nor of the relationship between the owner and the employee, cannot to held responsible for repara¬ tion to the owner of the poultry. J-696 838 REPARATION V After Institution of Civil Action In a proceedings for reparation for the payment of a shipment of poultry alleged to be due the complainant from the respondent poultry licensee, the defense that "a letter threatening suit takes away the jurisdiction of the Secretary in this matter" was not allowed by the Secretary. D-1059 The defense in a proceedings for reparation for the failure of the defendant poultry licensee to pay for a shipment of poultry, that the complainant had turned the matter over to its attorney for legal action and that, therefore, the controversy should be settled in court and not before the Department of Agriculture, was held to be of no avail, the evidence clearly showing that no civil action had been filed up to the date of the hearing. D-1059 Complaint for reparation dismissed when satisfaction against defendant was obtained in a state court. D-1151 Against Agent for Compromising Claims without Authority Poultry commission merchant which sold poultry at the market price and thereafter compromised claims of the buyers with respect to the quality of the poultry and agreed to take lesser amounts from the buyers than the agreed price, vd.th.out consulting the shipper of the poultry, held by the Secretary to be liable to the shipper for the difference between the agreed market price and the actual proceeds remitted to the shipper by the respondent* D-552 The act of selling live poultry at and for an ascertainable price, and thereafter allowing a purchaser a deduction and compromising the claim without the knowledge or consent of the shipper is an unfair and deceptive practice and device, and one for which reparation may be awarded. D-552 REPARATION V Damages, Necessity to Provo Eoforo the complainant for reparation for alleged discriminatory unloading charges can bo awarded reparation, he must prove damages resulting from tho alleged discrimination, and the damages recover¬ able are those known to the law and intended as compensation for the injury sustained. ’ D-832 The complainant for reparation for alleged discriminatory amloading charges having failed to prove that it suffered any damages by reason of such charge, the evidence adduced at tho hearing showing that since the complainant has boon paying tho alleged discriminatory unloading charge it has, notwithstanding, enjoyed a substantial profit in its business, tho Secretary dismissed the complaint. D-832 For Breach of Contract "/hen tine is of the essence of a contract for the delivery of a truckload of poultry, the shipper cannot recover reparation for the refusal of the dealer to' accept the poultry if the shipper has violated that provision. D-976 Even though it had been understood from prior dealings between the parties that in shipments of poultry from the complainant to the dealer tho dealer would pay a separate price for Rock fowl, when the defendant contracted orally to take a particular shipment of poultry from, the complainant at specified prices and nothing was mentioned about the Rock fowl which were included in tho particular shipment the defendant was liable to the complainant only for tho price agreed upon for the particular shipment. D-1055 A person who enters into a contract of sale to deliver a number of coops of poultry cannot avoid the legal obligation thereby imposed on the ground that the agreement was made as the result of an erroneous report of the carman as to tho number of pounds of poultry contained in the car, and that the car did not contain a sufficient amount of poultry for delivery in accordance with tho contract. He must deliver in accordance with the contract or pay the damages for any loss which may result from his failure to perform as agreed. D-1144 840 REPARATION V For Broach of Contract t'jhere a buyer orders poultry from a poultry commission man of a certain quality, and the commission man offers delivery of substantially the quality ordered but from a different car than the car from which the buyer thought the poultry was to come, the buyer cannot refuse delivery of the poultry and seek reparation for breach of contract, the buyer having been interested in obtaining a particular quality of fowl and not in obtaining the fowl from a certain con. b-1144 In a proceedings for reparation for the alleged contract price of poultry, the defendant testified that the purchase price of 19/ per pound not, delivered, was agreed upon by the complainant and the defendant by telephone, but the contention of the complain¬ ant that the price was 20/ per pound was corroborated by testimony that the truckman, at the time the poultry was delivered, presented the defendant wdth the complaineu.it r s invoice billing the defendant at 20/ per pound, and the invoice, which vras in the possession of the defendant, was introduced in evidence as Examiner's Exhibit No. 1. From this evidence,-the Secretary found that the contract price for the live poultry in question was 20/ per pound, and the Secretary awarded the complainant reparation for the difference between the amount remitted at 19/ per pound and the contract price at 20/ per pound. D-1183 The complainant for reparation for the alleged failure of the defendant to pay the agreed purchase price for turkeys having failed, to appear ana testify at the hearing on three different occasions, the Secretary ordered that the complaint be dismissed. D-1184 The complainant for reparation for tho alleged failure of the respondent poultry licenseo to pay tho contract price of 17-3/4/ per pound for a load of poultry failed to sustain tho burden of proof of his case when his testimony to the effect that the con¬ tract was made over the telephone was corroborated only by an affidavit of an employee of the complainant to the effect that he had been standing near tho telephone end had heard the com¬ plainant repeat tho price of 17-3/4/ during tho conversation, the evidence of tho defendant being that he nad offered only 16-e/ over the telephone, and the complainant having failed to have the employee who made the affidavit present for cross examination. D-1225 RLPmRATIOlT V For Failure to Pay Poultry dealer who made payment by bad chock for a consignment of poultry engaged in and used an unfair and deceptive practice end device in that it solicited and accepted live poultry in commerce knowing that it was not financially able to meet the obligations incurred in connection with the handling of said poultry, and the Secretary ordered that it make reparation to the complainant in the amount of the check at 6 % per annum, from the date of the issuance of the check, end that it ceaso and desist from continuing such violation, and the Secretary ordered its license suspended for a period of six months. D-921 In the case where the issue was whether the defendant poultry dealer was liable to tho complainant for the payment of poultry at 25/ per pound instead of 24/ per pound, the Secretary found that tho complainant was entitled, to reparation from tho defendant for tho additional 1/ per pound, the defendant having testified that after the complainant said over the telephone, "I have got to have 25/ per pound", the defendant replied, "Let the load go to me." D-1055 The defendant poultry licensee heaving admitted in a proceedings for reparation for the payment of a. shipment of poultry that there should have been some adjustment in connection with the amount claimed, but that he did not know just what the adjust¬ ment should be and did not offer anv additional testimony on «/ 4 / the point, the Secretary ordered the defendant to pay tho reparation in the amount claimed by the complainant within thirty days from tho time of the signing of the order. D-105S A poultry licensee who "makes no defense but merely madccs the statement that she is unable to pay" a claim for reparation for the' purchase of poultry is lia.blc to tho complainant for the amount claimed, and was ordered by tho Secretary to make repa¬ ration within thirty days from the date of the order. D-1067- 842 REPARA1I0IT V For Failure to Pay A poultry shipper who establishes a course of conduct with a poultry dealer whereby the shipper permits the dealer to issue checks in payment for the poultry upon delivery thereof, and before inspection of the poultry to determine if adjustments should be made, and then later to make adjustments in accord¬ ance with the true conditions of the poultry and to stop pay¬ ment on the original check and to forward a new check in the corrected amount, is not entitled to reparation for the full amount of the original check issued by the dealer if it appears that the condition of the poultry warranted the dealer in making an adjustment, stopping payment on the original chock, and forwarding a corrected chock, D-1121 • 'ti/ •* ’ \ Complaint for reparation dismissed when sa.tisfaction against defendant was obtained in a state court, D-1151 In view of the fact that, after the hearing on a complaint for reparation for the balance due on live poultry, the defendant poultry licensee forwarded a check to the complainant in full payment for the amount claimed by the complainant, the Secre¬ tary ordered that the proceedings be dismissed. , D-1167 A stipulation entered into at the hearing between the complain¬ ant and the respondent, which provided that the Secretary would defer auction on the complaint for reparation to give the respond¬ ent an opportunity to pay the poultry indebtedness in question, in accordance with an agreement then existing between the parties, having not been complied with in any respect, the Secretary dis¬ regarded the agreement and entered an order awarding reparation. b-1170 It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the complaint for reparation for an indebtedness due from the sale of live poultry should be dismissed because (l) the claim ha.s been listed by the defendant licensee in bankruptcy proceedings, (2) the claim was not filed with the Department within ninety days from the done the cause of action accrued as required by the Act, the Secretary ordered that the ■proceedings be dismissed. D-1179 84S REPARATION V JFor Failure to Pay The respondent poultry licensee having admitted an indebtedness due from the purchase of poultry and having admitted that he was financially unable to carry on his business, the Secretary ordered reparation for the indebtedness, and a revocation of the poultry license. D-1180; D-1185; D-1191 The claim for reparation having not been supported by evidence at the hearing, the Secretary dismissed it. D-1206 It appearing from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the respondent poultry dealer had purchased live poultry in commerce from the complainant but had failed to pay for same, the Secre¬ tary ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the defendant in the amount due the complainant, with interest thereon at 6 % per annum from the date of the last purchase made by the defendant. D-1217 The evidence adduced at the hearing showing that Colling had a financial interest in the business of the defendant, that he had been making purchases of poultrv regularly for the defendant, and that the defendant did not notify the complainant of the termination of his authority to make such purchases until after the purchases in question had been made, the Secretary ordered that the complainant be awarded reparation against the defendant for the amounts due him from the sale of poultry to the defend¬ ant through the agent. D-1218 The defendant poultry licensee naving stated at the hearing that a small payment had been made on account and that the amount now due the complainant for reparation for poultry sold to the defendant was 870.15, and there being no objection made by the complainant, the Secretary awarded the complainant reparation in the amount of said sum, together with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum, beginning from the fourth day after the poultry in question was delivered to the defendant. . D-1240 Reparation awarded the complainant for balance due from the sale of live poultry to the defendant, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date the poultry was sold to the defendant. D-1248 Reparation awarded to the complainant for the balance due from the sale of live poultry to the defendant, -with interest thereon at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of the sale of the poultry to defendant. D-1249 844 REPARATION V For Remittance to Employee A poultry dealer who remits the proceeds from- the sale of poultry to an employee of the owner of the poultry, under instructions transmitted by the employee to the dealer, and who has no knowl¬ edge of the true owner of the poultry nor of the relationship between the owner and the employee, cannot bo hold responsible for reparation to the owner of the poultry. D-896 For Unfair Practice The respondent poultry deader was held liable for reparation to the complainant shipper for having telephoned the shipper that poultry just received from the shipper was "sick end dying" thereby causing the shipper to accept llpf per pound for the poultry when, in fact, the poultry had gotten wet from rain and had a sickly appearance but was not "sick and dying" end the dealer immediately resold the poultry for 200 per pound at a loss of only four chickens from a total shipment of 540 chickens; the evidence further showing that the official poultry inspector, when he first inspected the chickens in the coops before they were unloaded from the truck, had stated, "This produce will have to be' slaughtered immediately end sold on a no-grade basis", but that the respondent did not reveal that statement to the shipper nor did he reveal to the shipper the full condition of the poultry but said just enough to lead the shipper to believe that the poultry was'in a worse condition than it actually was. D-109G The complainant having appeared at the hearing and stated that a satisfactory settlement to both parties had been reached with respect to the complaint for reparation for the alleged unfair practice of the respondent poultry dealer in securing a shipment of poultry consigned to the complainant, and the defendant having appeared and confirmed the statement, the hearing was closed and the case dismissed. D-1226 845 REPARATION V For Unfair Practice The respondent poultry dealer was held by the Secretary to be legally liable to repay to the complainant ^150 which a partner of the respondent firm obtained from the complainant upon false representations to the complainant that the respondent was then loading poultry to the complainant and was short of money while, in fact, the respondent was not loading poultry to the complain¬ ant nor had ever intended to, the evidence further showing that the partner had apparent authority to sell poultry to the com¬ plainant and receive payment therefor, and that revocation of his authority by the respondent firm had never been brought to the knowledge of the complainant. D-1228 For Unreasonable Shrinkage A poultry licensee who purchased geese from a shipper but refused to permit the shipper to count the geese at the licensee’s place of business, since the weight as made there was considerably less than the weight as made at the point of origin of the shipment, was held by the Secretary to be liable in reparation for the difference in weight less a reasonable shrinkage, there being no explanation advanced by the licensee for the difference in weight. D-1068 Limitation of Time to Seek The defense that the claim for reparation was barred because of not having been filed until flay 14, 1935, 99 days after the poultry had been received by the respondent for sale, was held by the Secretary to be unavailable, it appearing that prior to Larch 10 the complainant was not advised as to the amount due on the carload of poultry and did not have sufficient facts in his possession to enable him to draw a declaration sufficient to warrant presentation of the claim to any court or jury. D-552 REPARATION V Limitation of Time to Seek It having developed, at the hearing that the indebtedness upon which the informal complaint for money due from the sale of live poultry was based had accrued on November 5, 1935, and no payment .had been made within ninety days prior to the date of the filing of the informal complaint, the Secretary dis¬ missed the proceedings because the reparation complaint was not filed within the ninety days statutory period, thus pro¬ hibiting an award of reparation under the Act. D-1092 Measure of Damages The amount of damages awarded by the Secretary to the complainant poultry shipper for reparation, in the case where the respondent poultry dealer induced the shipper by false representations as to the condition of the poultry when it arrived for sale to part with the poultry for 11/ per pound, was the difference between 11/ per pound and 18/ per pound, the evidence showing that the dealer disposed of the chickens at 20/ per pound, that a reasonable profit for the dealer to make in the transaction -was 2/ per pound, and that the shipper had instructed his driver to dispose of the chickens at 18/ per pound if necessary. D-1090 847 RES ADJUDICATA V The evidence adduced at the respondent poultry licensee status as would entitle her case having been considered Secretary ordered that the u hearing having disclosed that the has Railed to maintain such financial to receive a poultry license, but her in a prior docket, Eo. 1189, the inquiry and complaint be dismissed. D-1206 ) 848 SET-OFF V Commissions as Proper Item of A poultry dealer cannot claim commission charges as an offset in a reparation proceeding, on money due a shipper, while, at the same time, claiming to have purchased the poultry, one claim being inconsistent with the other. D-611 Shippers’ Proceeds Subject to The defendant having failed to sustain his defense that he had not remitted for poultry because the complainant had agreed that the proceeds from the sale of the poultry should be applied upon an indebtedness due the respondent by one Max Kapiloff, the Secretary ordered that the defendant pay to the complainant the amount due from the purchase of poultry within five days from the date of the order, together with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of the arrival of the poultry at t the defendant’s place of business. D-1148 849 < ’ STATUTES OF FRAUDS V # Tho Statute of Frauds of a state is not applicable to a petition for an award of damages allegedly resulting on account of a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended. D-976 SUBPOENAS V In a proceedings for reparation, a subpoena was issued for the complainant, but he did not appear at the hearing and his com¬ plaint for reparation was dismissed, D-1206 850J- TARIFFS AIID RATES V Buying and Selling Poultry merchants licensed as dealers under the Act, as amended, are not required to file a tariff with the Department for selling live poultry. . D-1146 Mien a poultry licensee does not engage in the business of handling live poultry on consignment, except on rare occasions, it is not required that his poultry license be worded to cover the selling of live poultry on commission, and he is not required to file a schedule of rates end charges for furnishing such service. D-1190 Coop There is no mathematical formula by which a reasonable allowance for executive and manageric.l services may be determined, but the Secretary must consider all of the evidence of record, determine the duties of the officers of the coop companies and of the truck¬ ing companies, and the importance of each duty; the Secretary must a.lso consider the reasonable risks involved. In arriving at at reasonable amount for the cost of owners T services, including management and risk not o therm sc provided, the Secretary not only considered the evidence of record in a. proceedings to determine the reasonableness of coop and trucking rc.tes and charges, but the Secretary made comporisons of the va.lue of o’.mer services in this particular business with the value of owner services in the stock-- yards and market agency business. D-553, 554, and 555 It would be manifestly unfair to require the shippers of live poultry to pa.y a ra.te high enough to enable the respondent coop companies to pa.y buyers for returning coops after the shippers 1 need for them had cec.sed, in view of the fact that buyers enjoy the use of the coops a.s a facility in the operation of their businesses. D-553, 554, and 555 851 TARIFFS AED RATES V Coop In determining the reasonableness of the respondents’ coop and trucking rates and charges, the reasonableness of the rentals paid by the respondents for the use of certain proper¬ ties is not a specific factor to be considered except as one item of the cost of rendering the service. That reasonable¬ ness is to be determined not from the rental agreements, but as a reasonable return upon a reasonable value of the property in question. D-553, 554, end 555 In determining the reasonableness of the rates charged by the respondents for coop and trucking services, the guide adopted by the Secretary is the reasonable cost of rendering the ser¬ vice. To this end, it is necessary to analyze the expenses incurred for the purpose of determining whether or not they are reasonable. D-553, 554, and 555 In determining the reasonableness of a rate or charge, it is required that the Secretary analyze and consider ail expenses entering into the conduct of the service for which the rates are charged. Existing contractual arrangements upon the basis of 'which expenses are incurred are persuasive as to the reason¬ ableness of those expenses, but the rate-maker is not bound to accept those expenses for rate purposes without some scrutiny or consideration as to whether they are in any respect excessive. D-553, 554, and 555 One of the chief factors to be considered in the determination of the reasonableness o.f respondents’ rates and charges for coop and trucking services is the reasonable cost of rendering the services. Such consideration requires a careful analysis of the expenses reflected by the audits, in order to determine whether, in the light of all the evidence, those expenses one reasonable, and whether, for rate purposes, there are expenses which should be considered in addition to those on the respond¬ ent’s books and records. D-553, 554, and 555 852 TARIFFS AND RAILS V Coot) X. There are three distinct services rendered by the respondents. The New Jersey Coop Company and the New York Coop Company are engaged in furnishing coops on a rental basis. The other two services are cartage and loading, both rendered by the New York Live Poultry Trucking Company. D-553, 554, and 555 The expenses in coop and trucking rc.te cases may bo classed under two general headings: (l) operating expenses, and (2) salaries and expenses of owners. The second classification of expenses is considered separately, after the operating expenses have been analyzed, D-553, 554, and 555 In analyzing the expense items of the Now Jersey Coop Company and New Y.erk Coop Company for the purpose of determining the rca-sonabloncss of their coop rentals, the Secretary considered the two companies as one unit, since both companies "//ere oi'/ned by the same stockholders. D-553, 554, and 555 In determining the capital requirementsobf the respondent coop companies in a proceedings to determine the reasonableness of its coon rales, the Secrota.r^ allowed, the following items: (l) 'forking capital to cover the keeping of c. supply of lumber and nails on hand to build now coops or repair old coops ; (2) working capital from one week ? s labor pay roll; (3) working capital for paying monthly rentals in advance. D-553, 554, and 555 In arriving at the reasonableness of coop and trucking rates end charges, the Secretary allowed as one item of expense o.s a fair rate of return upon the fair value of the property used by the respondents in rendering the services, whether such property was owned or rented by the respondents. D-553, 554, and 555 853 TARIFFS AND RATES V Coop In determining the amount of reasonable capital requirements to be covered into tho rates.and charges of the respondent coop companies, the Secretary refused to allow the following items: (l) an amount for ca.pital investment in coops on hand and in transit, since that item has been covered into on allowance made in the current operating expenses for materiel and lo.bor used in manufacturing and repairing coops; (2) on amount of expense to cover the cost of return of the coops; (3) a separate .allowance for working ca.pital to cover cartage and handling of coops, since on allowance was made for working capital to cover oil transactions of the combined businesses of the respondents, laid it is unnocessarv, therefore, to cover items into this account* which represent mere bookkeeping transactions between the several respondents, even though these transactions may involve cash transfers. D-553, 554, end 555 In determining the reasonableness of coop rates end charges, the Secretarv refused to consider coops as a capital asset, holding that thev one expendible "Property to be reflected in current t/ X o. X o operating expenses. D-553, 554, and 555 The number of coops upon which the respondent coop companies collected rental in 1935, tho year previous to the year in which the proceedings to determine the reasonableness of coop rales was initiated, is o» rco.sono.ble rate factor to bo used in determining tho ad.equo.cy of the coop roles and charges which the Secretary should find to be rea.sona.blc. D-553, 554, and 555 Thu coop and trucking rates and charges made by other companies in Newark, new Jersey; Boston, Aassachusotts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; end Chicago, Illinois, rendering similar services under similar conditions, is a. factor in determining the reason¬ ableness of coop and trucking rales and charges at the Now York market. D-553, 554, end 555 854 TARIFFS AND RATES V Coop In determining tho reasonableness of coop rates and charges, the Secretary allowed the following items as reasonable and proper items of expense of the Few Jersey Coop Company end Few York Coop Company: (l) Carta.gc expenses incident to the return of coops, (2) cost of lumber and nails for the making and repairing of coops, (3) expenses incident to the handling and delivering of coops to designated places, (4) labor ex¬ pended in making and repairing coops, (5) a. reasonable amount to cover legal and auditing expenses, (6) a. reasonable amount for tho rental of properties used by the respondents in the prosecution of their business, based upon a. 6^/ return upon the fair value of the property, (7) fire insurance premiums on coops and lumber, and workmen’s compensation, and public liability insurance, (8) donations which resulted in a direct benefit to the patrons of the respondents or in a. direct benefit through tho improvement of the morale of the em¬ ployees of the respondents who serve the patrons, (S) a. reasonable amount for co.pital stock taxes, (lo) a reasonable amount, for miscellaneous expenses, including' office supplies, postage, etc., (’ll) Cv ror.sona.ble amount for hardware,' sta¬ tionery and printing, electricity, and telephone, (12) rale on the working capital requirements of the respondents, (13) .a reasonable amount for tho cost of owners ’ services, including management and risk not otherwise provided. D-553, 554, end 555 855 TARIFFS AND RATES V Coop In determining the reasonableness of coop rates and charges, the Secretary refused to allow the following items as proper items of cost of rendering the services: (l) Coop rental paid by the Now York Coop Company to the New Jersey Coop Company under an agreement between them, sinco' this' item and the offsetting item of coop income in the Now Jersey Coop Company’s income account may be considered as wa.sh entries in the consolidated accounts of the two companies, (2) small items paid to Bernstein oc Sons, • Inc., prior to the time the contract between it and the New Jersey Coop Company was in force, (o) an. item of 5^ per coop paid by the New Jersey Coop Company to Bernstein-& Sons, Inc., under an agreement for the discontinuation of business of Bernstein A Sons, Inc., and the use of certain property by the New Jersey Coop Company owned by Bernstein & Sons, Inc.., since nothing should be paid to Bernstein .& Sons, Inc., for its dis¬ continuation of business end a reasonable amount was.allowed by the Secretary, based upon 6 -|% of the reasonable va.lue of the property of Bernstein & Sons, Inc., for the use of said property, (4) on item of expense for the good will of the business of Bernstein & Sons, Inc., a company which was performing similar services as the respondents.but sold out to the respondents, no evidence appearing in the record to the effect that Bernstein & Sons, Inc., had any good will dr that, if it did have, it was ever used or valuable to the respondents, (5j .all refunds on coops made to individuals for returning used coops to the re¬ spondents in good condition, since a reasonable rate to bo charged for the rental of coops should not be burdened with an amount paid in the nature of a refund on coops returned, (6) charity and donations to organizations having nothing to do with the welfare of tho respondents’ employees, (7) items of non-recurring expense, since such items arc given consider ac¬ tion in the margin .allowed in the rates, (8) a rca.sono.blc amount for bad debts, since the coop companies kept no record upon which a determination of that kind could be ma.de. D-553, 554, and 555 856 TARIFFS aHD RATES V Coop In making a detormination of reasonable rates and charges for coop and trucking services, the reasonable cost of such services during the previous year affords a guide to determination as to what will constitute present and future reasonable rates end changes. These units of cost arc not to bo allowed blindly, but, in the exercise of an informed judgment, the rate-maker nay allow some variation between reasonable costs and the rates, bee Docket 537 and consolidated cases, in which it was recognized that the reasonable costs for unloading poultry should not be put into effect immediately but that the business should be given time to readjust end liquidate its excess employment problem. Likewise, in the present case, the Secretary proscribed certain reasonable rates end charges for loading poultry, but determined that such rates should not be put into effect immedi¬ ately because of the excess employment problem. D-553, 554, end 555 Buyers of poultry receive .a distinct service from the use of the coops furnished by the respondents for the purpose of watering, feeding, holding, and displaying the poultry in their places of business until it is sold. In point of time, the buyers have more use of the coops than do the shippers. The rental payment for the coops, therefore, should not fall entirely upon the shippers. D-555, 554, and 555 The cost to the buyers of poultry of returning coops to the respondent coop companies was not shown from the evidence to be in excess of the value of the service derived from the use of the coops by the buyers. They should, therefore, be entitled to no refund to cover the cost of the return of the coops. D-553, 554, and 555 TARIFFS AND RATES V Coop For many years prior to October 1, 1937, it had been the custom of the poultry trade to exact frora shippers of live poultry a rate high enough to enable the respondent coop companies to p-y a refund to the buyers upon the return of the empty coops. A trade custora which has stood for many years is entitled to con¬ sideration, but it is not controlling in a proceeding to deter¬ mine the reasonableness of coop rates end changes, especially when there is no evidence that the shippers ever had any voice in the establishment of such a custom. D-553, 554, rnd 555 It is unfair to cover into a charge for coop rental, which is paid by one person, an amount which is paid as a refund to an¬ other person in whose possession the coop eventually resides, in view of the fact that it would seen to be practicable for the respondents to insure the return and preservation of their coops under a deposit arrangement, D-553, 554, and 555 Upon the basis of the reasonable cost and profit found by the Secretary to cover the operations of the coop companies, and upon consideration of the volume of business handled, the Sec¬ retary found that the reasonable cost to the respondent coop companies of furnishing coops in 1935 v/as 46.92/ per coop, and that, therefore, the prevailing rate of 85^/ per coop, with a 20^ refund for .the return of th*e coop, was discriminatory and unreasonable. D-553, 554, and 555 In fixing a reasonable rate and charge for coop service of 50^ per coop, the evidence showing that the rce.sonablc cost of furnishing coop service in 1935 was 46.92^ per 'coop, the Sec¬ retary provided a. margin to cover expenses not theretofore covered as specific items in the reasonable cost of the services, such as income tax, a franchise tax, the old age pension and unemployment insurance tax, and other contingent expenses of a non-recurring character. D-553, 554, and 555 TARIFFS AND RATES V Coop The respondent coop companies arc required to show diligence in protecting their property. They cannot stand by and allow the buyers of poultry to damage the coops and then, with pro¬ priety, pray for an increased rate to fall upon the shipper to alleviate a. condition which their own seeming indifference helped to create. D-553, 554, and 555 The petition of the respondent coop companies to modify their schedule of rates and changes to permit them to discontinue their deposit arrangement on coops, on the ground that the slaughterhouse operators refused to pay the deposits, was denied by the Secretary, the evidence showing that the respond¬ ents had never resorted to legad action or to any other moans of forcing payment of the deposit, but ha.d continued to render coop services softer the rcfusa.1 of the poultry buyers to pay the deposits. D-553, 554, and 555 The petition of the respondent coop companies for a. modification of thu Secrctcny’s order of'August 13, 1937, to eiia.blo then to charge an additionaJ 20^ pur coop for the rontad of coops, and to change the commission men this additional 20^ per coop, in¬ stead of the shipper, was denied by the Secretary, the evidence from the record a.s a. whole showing that the respondents had never properly attempted to put into effect or enforce their deposit arrangement. D-553, 554, and 555 The fact that the respondent coop companies chose to collect some of the empty coops instead of requiring some form of security to insure tho preservation and return of the coops from the buyer does not constitute such a. change of conditions a.s would warrant the further modification of tho original ra.te orders in this proceeding. D-553, 554, and 555 859 TARIFFS AND RATES Feed Charges The respondent Metropolitan Poultry Food Corporation heaving filed o. new tariff of rates and charges fof* poultry food with the Secretary, which provided for a maximum of 25% discount from the posted prices in order to meet competitive conditions, was considered by the Secretary, in view of the peculiar cir¬ cumstances surrounding the operation of respondent’s business, to bo not unreasonable, and the Secretary ordered that a prior order of suspension be held indefinitely in abeyance. D-891 Loading There are three distinct services rendered by the respondents’. The New Jersey Coop Company and the New York Coop Company Eire on gauged in furnishing coops on a rental basis. The other two services are cartage and.loading, both rendered by the New York Live Poultry Trucking Company. L>-55o, 554, and. 555 In determining the reasonable amount to bo allowed per man per car for loading poultry, the font that there are fluctuations in the receipts of live poultry is a factor. D-555, 554, and 5f The terms of contracts with labor unions for services of loaders in loading poultry should not be. taken per so as reasonable, in a proceedings to determine the reasonableness of .poultry load¬ ing charges, but the loading changes should be related in a reasonable manner to the fair and reasonable cost of rendering that service. D-553, 554, and 555 TARIFFS AND RATES V Loading A contract between the respondents and a labor union for the loading of poultry does not present an insurmountable obstacle to the enforcement of the provisions of the Packers and Stock- yards Act, If that were so, the mandate of Congress under the Act, and many other laws, might be frustrated. The reasonable¬ ness of such contracts is a proper subject of inquiry in a pro¬ ceedings of this character where an attempt is being made to determine the reasonableness of charges to be paid by the shippers of live poultry. If there are any uneconomic conditions resulting from contracts or otherwise, those conditions must be analyzed to determine a fair charge for efficient and economic service. This procedure was followed in determining the reasonableness of sim¬ ilar unloading charges in Docket No. 537, and is in accord with the rule laid down in Tagg Bros. & Moorh ead v. United States, 280 U.S. 420. See also Acker et al. v. United States, 298 U.S. 426. " 1V553, 554, and 555 In making a determination of reasonable rates and charges for coop and trucking services, the reasonable cost of such services during the previous year affords a guide to determination as to what will constitute present and future reasonable rates and changes. These units of cost are not to be allowed blindly, but, in the .exercise of an informed judgment, the rate-maker may allow some variation between reasonable costs end the rates, bee Docket 537 and con¬ solidated cases, in which it was recognized that the reasonable costs for unloading poultry should not be put into effect immedi- that the business should be given time to readjust and its excess employment problem. Likewise, in the present case, the Secretary prescribed certain reasonable rates end charges for loading poultry, but determined that such rates should not be put into effect immediately because of the excess employment problem. D-553, 554, and 555 ately but liquidate 861 TARIFFS AND RA.TES V 4 Loading Upon consideration of all of the evidence, the Secretary con¬ cluded that $6 per man per car is a reasonable allowance to be covered into rates for the services of loaders of poultry. D-553, 554, and 555 The proper way to eliminate the service of loading poultry from the tariff of rates and charges of the respondent poultry truck¬ ing company is not by petition to the Secretary to make such elimination, but the proper procedure is for the respondents, if they decide to discontinue such services, to file, an appropriate amendment to their tariffs eliminating the provisions concerning the service. Such an amendment would be a fa.ctor to consider in determining the equitableness of the new rates prayed for in their petition. ' D-553, 554, and 555 Truck In determining the reasonableness of the rates changed by the respondents fer coop and trucking services, the guide adopted, by the Secretary is the reasonable cost of rendering the ser¬ vice. To this end, it is necessary to analyze the expenses incurred for the purpose of determining whether or not they me reasonable. D-553, 554, and 555 862 TARIFFS AH) RATES V Truck There is no mathematical formula by which a reasonable allowance for executive and managerial services may be determined, but the Secretary must consider all of the evidence of record, determine the duties of the officers of the coop companies and of the trucking companies, and the importance of each duty* the Sec¬ retary must also consider the reasonable risxs involved. In arriving at a reasonable amount for the cost of owners’ services, including management and risk not otherwise provided, the Secre¬ tary not only considered the evidence of record in a proceedings to determine the reasonableness of coop and trucking rates and charges, but the Secretary made comparisons of the value of owner services in this particular business with the value of owner ser¬ vices in the stockyards and market agency business. D-553, 554, and 555 / There are three distinct services rendered by the respondents. The Hew Jersey Coop Company and the New York Coop Company arc engaged in furnishing coops on a. rental ba.sis. The other two services are cartage and loading, both rendered by the New York Live Poultry Trucking Company.' L-553, 554, and 555 In making a determination of reasonable rales and charges for coop and trucking services, the reasonable cost of such services during the previous year affords a guide to doterminalion as to arhat mil constitute present and future reasonable rates and charges. These units of cost are not to bo allowed blindly, but, in the exercise of an informed ‘judgment, the rate-maker may all ova some variation between reasonable costs and the rates. See Docket 537 and consolidaled cases, in which it was recognized that the reasonable costs for unloading poultry should not be put into effect immediately but that the business should be given time to readjust and liquidate its excess employment problem. Likewise, in the present case, the Secretary prescribed certain reasonable rates and charges for loading poultry, but determined that such rates should not be put into effect immediately because of the excess employment problem. D-553, 554, and 555 863 TARIFFS A?!D FATES V Truck One of the chief factors to be considered in the determination of the reasonableness of respondents’ rates mid charges for coop and trucking services is the reasonable cost of rendering the services. Such consideration requires a careful analysis of the expenses reflected by the audits, in order to determine whether, in the light of all the evidence, those expenses are reasonable, and whether, for rate purposes, there are expenses which should be considered in addition to those on the respond¬ ents' books and records. D-553, 554, end 555 The expenses in coop and trucking rate cases may be classed under two general headings: (l) operating expenses, and (2) salaries and expenses of owners* The second classification of expenses is considered separately, after the operating expenses have been analyzed. D-553, 554, and 555 In determining the reasonableness of the respondents’ coop and trucking rates and charges, the reasonableness of the rentals paid by the respondents for the use of certain properties is not a specific factor to be considered except as one item of the cost of rendering the service. That reasonableness is to bo determined not from the rental agreements but as a reason- able return upon a reasonable value of the property in question. D-553, 554, and 555 In arriving at the reasonableness of coop and trucking rates and charges, the Secretary allowed as one item of expense 6^0o as a fair rate of return upon the fair value of the property used by the respondents in rendering the services, whether such property was owned or rented by the respondents. D-553, 554, and 555 864 TARIFFS AMD RATES V i Truck Readiness to serve and efficiency of service are factors to consider in determining the reasonableness of poultry trucking rates and charges. D-553, 554, and 555 The coop and trucking rates and charges made by other companies in Newark, New Jersey; Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Chicago, Illinois, rendering similar services under similar conditions, is a factor in determining the reason¬ ableness of coop end trucking rates end charges at the New York market. D-553, 554, and 555 In determining the amount of' depreciation to be allowed on the trucking equipment of tho holding company renting trucks to tho respondent trucking company in a rate ca.so, under the circum¬ stances the experience of the holding company wa.s found to bo tho best test of the requirements for depreciation expense, and it was found that the expense account of the holding company covering repairs and maintenance, in addition to tho amount set up for depreciation, adequately provided for the expenses in¬ cident to the wear, torn, and replacement of trucks. D-555, 554, and 555 The Secret any allowed to tho respondent trucking company an item of *16,000, upon the basis of the evidence, as a reason¬ able amount for working capital. D-553, 554, and 555 865 TARIFFS AND RATES V Truck In determining the reasonable cost for the rendering of trucking and cartage service by the Few York Live Poultry Trucking Company, the Secretary allowed as reasonable the following items of oxpen.se: (l ) expense of labor for a foremen, and chauffeurs and drivers, and salaries of bookkeepers; (2) expenses for gifts to employees at Christmas time, changeable to live poultry; (3) expenses for the daily rental of trucking equipment from a holding company owned by the respondents, since it appeared from all the evidence that the rental charge was no higher than a. Qjf/o return on the fair value of the trucking equipment investment of the holding company; (4) an amount of $20 per day rental for the hiring of trucks for cartage services during the peak seasons, which rental included the services of chauffeurs; (5) a reasonable allowance for the adjustments and corrections of bills rendered for trucking ser¬ vices; (6) a reasonable amount to cover loss due to the break¬ down of coops; (7) a reasonable amount for accounting expense; (8) a. reasonable amount for miscellaneous expenses; (9) a reason¬ able amount for donations and charity, which directly or indirectly benefit the patrons or employees of the company; (10) a reasonable amount for ferriages; (11) return on the working capital re¬ quirements of the respondent; (12) a reasonable amount for bad debts; (13) a reasonable amount for the cost of owners’ services, including management and risk not otherwise provided. D-553, 554, and 555 From consideration of all the evidence, the Secretary found that there was no discrimination in the present method of the respond¬ ent trucking company in assessing the cartage charge, and that the provisions for a courtage charge for hauling live poultry from the terminals to the Host Washington Market, even though the poultry should be trucked from the terminal directly to the slaughterhouses by the buyer, was, under the circumstances, not unreasonable. D-553, 554, and 555 863 TARIFFS AMD RATFS V Unloading The problem presented in the case for determining the reason- ableness and lawfulness of rates and charges for unloading poultry is not the scene as that which is presented in the ordinary public utility proceedings where the rates and charges are based largely upon a fair return upon the fair value upon property found to bo used and useful in the rendition of ser¬ vices for which rates are being prescribed, but tho problem is similar to that which has been boforc the Secretary in cases t/ involving tho rates and charges for the services of market agencies engaged in buying and selling livestock on a commis¬ sion basis at public stockyards (see Tagg Bros, and Moorhead v. United States, 280 U.S. 420j G. If. Acker doing busi ness a.s C t H. Acker & Company v. United States et al 298 U.S. 426). The standard of reasonableness adopted in those ca.scs was that the rates should be high enough to pay all reasonable costs of rendering the service, plus a. reasonable profit to cover manage¬ ment and risk. In determining the reasonable cost and profit, it is necessary to analyze the business from the standpoint of economical and efficient conduct of the service. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 867 TARIFFS AND RATES V Unloading In tho application of the test for reasonableness of poultry unloading rates, the actual performance of the unloaders does not furnish a reliable test of the reasonable cost of the labor to be covered into a. reasonable charge for unloading to be paid by those ■who receive that service. The rule of the labor union creates an artificial situation in that it limits what work a. man may do, even though ho could normally do more work. Tho to fix a wage. approach to the problem here is not an attempt but is rather to determine, as nearly as possible, a charge for a service which is fair to both those who render the ser¬ vice and to those who receive that service. The duty of the Secretary to determine the reasonableness of the existing rates and charges requires that the labor situation be analyzed from the standpoint of its normality and that a sufficient amount bo covered into a. reasonable cost to pay for the necessary labor when utilized economically and efficiently. -s- - py 537 ^ 573 ^ 574j CJld 575 In determining the reasonableness of poultry unloading rates and charges, tho problem of the Secretary is to find what are reasonable costs to be included in the charges assessed by the respondent contractors for unloading live poultry from cars. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 The rates and charges for unloading poultry under consideration in these dockets are the rates and charges made by the contractors. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 The cost of major importance to be included in charges assessed for unloading poultrv in New York City is that incurred from the actual labor performed by tho unloading gangs. In reaching a conclusion on this question, it is necessary to associate a reasonable performance with a reasonable wage for tho service of unloaders. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 868 TARIFFS AM) RATES V Unloading In determining the reasonableness of poultry unloading charges at New York City, the Secretary considered an analysis made by a Govern c:it accountant of all items of expense on a por-car unit basis, and the Secretary allowed reasonable items of expense to be included in connection with a. reasonable charge for unloading a car of poultry. D-557, 575, 574, end 575 Expense items of non-recurring character, such as expense grow- ing out of a disputed interpretation of a labor contract, were not allowed by the Secretary as separate items of expense in the unloading of poultry, but they were tele on into consideration in the spread allowed between reasonable cost and the rates pre¬ scribed, that allowance being sufficient to compensate the contractors for managerial ability end the incidental risks which may be incurred. D-537, 573, 574, end 575 Donations expense was not allowed as a separate item in the fixing of a reasonable cost for unloading poultry, since such expense was not required for business-getting or business- maintenance purposes. D-557, 575, 574, and 575 In determining the reasonable items of cost to be considered in the fixing of a reasonable charge for unloading poultry, the Secretary included the following: office management, office salary, automobile expense, telephone, rent, office expense (miscellaneous), stationery and. printing, bank servi.ee charges, insurance premiums for insurable risks, labor, managerial ability, and incidental risks. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 8S9 TARIFFS AND RATES V Unloading The Secretary found no evidence in the record which would warrant the finding of different rates for the different contractor re¬ spondent:: for unloading live poultry in New York City and Jersey City, New Jersey. The conditions under rendered led him to the conclusion that charge. iMew io] 'which the service is there should be a uniform D-537, 575, 574 aid 57 5 The rates for the services of unloading should not be maintained at a level which will afford a living to all those who wish to engage therein, if the business does not normally require the services of all those who are so engaged. It would not be fair to producers and consumers to attempt to solve the unloaders 1 problem by increasing the rabe. D-557, 573, 574, and 575 The Secretary found from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the respondents ’ rates end charges for unloading poultry, then on file with the Secretary, were unjust, unfair, end dis¬ criminatory, end he fixed the reasonable charge to be $36 per con, with the provision, however, that slightly higher rates would be allowed until c. reasonable time had been given the contractors to adjust their surplus labor difficulties. D-537, 573, 574, and 575 When there is no allegation in the complaint that the unloading changes one unreasonable, the Secretary does investigate the reasonableness thereof. poultry not D-832 TARIFFS, PROPER METHOD OF CHANGING V The proper way to eliminate the service of loading poultry from the tariff of rates end charges of the respondent poultry trucking company is not by petition to the Secretary to make such elimination, but the proper procedure is for the respondents, if they decide to discontinue such services, to file an appropriate amendment to their tariffs eliminating the provisions concerning the service. Such an amendment would be a factor to consider in determining the equitableness of the new rates prayed for in their petition. D-553, 554, and 555 ft 871 ■ m-x 1 ■ . 1 ' ■ )' ■ ' € TITLE V Title to poultry passes to the buyer at the moment made by the commission merchant and the poultry is %J JL t/ to the buyer * a sale i delivere D-552 872 flj CO . . / . 1 MSB M / ■ w 1 .. - r - * . : ■ v \ ' TRADE CUSTOMS V » A trade custom which has stood for many years is entitled to consid oration, but it is not controlling in a proceeding to determine the reasonableness of coop rates and charges, especially when there is no evidence that the shippers ever had any voice in the establish¬ ment of such custom* D-553, 554, and 555 A poultry shipper who establishes a course of conduct with a poultry dealer whereby the shipper permits the dealer to issue checks in payment for the poultry 7- upon delivery thereof, and before inspection 'of the poultry? - to determine if adjustments should be made, and then later to make adjustments in accordance with the true conditions of the poultry and to stop payment on the original check and to forward a new check in the corrected amount, is not entitled to reparation for the full amount of the original check issued by the deader if it appeals that the condition of the poultry warranted the dealer in making an adjustment, stopping payment on the original check, and forwarding a corrected check* D-1121 It is a custom of live poultry 7- commission merchants or receivers in Newark, Now Jersey, to sell live poultry on credit for a period of from one to two weeks. While payment for the previous week’s pur¬ chases is generally a condition precedent to securing additional credit, it frequently happens for various reasons that the credit period may be extended for two weeks or longer. D-1176; D-1178 It is the custom of live poultry? - commission merchants in Newark, Now Jersey, to sell live poultry? - on credit for a period of from seven to ton days. The business done on a. cash basis is practically ncgligible. While payment for the previous week’s purchases is generally a. condition precedent to securing additional credit, it frequently happens for various reasons that the period may.be extended for as long as two weeks. D-1177 873 WITNESSES V Examination or Cross-Examination of Opportunity for cross-examination of the Government accountant was offered to Eranzel, the applicant, but ho refused to avail himself thereof. D-519 At the time of the reopening of the poultry coop and trucking services rate ca.se, the application of certain slaughterhouse organizations in the City of New York to intervene on the ground that the members of the association were licensees under Title V of the net and wore directly affected by the order which bee suae effective on October 1, 1957, was denied by the Examiner on the ground that Title III of the Act does not provide for formal intervention. However, the Secretary did permit the applicants to examine witnesses, it being under¬ stood that neither counsel for the respondents nor counsel for the Government wou'J d be bound by anything developed by the intervenerso D-553, 554, and 555 At the order of inquiry to determine if the respondent poultry licensee was financially unable to carry on his business, the respondent appeared- at the hearing in person and was afforded the opportunity of cross-examining the Government's witness and of testifying in his own behalf. D-1173 874 WITNESSES V Respondent Failing or Refusing to Testify, Significance of x O O * O In the case where the testimony adduced at the hearing indicated that the respondent was guilty of the boycott action.ties alleged in the complaint, it was significant that the respondent did not take the witness stand and testify, and while it might have been true that the respondent we„s sick at the time of the hearing, yet his counsel submitted no motion to take his deposition. D-854 875 . : ** •* -• :•» !,-q£'TODH "v. ; ‘ ' , ■J .4: i - ; * I • . Dooket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page H, 14 : 1 •», 31,3 3.S r7x \ ^ i >3,51, fe 4 1 Armour A Co. et al. T.P. II 4-15-22 8-30-22 CAD fcS-fcfc 72,83,87.68^3, St, S7, S8 ST.V08, *0^331,^4, 2 Stewart, Carson, MoCormack CO • 61 *1 e Boycott III 3- 3-22 4-15-22 CAD 2SS, 340,344.34-3; 351,448.440 5 W* E* Hilton ft Ail* Comm. Ohges. III 3-13-22 4-29-22 Fix Rates 21,(SO, 114,184,185,151. 4 The Belt RR A Stookyarda Co. Com Chge III 3-18-22 4-15-22 Dismiss 2feS.,l«S,3#l.V>tS,l.7fe 6 The Peoria Union Stook Yards Co. Reweigh Rates III 6- 8-22 6-30-24 CAD-ARM- IS0,111.l8r 353.4-38,44-1 417. 3(.4,S83.S8fe,59-n, oept for b1S.fe18MV,lO| repar feature 4-16-30 Repar dismiss 8 Edison-Hopkins Co. et al. Coma ohge III 6-26-22 8-26-22 Fix Rates ae s-. 1,70V 9-14 Amerioan National Live Stook Assn, et al. Comm rate III 2-28-23 1-26-30 Dismiss IBS’; 154-.4.T3 15 American Commission Co. et al. Comm rate III 10-30-22 3- 3-26 Dismiss 18S.34S, 16 The Union Stookyards A JJo Order Transit Co. of Chioago Corn ohges III 11-20-22 a«s,fc»i,u 8 i 17 The Milwaukee Stookyards Co. Com ohges III 11-20-22 12-28-22 Dismiss aas,i$s, 431 . 1 . 44 . 18 Nashville Union Stookyards, Ino. Ydge ohges III 1-23-23 2-21-23 Dismiss tar, 3oi,»5S ; (.?i,t7v 19 Amour A Co. et al. Merger II 2-17-23 9-14-26 Dismiss 41, S1. S 7,4.4-i fcT.70,71,7 2. ,8 2,S 0. 34.S7.S4.8 20 The East Tennessee Stook- yards of Knoxville Feed ohges III 3-16-23 4- 4-23 Dismiss ItT, 368,(,85.(.11 21 The Newark Stookyards of 3se,U.s. fe7| Newark, N. J. Peed ohges III 3-23-23 4-11-23 Dismiss 22 (Not assigned) * 23 Seattle Union Stookyards • Company Feed ohges III 3-30-23 5-11-23 Dismiss ^a' S0OlJ0iL 3S8 ' tfcU 't7l( 24 The Pittsburgh Union Stook- yards Co. Com ohges III 6-29-23 6-25-27 Dismiss tl8,2fefc 1 l«S’;3U,Sll,3Sa ; So2,tCA tie 25 The Miohigan Central RR Co. Feed ohges III 6-26-23 1-30-26 Dismiss Mg;ll4.tt(. 1 18S-,3SS % S78,(.M,felt.t- l8 208,1(4,244,18 S', 333 . S78.4,3(. t,T2.- fell 26 New York Central RR Co. Feed ohges III 6-26-23 1-30-26 Dismiss 27 Charles H. Shurte T.P. III 6-27-23 9-29-23 CAD 28 Prouty Commission Co. T.P. III 9- 7-23 12-29-23 CAD 29 Peroy Vittum A Company T.P. III 9- 7-23 1-3-24 CAD n<- : l77 ; lS(, 284,355.4-78, S Ho, 30 W. U. Campbell Commission Co* T.P. III 9- 7-23 10-2-23 CAD 2SI,284.3SS 31 Chandler Kost A Company T.P* III 9- 8-23 10-2-23 CAD 251, 288,300,355,5(0, 32 So. St. Paul Commission Co. T.P. III 9- 8-23 1-50-24 CAD 2S2,181, 300,355 SIS , SI 8 . 33 (Cancelled) 34 (Reissued as D. 37) 2SI,184,300 ISS 36 Smith-Burrows Company T.P. III 9- 8-23 10-2-23 CAD 38 United Commission Co. T.P* III 9-12-23 6- 9-24 Dismiss 247,184,335 37 C. L. Kaye A Sons, Ino. T.P. III 10-8-23 1-30-24 CAD 177 18 fe,300,355,507. SUo, 38 Sol Hartman, dba No Order Hartman Commission Co. T.P. III 12-12-23 na,18fe;355 39 Alexander, Conover A Martin Bros, et al. Boycott III 10-13-23 4-19-24 CAD 3.13- 32 ,(12 130,218.,315\3lfe, Producers Co-operative 10-13-24 CAD 33T,33S,34V-34S, 34|;lSb : 4-4-8;4fe5 ; 4-8S,444,s«0,<.$fe,fes?- 40 Commission Assn. T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 8-24 CAD 2S8- 264 354 41 Meeks, Boren A Thompson, Ine . ».P. III 10-18-23 2- 8-24 CAD 238 284,364 42 National Livestook Comalssion Company T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 6-24 CAD tS6 v 28fe,35fe, 43 The Greene Embry Company T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 8-24 CAD 2S2,156,184., 3SS. 3 54.510; 44 The Shippers Commission 256,184,.35b Company T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 8-24 CAD 46 A. E. Bower, dba Bower and Bower T.P. III 1- 31-24 4-23-24 CAD 252,184.354. S lO 46 Benstead, Bryans A Co., a Partnership T.P. III 10-23-23 2-14-24 CAD 2S2,2S8 { 2 ftfe 3S4. 4SS, 510: 47 48 J. E. Gibbons A J. C. Carnes Rogers A Amundson Commission T.P. III 11- 3-23 6-14-23 CAD t,5 > zsz . 2 8 Company T.P. III 11- 3-23 3-20-24 CAD 252, 253,184.,3 00 ;35fc.S lO; 49 Drovers livestook Commission Company T.P. III 11- 5-23 6-26-24 CAD 1IT250; 253. 28b,3SL,4-82.,S21. Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Iiabtr Respondent of Case of Aot Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 50 Mollssiok, Aloorn & Magnus Z44 ; Z?l : 2S*..£fcV2.»A l 3St ; So:t-,SiO SZ-I, Company T.P* III 11-8-23 2-23-24 CAD SI Independent Conmission Company, a oorp. T.P. III 11-22-23 2-23-24 CAD ts-v.i.eb.asb 52 Fanners Union Livestock Commission, a oorp. T.P. III 1- 6-24 3-15-24 Dismiss 2S3 5 07 .508:^10. 63 Shannon A Farrell, a Partnership T.P. III 12-26-23 4-30-24 CAD ‘74.i*«W..iS3 l 2se.l8fc.3°0,3S-i 1 4yi 1 4S* 111' l *V *■ S 2..2 , 3 / 0 . sn. 64 John P. Brueemer T.P. III 1- 1-24 6-12-24 CAD 66 Joyce Conmission Company T.P. III 1-19-24 2-28-24 CAD rw.iS5L-is6.zew3s<.,.s7o. 56 Newark Stockyards of Kearney, N. J. ] Feed ohges III 11-30-23 12-6-24 Dismiss 2fcfc;2Bsr.3S7;bbbtl2 57 Central Cooperative Cobh* mission Assn., a oorp* T.P. III 1- 7-24 9-22-24 Dismiss 24VZab.357.4tfe 68 J. K. Newturn, formerly dba McCall, Newturn A Joyce T.P. III 12-20-23 2-14-24 CAD 252.256, 2gb,3S5\4S8 SiO; B2b 59 Campbell-Reid A Western Sales Stable Company T.P. III 12- 6-23 12-31-23 Dismiss li* i 2(.7,28(. i 3S7 60 Bevies Livestock Cosmdssion Company, a oorp. T.P. III 12-21-23 6 - 2-24 CAD 237,24b.252,253.258,28fa3SbSiO 61 The Jersey City Stookyards Company, Jersey City, N.J . Stookyard servioes III 12- 7-23 12-10-23 Dismiss 2 U.,tar. is 7 62 Graves, Nave A Company, a partnership TJ». III 12-21-23 2- 6-24 CAD 252,2 53 ; 2.58,tav3St> S IO; 527 63 Rice Brothers, a oorp* T.P. III 12-30-23 1-31-24 Dismiss 2U7.l6fc.3s7 64 D* C. Kitselman, dba Mitselman Conmission Co* T.P. III 12-31-23 4-11-24 CAD 2 54,28(.,356 65 Cliff Warriok, dba Sioux City Livestock Comm. Co* T.P. III 12-31-23 2- 8-24 CAD 252 : 2afc-3S5.£l0; 66 Wood Brcs. A Company, a oorp.T.P* III 1- 4-24 1-24-24 Dismiss 25fe.2fc7 ; lfefc ; 357 67 Louis Lyons et al. T.P. III 1- 9-24 1-30-24 CAD 2S3 ; 2 Bfc-3 55 ; 327 68 Joe S. Taylor A Company, a partnership T.P. III 1- 9-24 1-30-24 CAD 252.28b; 3sr ; 3/0- 69 Seth M. Lorah T.P. III 1- 9-24 1-30-24 CAD 2 52,253,2 8b-.3 55; 3/0; S2T 70 A* 0. Bennett, dba Bennett Conmission Company T.P. III 1-11-24 1-30-24 CAD 2 52,2.8b, 355.5 • 0; 71 Abe Burnett A Co*, a oorp. T.P. III 1-11-24 4- 9-24 CAD 2tfc; 354,SOfe 72 Coburn, Sohwab A MoMaster, a partnership T.P. III 1-11-24 1-30-24 CAD 252,254-.2S7 i 28b;3S5.«08 1 SIO-.S/l: 73 Con Kuokler, dba Fanaers Conmission Co. (No formal Docket made) 74 Gish, Carmichael A Co., a partnership T.P. III 1-11-24 1-30-24 CAD 241.252.,28b ; 3SS;SlO. 75 Gillespie, Clark A Beok, a partnership T.P. III 1-11-24 2-19-24 CAD 264- ; 28b3Sb 76 Farmers Educational A Co- operative State Union of Nebraska T.P. III 1-11-24 8-27-24 CAD 2tb.3S7;50ft:Sn, 77 Peoples Co-operative Sales Agenoy, Ino* T.P. III 1-16-24 6-18-24 CAD 177; 28b.358; 486,4-afe ; sn.bil 3 78 Hugh Middlesmorth, dba Middlesvorth Comm. Co. T.P. III 1-25-24 8-27-24 CAD 2S2.2SS.28b;3Sfc,S»0;S2a , 79 Sioux Livestock Commission Co* et al* Cc®m. ohges III 2- 6-24 No Order 28b 80 Southern Stookyards Corp. T.P. III 2-20-24 8-27-24 CAD 174-. H S, 2 51.2 Bb; 356.4-S7,4fcl4-,LT1 33 Barefoot Livestock Conmission Co* et al. Comm rates III 2-29-24 1-26-30 Dismiss 2«S;3S« 84 The Belt RR Stookyards Co* Vaooina rates III 3-10-24 6-24-24 Fix Rates 2BT,3S8.4bS;S7i,bl4..bq o 86 John Clay A Company, m 2l8,2tb,3S6 partnership T.P. III 3-20-24 6- 3-25 Dismiss 86 Frank P. Clark, dba Holmes A Clark T.P. III 3-20-24 5-24-24 CAD 148,28b; 358 87 Nashville Union Stookyards, Ino. Corn ohges III 3-31-24 9-14-26 Dismiss 2«K 35® 4fcb 88 Farmers Bduoational A Co- operative State Union of Nebraska T.P. III 3-31-24 8-27-24 CAD 171,243; 247 24#.2S0 2 SS 254 2 8b. 3S1 ; 5l8.SSl 877 Dpoket Number Respondent Nature of Case Title of ftot Date of Inquiry Date of Order Digest of Case Order Appears Under Page 1 89 H. S. Whaley, dba Rio* ft Whaley Co. T.P. III 5-51-24 5-16-25 C^D *ss.tec,ass>s*r 90 Produoeri Co-op*rati t* Cemission Assn. T.P. III 5-51-24 7-12-24 CftD 257,284,354 91 Staoy, Bament ft Beadle, Ino. T.P. III 5-51-24 5-16-26 CAD 2SS,2S9,264,356 92 The Pam*rs Onion Liv* Stook Conmdssion of South St. Louis, Ho. T.P. III 2-25-24 9- 5-24 Dismiss I8S,225,287.3S7..$S2;486 95 C. F. Hoble, dba Coulbourn ft Noble T.P. III 4- 5-24 6-27-25 Dismiss *47,284,3*8 94 C. J. Rio* T.P. III 4- 5-24 4- 8-24 C&D 25*,244- i 284.334,4S0 95 Fam*rs Educational ft Co¬ operative State Onion of Nebraska T.P. III 4- 8-24 8-27-24 CftD 177.284,357,518; 96 Farmers Sduoational ft Co¬ operative State Onion of Nebraska T.P. III 4-15-24 8-27-24 C&D 177,2.84,359,510, 97 The Onion Stockyard ft Transit Co. T.P. III 4-12-24 4-50-26 Repar 287,323,591,340,415, S03:54-9;S48.48C 98 Donahue Bros., Ino. T.P. III 4-25-24 11-21-24 C&D 259.284,340,4-54,4-8S.S30;SS8 99 Ransom, Mansfield ft Co., a partnership T.P. III 4-25-24 5-16-26 C&D 254,259 ,2. 84,340.447 100 8aope, Hughes, Haiti ft Benstead Commission Co., a oorp. T.P. III 4-25-24 5-16-25 CftD *46,254,257,* 8 4,354 101 Central Cooperative Cosmds- aion Assn., a oorp. T.P. III 7- 5-24 10-17-26 Dismiss 247,284,358,4-47;4-49..48A;A90; 102 The Hubbard, Hausa ft Ragsdale Co., a oorp. U. III 4-25-24 6-29-24 C&D 252,253,240,2.84,354,4-55 IQt Hsilbron ft Loeb, a partner¬ ship T.P. III 4-25-24 8-27-24 C&D 24o ; ls4j3S(>-A s ® 104 8t. Joseph Livestock Coanis- sion Co., a partnership T.P. III 4-50-24 8-27-24 C&D 244-. 24-8.240,284; 3 54,440 106 William G. Gross, dba Christian Gross ft Bro. T.P. III 5- 2-24 7-12-24 Dismiss 248,284.340 106 Port Worth Stockyards Co. Bond III 5- 5-24 5-15-26 Dismiss 122,248,287,39 0 107 Williamson ft Devnis, a oorp. T.P. III 5- 6-24 9- 5-24 C&D 178,284,344-, 340.341 108 Equity Co-operative Livestook Sales Assn., Ino. T.P. III 5-24-24 6-14-24 C&D 284,356,500,509, 109 Delaue Livestock Commission Co. T.P. III 5-24-24 2- 9-26 Dismiss 287,350 110 Rational Livestock Commis¬ sion Co. Tl. III 5-24-24 2- 9-26 Dismiss 284.350 111 Hun sake r Live stook Consul s- sion Co. T.P. III 5-24-24 2- 9-26 Dismiss 284,350 112 Fisher Live Stock Consulsslon Co. T.P. III 5-24-24 2-9-26 Dismiss 285; 35 e> 115 H. T. Gant, dba Gant Live¬ stock Consnission Co. T J*. III 5-24-24 8-27-24 C&D 2 84.333,34-2.34\ 114 St. Joseph Stook Tards Co., So. St. Joseph, Ho. T.P. III 6-19-24 10-29-24 Dismiss 248,28 5-.3 S0 116 B. R. Wilkerson TJ*. III 6-15-24 8-27-24 C&D 284.34). sat, 116 St. Paul Onion Stockyards Co. Rates ft ohges III 7-11-24 6-17-27 Dismiss 224-,2U9j 285\310. 341.44*,490 4-95 sfcB,3-j*,s84;42z: • * 1 • 117 New York Stook Yards Co. T.P. III 7-12-24 8-27-24 CftD 287.342,457 U8 C. C. Seal, dba C. C. Seal Commission Co. T.P. III 7-12-24 11-6-24 C&D 2S4,240,284,354 327.520, 119 L. J. Budde Commission Co., a partnership T.P. III 7-12-24 8-27-24 C&D 241,284, 354 120 Norris Brook Co., a partner¬ ship T.P. III 7-12-24 8-27-24 CftD 253,24l,284 ; 3544s4 121 The Crawford Commission Co., a corp. T.P. III 7-12-24 8-27-24 CftD 284,354 122 The Nifong Consnisalon Co. Coma ohges III 7-21-24 Consolidated with its 34Z.,vt0 125 The Independent Livestock Commission Co. Consn ohges III 7-21-24 Dooket No. 152 Consolidated with 288.342,4.70 124 J. E. Davis Livestook Com¬ mission Co. Comm ohges III 7-21-24 Dooket No. 152 Consolidated with 28S, >42,*.7& 126 Henry Pox T.P. III 7-29-24 Dooket No. 12-6-26 152 CftD 284,354,4-S0 4-40 126 Myers ft Housman, a oorp. T.P. III 7-29-24 12-1-24 Dismiss 177,241,2U9.286-35B 4-49 127 Samuel Sundhelmer T.P. III 7-29-24 10-15-24 Dismiss 249,2 84.35 0.4-49,310, - 878 - Docket Hvnber Respondent Hature of Case Title of Act 128 Waitt A Lake Console don Co., a partnership T.P. III 129 J. H. Baugher 4 P. Hasel- hurst, dba E. A. Blackshare A Co. T.P. III 150 Theodore B. Landis T.P. III 151 Hewark Stock Yards, Kearney, H. J. Corn A Hay ohges III 152 Alexander, Conover A Martin et al. Conn ohges III 155 Amour A Co. of Illinois et al. Monopoly II 154 J. L. Bush T.P. III 155 If. H. Becker, dba Becker Commission Co. T.P. III 156 American Livestock Commis- sion Co. et al. Boycott III Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page 8-29-24 1-22-25 Dismiss i-n.xQCOsa 8- 29-24 9- 5-24 5- 5-25 11-21-24 Dismiss CAD 2C9.28fe 35ft 2M ; 2C1.2ft4...331 9-24-24 10-1-24 Dismiss 2b4 ; 2 a ST, 3 4> 1. (»tq . bl 2- 10-10-24 1-25-50 Dismiss ass. sea. 4-ao.soo. 10-14-24 1-22-25 Dismiss SS.SI.ISL 11-21-24 1-15-25 CAD 288.3b2..Sl4-.S2S. 1-15-26 5-15-26 CAD Z8b ; 33&.342..,33t 5-18-26 5-51-26 CAD 13b;2lft.,2b9.28ft.32b;334.34q 3b3 4-4ft,41048’4- ; 4S5 157 L. Levy, dba L. Levy Live¬ stock Commission Pur- ohasing Co. T.P. III 6-29-25 11-25-25 Dismiss i 56 .,no..iet.J 3 s. ise> 158 John L. McHugh Insolvency III 6-30-25 10-31-25 Suspen 28e,sfcv3 ft 145 James Kane Insolvency III 2- 3-26 9-13-27 Dismiss 270.18ft. 3S8 146 Morris Fromson T.P. III 2- 6-26 3-12-26 CAD-Suspen 288,332.316.4.31 147 Flynn Commission Co. et al. Comm ohges III 3- 3-26 1-25-30 Dismiss 2«S\ 303 3S8.4-ftO.SOO. 148 Joseph C. Coates T.P. III 3-11-26 10-11-26 Di9fflss |93..2lt.2 8ft,358; 3b6j4Cl;4. III 5- 7-26 6- 8-26 CAD-Suspen 238.2at, ; 366, 522 , bSJ 12-18-26 Rev of susp 156 The Fort Wayne Union Stockyards Co. Yardage III 6- 3-26 10-16-26 Dismiss 2 8T. 35ft. S W;S73;Sa7.Hb. I»l1 166 Herbert Dugdale Insolvency III 6- 3-26 8-21-26 Suspen 2*0,300.391.3b3 157 John Dugdale Insolvency III 6- 3-26 8-21-26 Suspen 28 ft, 3oo-.301.3b3,(.38 168 Fred Si ©call, dba Inde¬ pendent Livestock Commission Co. Insolvency III 6-16-26 10-2-26 Dismiss 270.28B ; 3oo.3S8 159 Howard S. Turner Bond III 7- 3-26 5-28-26 Suspen 22 », 2 *4.3 OO; 31», 3 4»1 43 3,4<} 5. S 00. (,4o 160 Roberts A Oaks, a corp. Bond III 7- 3-26 6-28-28 15-da nobbel 24,21*. 284,314,347,453.445 161 J. N. Richey et al. T.P. III 7-10-26 8-13-26 CAD 28b. 14.7.5(8.. 162 C. C. Seal, dba C. C. Seal A Co. T.P. III 7-14-26 6- 5-27 Dismiss 2*4,270,2 8b,3*7 ; 4fr, 40b. 43 5\So4. 165 Sundheimer Livestock Com¬ mission Co., Ino. Insolvency III 7-16-26 2- 9-27 Dismiss 270,288.358 164 Daniel P. Collins Bond III 7-24-26 9-13-26 Dismiss 210,281. 390 166 E. T. Cash dba E. T. Cash A Co. Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 CAD 1tl.2SO.3b7 166 Kansas City Stock Yards Co., a corp. Rewgh ohges III 7-24-26 11-26-50 Dismiss 21l ; »qo, 358, *10,478 167 John Roll Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 CAD I22.184.3C8 168 Joe Boehm Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 CAD • 2b, 284.3bft - 879 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 169 D. J. Hannigan Bond III 7 - 26-26 10-14-26 C&D 123. 8.10. 341 170 Max Baum Bond III 7-24-26 10-14-26 C&D l24,eB4,340 171 S.P. Daniels & W.W. Dunham Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 C&D 123. 240; 367 172 Bernard Orewe Bond III 7 - 26-26 10-14-26 C&D-Susp 123; etO; 346; 522,640:450 11- 9-26 Rev Susp 173 E.&M. Parish, dba Parish & Son Bond III 7 - 26-26 10-14-26 C&D-Susp 174 Frank Menke & Jas. E. Rice, dba Menke & Rice Bond III 7 - 26-26 10-14-26 C&D-Susp I24-: rM iH.wo 175 Union Stockyard & Transit Co. Hog loss III 8- 2-26 12 - 10-26 Dismiss nil 3S0 176 H. T. Herrell Bond III 7-28-26 8-23-26 C&D I2ST; 261. 348 177 P. R. Atchison T.P. III 9-22-26 5-12-27 C&D ns, 20T. 300.341: 413.414 178 J. C. Kincaid et al. Bond III 8- 3-26 9- 9-26 C&D 123. 210 347 179 Frank H. Lacy Bond III 8- 3-26 8 - 26-26 C&D 124: .34% 180 E. E. Johnston T.P. III 9-30-26 12-31-26 C&D-Susp HS; 2Oe,.2,3 ; Z3ft.28fe .3t1.4tn.S00 553, S5S, 653 (.((, 181 Hugh Middlesworth et al. Bond III 10- 2-26 11 - 12-26 C&D-Susp l24.2TI : 2&1,3fc6,341-.4SI 182 N.S. Bangs & Fred E. Berry, copartners T.P. III 10- 6-26 11-23-26 C&D 237.2 0 4, 361 ._4.LT ; 410 4 64 SO0 183 Joe Hoffman, dba Inde- pendent Packing Co. Bond III 10-14-26 1-24-27 Dismiss 211; 2 61 35 0 184 Henry Nangle T.P. III 11- 3-26 2- 4-27 C&D-Susp 231,230. 2 41-.28 4.37 0,413,4-14 185 Sunlight Produce Co. of 6-15-27 Dismiss LS3; 443 414,til Sioux City, Iowa et al. T.P. II 11- 9-26 12-18-26 Dismiss 3S: sen 12, MM 186 L. 0. H inane lb erger Bond III 11-19-26 12-18-26 Suspen Rev Susp 281.310.522.440 2-26-27 187 Peoria Union Stockyards Co. Services chges III 12- 3-26 1-11-27 Dismiss 211.265, 356.460 188 A.V. Tjaden & W.F. Wells, dba Tjaden & 'Wells T.P. III 1-19-27 5-19-27 C&D-Susp 14 2-, 28 6 ; 310 ; 431,644 189 Dunning & Stevens, Inc. T.P. III 3- 1-27 4-21-27 C&D 112; 2 21,264; 30 3.»l4 ; 333- et al. Mod 12-7-27 3«-0,»ll.433 : 4s4;45i.4.43.. Mod 1-9-32 4-(.4- 190 George W. Waitt & Frank Lake, dba Waitt & Lake Commission Co. T.P. III 3-16-27 5-14-27 C&D 115.210; 341,442. 191 Union Stockyards, San Resale chges III 4-19-27 4- 9-28 Dismiss 4 : HO.2lsr ; 2n..21o, 300 , 3^6 Antonio, Texas 371,4 41. 410; 411.4-04 .4-11 .541, 51S,tl 4 ; 6&0; 46fa 192 Jack Lee Livestock Com- mission Co., a corp. Insolvency III 4-15-27 5- 4-27 Dismiss 21I-. 210, 3SC, 193 Southwest Commission Co. Re par III 4-20-27 7-18-27 Dismiss 2IS.240; 3»4; 3 5o.3 5ra 444 . of Los Angeles, Calif. 410 . HI -. 500, S3 0, S34;S40i 194 Producers Cooperative 544 Commission Association T.P. III 4-28-27 10-31-27 Dismiss 113,-212,284, 206.35 0,311.444 195 H. J. Hunt et al. T.P. III 5-12-27 7-13-27 C&D 114.265: 341 196 Dallas Smythe T.P. III 6- 1-27 8-24-27 C&D I14:266;341.3H 197 Jack Lee Livestock Com- T.P. III 6-22-27 8-12-27 Suspen 241, 254. 2 84,20 8,312.. 441,444-; mission Co., a corp. 3H. SI&,S6o,LS4- 198 J. K. Perkins T.P. III 7- 8-27 7-21-27 C&D-Susp 244,206., 312, 414 199 S.B. Handley, dba S.B. Handley & Co. Bond III 8-31-27 9-23-27 Dismiss 124: 212,210; JSft 200 Edward L. Callahan Bond III 9-14-27 11-18-27 C&D-Susp 124. 261; 312, LSI 201 F. A. Klein Bond III 9-14-27 11-11-27 C&D 124. 201,346 202 7*.A. Lauer, dba Yf.A. Lauer & Co. Bond III 9-14-27 11-15-27 C&D 121,210; 341 203 S. Simon Bond III 9-14-27 11-11-27 C&D 124.201.366 204 T. J. Reneker Bond III 9-14-27 11-15-27 C&D—Susp 124,281,312,441 205 Max M. Boucheck, dba 124.240; 341 Union Live Stock Co. Bond III 9-14-27 11-15-27 C&D 206 Seigfreid Jacob Bond III 9-14-27 11-15-27 C&D 124. 2B1-,3L& 207 Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha, Ltd. Yardsge III 8-16-27 5- 4-28 Dismiss 21 o.. 3 o 3,313 ,41 1 ,41 4 ; 441 ,41 4, 594.681 208 Union Stock Yards Co. of Yardage III 7- 6-27 8-29-28 Dismiss 3, 14. lol-.HO; 2 84-, 24 I-, 3 22-. 31 3- 111, 445, 441 ; 41 1 .414; 411 ; 416; 5 03 . Omaha, Ltd. 54T. 540»LL2., LIS 209 Samuel Phillippy Bond III 9-21-27 11-29-27 C&D 124; 2 61.346 210 H. S. Longenecker Bond III 9-21-27 12-12-27 C&D 125: 2 61.340 211 J. S. Pyle Bond III 9-21-27 11-22-27 C&D 124,281,346 212 Andrew S. Reed Bond III 9-21-27 11-29-27 C&D 124 . 281. 368 213 Henry N. Ginler Bond III 9-21-27 11-29-27 C&D 12 5: 201.340 880 Docket If umber Respondent Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page 2TA F. S. Worst Bond III 9-21-27 11-29-27 CftD-Suap I2S.491,37Z.,4M 21S E. H. Witmer Bond III 9-21-27 12-23-27 C&D IIS 4 81, 216 W. A. Gebhart Bond III 9-21-27 10- 5-27 Dismiss 125 . 274 , 491 . j 3 g 217 Chas. L. Rabenstein Bond III 9-23-27 12-12-27 CAD its,481,348 218 Geo. F. Williams Bond III 9-23-27 12-12-27 CftD-Suap 145,481.348 218 August Smith Bond III 10-1-27 10-28-27 C&D-Susp «2*. 2 89.37 A. 44-1 220 Stauffer Sales Co., & oorp . Bond III 10-3-27 11-29-27 C&D 125,4.81.374 221 Frank E. Devins, Ino. Bond III 10-3-27 10-20-27 C&D-Susp I29.jI2S.481 113.141 222 J. E. Whaley Bond III 9-27-27 12-30-27 C&D 125,281.372. 223 D. W. Davis Bond III 10-5-27 1- 5-28 C&D-Susp 224 R. M. Hawley Bond III 10-8-27 11-18-27 C&D-Susp I234. b44 288. 31.3,4,3a 10-18-28 5- 29-29 2- 6-29 6- 14-29 C&D C&D Rep Fix Rates C&D C&D-Susp HVi 2&4. 31? 241. 322,311.4-11,4-14- ; S4-&,5t4-; loV; 443.'. U> W 3 12U.281, 3ta 286,335, 311,414--1.44 5-17-29 4- 9-29 5- 20-29 C&D C&D Suspen I2b,240-,3bl 12b.26l.S3l 264, 310.1.4-0 5-17-29 C&D |2(.-, 24 0 : 3 4,1 3-29-29 7-16-29 Suspen Dismiss 2W-. 311,1.49 214,247., 358 311 4 . 4 ,,5o3. 544 632. 5-24-29 C&D Fix ABM MO. 2o2. ZIS, 244, 2Sb ,318,414- 41 564 . S44-. boo-.leOl -, leo 8 il.li -, blS, b24, b25T; b J2,(.b6,bl3 245,28b, 288,3ble, 314,462.411,, 55ST; b41; b>1 (.-, <»48 < 21 , 21 4; 264 358 Sfa; SI ,1.1,13 121., 284,314 10- 26-29 11- 2-29 7-20-31 On Rehear 5- 4-34 1-23-30 C&D Suspen Fix Rates Mod 4-14-36 Fix Rates Mod 4-13-38 Dismiss 121,284,314 288, 314,4.34 2,4-;l. .2, 13, 21,2»,2b,21. 28.24, 31.38 .34 ,241, 3 0 5, 3o lo, J ao. 381-. 4-34--.44-I-. 4-12,4-14-, 441; 574-;Sg-|. S6a,S10.S4l: SI 3; Sf4-;fcol;fco2-! feO&-. Uo4 •> bb3, bb4- 2-15-33 Dismiss 215; 204,3 58; 384 6- 5-30 5-18-32 6-14-33 Dismiss Fix Rates Fix Rates n s’-, 3i5, 3va 1, 3, 5,4,10. IV. 14, 15- lb, 11,18; 22,23, 32, 33; 3 5, 31 1 12 8 ,129 .138. ,31,140; 141, ISI.162.16b,1S7, 1 58; \S9; HoO- 141.14b,215.230,235, 283 .3olo,301- 3I2-.3H 314,32 0,338,345;364,385, 38b,43 5.442-.4 S 2 -. 413 ,41 5; 463 ,48b. 4-8 T, 4-4 2 -.411,414 -, SSIo.Sbl .315,511, S8o.b85.b12- 882 Docket Number Respondent Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Date of Inquiry Order Order 812 Charles Clayton Bond in 5- 6-80 8-12-80 Dismiss Sl3 James Dugdale Insolvency III 5-21-30 6-17-80 Suspan 814 James L. Baer T.P. III 6-18-SO 1-24-31 CAD-Susp CAD-Susp Rev Susp 31b 316 J. A* Stewart Meridian Union Stock Bond III 6-26-80 1- 5-81 2-11-81 817 Yhrda W. H. Keys, dba Keys Bond III 7- 9-80 9-16-30 12-6-80 CAD-Susp Rev Snap 818 Comoi as ion Co. Bond - Ill 7-24-80 9- 4-80 CAD Charles V. King Bond III 7-24-80 11-5-30 CAD-Susp CAD-Susp Suspen 819 L. B. Ellis Bond III 7-24-30 8-25-50 320 J. C. Holestine Insolvency m 7-31-30 11-21-30 321 H« J. Hunter Bond m 6- 1-30 10-8-30 CAD 822 lb. Butler Bond m 8- 1-80 10-8-SO CAD 828 J. 0. Glass Bond in 8- 1-30 10-2-30 CAD 324 Harry S. Lambert Bond in 8-13-30 12-23-30 CAD 325 Fred Morgenegg Bond in 9-10-30 11-19-30 CS> 826 John P. Healy et al. Bond hi 9-19-80 1-31-31 CAD-Susp 827 Otto C. Green et al. T.P* in 9-28-80 11-13-30 CAD-Susp 12-1-80 12-1-30 Rev Susp 2-10-31 CAD-Suao 328 829 W* it.'Moore, dba Boers Commission Co* J* B* Arnold, dba Arnold Insolvency in - 9-29-30 11-10-30 Suspen 380 Dairy Calf Co* Alexander, Conover A Co. Bond ni 10-11-80 11-17-80 CAD-3uap et al* Boycott in 10-18-30 2-24-81 CAD-Susp Amended 2- 16-31 3- 4-31 » r ■ ■' 3-11-31 3-22-31 831 A. H. Rouse, dba A. H. Rouse Consulssion Co. Insolvency III 10-28-80 11-26-30 Suspen 832 C. J. Luther, dba Luther A Co* Insolvency III 10-28-30 11-21-30 Suspen 383 Char las C. Saberta T.P. III 11-29-30 1-30-31 CAD-Susp 334 Lars Brown et al* Ratos • III 12-19-30 6-17-32 Dismiss 836 Che8= E. Kunkel et al. Insolvency III 12-29-30 3-28-31 CAD-Susp Dismiss 336 A. P. C&mey Bond III 1- 3-31 3-28-31 CAD-Susp 387 Orris Coburn T.P. III 1-13-31 3-24-31 CAD-Susp 888 Luoian W. Terwilliger T.P. III 1-16-31 8-24-31 CAD-Susp 389 Thomas, Bryson ft Elrod, Ino* Insolvency III 1-27-31 2-9-31 Suspen 840 Mrs. D. Guldager Bond III 1-31-31 5-2-31 CAD-Susp 841 H. R. Pritchard TJP. III 3- 2-31 3-19-31 CAD-Susp 342 William Silver Repar III Non© 3-24-31 Award 848 J. W. Burgess Insolvency III 3-11-31 4-14-31 Suspen 344 Onion Stock Yards Co. Rates in 3-13-31 3-1-33 Fix Rates of Cta&ha, Ltd. 10-6-37 Mod Order 345 The Rothschild Live Stock Co., & corp* Hates hi 3-19-31 7-1-51 Suspen 346 Culler Commission Co*, a corp. Bond hi 3-24-31 5-19-51 CSD 547 American Commission Co., a oorp. Rates hi 3-26-31 4-18-32 Dismiss 348 William A. Boley Insolvency hi 5-23-31 7-25-31 Suspen 349 J. W. Sevier, Jr., dba Sevier Commission Co. Bond hi 6-16-31 8-29-31 CAD 360 C. L. Kaye A Sons, Iho. T.P. hi 6-26-31 6-6-31 CAD-Susp 351 M. M. Fliokinger et al. Insolvenoy in 6-30-31 9-16-31 Suspen 352 Chi 0 ago Producers Com¬ mission Association Repar hi 12-3-31 Dismiss 353 W. R. Finger T.P. hi 7-20-31 8-10-31 CAD-Susp 354 U. F. Buts Insolvenoy hi 7-25-31 8-25-31 Dismiss 366 J. M. Evans et al. Bond hi 7-29-31 11-18-31 Dismiss 356 Riley Ward Bond hi 8-11-31 9-15-32 Dismiss 357 W. 0. Jennings, dba W. 0. Jennings A Co. T.P. hi 8-16-31 9-19-31 CAD-Susp 358 Jsmes C. Cleveland Bond in 8-16-31 9-16-31 Dismiss 359 Charles Hollar Bond hi 8-16-31 9-30-31 CAD-Susp 360 F. F. Silver, dba Merid¬ ian Union Stockyards T.P. - Insolv in 8-19-31 10-3-31 CAD-Susp 361 M. L. Erickson, dba Union Live Stook Commission Co. Insolvenoy hi 9- 3-31 11-5-31 CAD-Susp Digest of Cass Appears Under Pape IU.V1S, 280.379,L*1 a«0,33S- i 38fc.«.3ft ‘l£1,1t.q O.M'l.Se.L.Asi ■i1,201-,30'7 ; 5Ue..fcsi •*1>l«1;J 7S ; 379 i 300 »01;'30ft; fe4o e88,573 a^iaa,»»».,>81.512.-64S 654- ‘ ' 209.301, fc «-1 >24 ; 209 ..3&&.. 64-0 173, fc©4 ,2J3, 2 I3. I lb. 2lfc.k7S. xq U 324^331.,338; 3 3^ ; 346(34*1.384.4-15. 436 442-;444-. 4S0,4-S1,44e>.,4q a,' 50>.Sfcfc,t>4<,'4C:feff4- 14 0,3 04 (631; 6 4? 188.374-.634 2¥S,28<®,t00 ; }81;fc45' i fe55’ 2TS’,iar.3Sg.,340 iU; 140,340; 501,tSS, 614 ,fc 44 184,386.640 !44,288,340; 64-5 >44,288,340.645' 264,381.644 284.-390,640 288.34-1,386; fc46 141.. 340.44ft; 537:541- 210,384.634:64-1 43,34.1fc«,2»S,242,308.341.4-75.474 494,490. SS'2.,Sb1,S80..S40;S4>.,S‘£7,291,374 286.198., 341 ..531,5 61,644,655* 2qO;384;t3?,t4? 175,24 7., 35 8 288,33 5,342-,646 276; 21 0,3 58 138.176,210,35 8.304; 34 2 130,27 6,7 84,350 14S,2ST264-,l»W,31t;t58 HO, 276.881,33 ® ,342. >24;284 ; y)2,fe4o £6l,206;2 88; 34J-.S31; 655-701 284, 313,64-1 Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 362 Willard Kissee et al. T.P. III 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D 2 81^242.332,34 3.44 6 363 J. E. Gammon et al. T.P. III 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D zat. 242 , 332 . 343 -,446 364 J. C. Potts et al. T.P. III 10 - 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D aatMi. v&jl-.iis; V7& 365 W. L. Rush et al. T.P. III 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D zafc.m-.vbz.-, y* 3. 44 a 366 George Robertson T.P. III 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D 28Io;242.332.; MV.Vtft 367 77. H. Lewis et al. Insolvency III 11-17-31 1 - 8-32 Suspen 264,->>8l;t4.q 368 Donahue Bros., Inc. T.P. III 12-18-31 3-16-32 C&D-Susp l6t ZSl.ZtZ.ZS6.34V4tS.411 A46. bSS-.lot 369 Tom E. Davis et al. Insolvency III 12-18-31 1-14-32 Suspen zat.zaB-. 38t>44 370 F. P. Carson, dba Comet Commission Co. Insolvency III 12-18-31 1 - 28-32 Suspen 281*381^4-4 371 Sara R. Hunnicutt, dba Hunnicutt Lvstk. Com.Co. Insolvency III 12-19-31 7-14-32 Dismiss ZTS-: 2.64; 358,384- 372 Frank J. Meehan Insolvency III 12-19-31 1 - 14-32 Dismiss 21(*;284--3s-8-.34'3 373 Percy J. Lake Repar III 12-29-31 2-12-32 Dismiss 242; 3S8;-34-0 374 C.F. Huntzinger et al. Insolvency III 1- 7-32 1-30-32 Suspen 264; 381 >4-4 375 George Turnipseed et al. Insolvency III 1- 7-32 3-18-32 Suspen 2-4 O; 3 04; fc 34: fc 4-4 376 Carl Palmer Bond III 2- 9-32 3-18-32 C&D 124-,284,314 377 J. G. Glass Bond III 2- 9-32 4-21-32 C&D-Susp 284.388; (<.4-0 378 Paul Tracy Bond III 2-15-32 5- 4-32 C&D-Susp 264.3 88 . t4-0 379 James W. Doran Insolvency III 2 - 15-32 3- 1-32 Suspen 240; 384 t3 11-5-36 Mod Rates 55b; Stl. SI O;-6S0; M6K 12-6-37 384 John L. Sullivan T.P. III 3-17-32 8-17-32 C&D-Susp l44- ; 286.34S ; 41S : t4t 385 Charles E. Harding Co., a corp. T.P. III 3-18-32 4- 8-32 C&D nt.zet.ziz-.aqs- 386 M. H. Kelly Bond III 4- 1-32 6 - 10-32 C&D-Susp 284 3 6 8;t4o 387 Ludwig Nelson Insolvency III 4- 1-32 9- 2-33 Dismiss 211; 2 84; 35 8; 384- 388 Ed. C. Topping, dba • Ogden Livestock Com. Co. T.P. III 4- 2-32 6 - 7-32 C&D-Susp 28fe;288i34«';S32jS^|r ; Sfcl-.bSb 389 390 James 77. Doran et al. B. W. Gillespie T.P. Bond III III 5-17-32 7-15-32 6-17-32* 12 - 6-33 C&D ARM Dismiss 234241.281; ZtZ; Z8t ; Z88.345-i 321; fcSt;-roi I31.Z11-.Z4 0-. 3S6;34(o 391 Pole Beasley et al. 3ond III 7-28-32 10-27-32 C&D 121.284:314 392 Robert Perry et al. Bond III 7-28-32 10-27-32 C&D IZt-.Z40.382_ 393 United Commission Co., Payts to III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 C&D 203; 2l2-.Z»»i24l;326i3Z1.34(.. a corp. Trkrs 47S;414-;446-, 5o4-.su . StZ-.bqs 394 Northwestern Commission Payts to Co., Inc. Trkrs III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 Dismiss 21T. Z41: 3 36;34U;41t;-StZ 395 Percy Vittum & Co., a corp . Payts to Trkrs III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 C&D 2 OZ-. Zt Z; Z 3 1; 24 t : 34 t] 4lt.su, 396 Peoples Cooperative Payts to SI3; t4S Sales Agency Trkrs III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 Dismiss 211; 241,3981 34fc;4lt., S/3 397 The Mid-Lest Farmers, Payts to Inc. Trkrs III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 C&D 2(0;ZlZ .Z(4;24l; 34t;S04;S(3; (o/fS 398 Bennett Commission Co., Payts to III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 C&D 2i 0-.ZIZ-, zq» ; 32t .3Zi ; 34ti 4-44- Inc. Trkrs 41t:4l8-.SU;Sl4-, 399 W. M. Campbell Com- Payts to III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 Dismiss 211; 241; 3 3t: 31t; 475; 44 8; 504; SOS mission Co., a corp. Trkrs SI 4 : S(S 400 Morris Begel Bond III 9-14-32 10 - 18-32 C&D-Susp 240,381>4Z;tSZ 401 E. H. Egan 3ond III 9-23-32 2-13-33 C&D-Susp 284. 381; SZ3:t5Z_ 3-28-33 Rev Susp 402 C. H. Acker, dba C. H. Comm Rates III 9-23-32 1- 8-34 Fix Rates 1. S, 1; B; 4. l4-.IS .lt. *8; 14.20.2*. Acker & Co. 3-12-34 o„_ WiO; S.483, S14- ss& sei. Amend H-6-37 sofc : &/a ; 4>i4- v fc |, 3(V; 3»3, 5n,321,34b ,4-00 ,431; 443,441, Den 10-15-34 Mod H-26-37 Mod 9-16-38 453-448,552, SSI .510,S7S-; Mod 1-16-40 41 ll 436 Morris Hancock T.P. HI 12- 1-33 1-30-34 C&D-Susp 234 ; 284,2^8 .,40O;(o4b; b S4> 437 E. E. Davidson & C. W. Hinman, partners Bond III 12- 6-33 2- 9-34 Dismiss 131.216,281,358,401 438 C. K. Elliott, dba C.K. Elliott Co. Bond III 12-15-33 2- 6-34 C&D 12(o, 281; 882— 439 Abe Weil Bond III 12-29-33 2- 9-34 C&D-Susp 281.388.441 440 Armour & Co., et al. Price-Fixing H 2-14-34 3-30-36 C&D 8; 31,40.42,43,4S;41;SO,S2;S4. S&.leO ) bl.b4;bS,b1,l0l4-,8l83-' 8s,84,41,13 ; 14;1s ,14,18- 11 - loo, iol, 102 ... Iol. 1 OR 441 Clark Commission Co.,Inc. Bond III 2-26-34 4- 7-34 C&D-Susp 210,381, (.42.452- 442 Cleveland Union Stock Rates III 4-10-34 7-18-34 Fix Rates 233;21t,300;303; 314-,32l,4o|. Yards Co. 2-14-35 Mod Order 0-14, (o20,t<.1; 448,463 - 885 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 443 Guyton-Smith-Podesta • * •.. ..... . +? ; ‘ Commission Co., a corp. Bond hi 6- 6-34 7- 9-34 C&D-Susp 444 Max M. Boucheck, dba Union Live Stock Co. Bond in 6-16-34 8- 7-34 C&D-Susp ,b42;bS2- 445 W. H. Abernathy & Charles Comm in 8-16-34 7-10-35 Fix Rates 2,b,*l. V 11,13.14,lb,18.20,22,23, 27,26; lb; 132- 147, 152* Id. ; 1 b7 - H. Turner et al. Rates iin. zes- sov, ir*-vn.i4-oa.4-4tj' ovi..4S3;4ft7.488; sot-.sza^aT. Sb7;S70|S71; S9i 446 Guy L. Wheeler & Thomas K. Polley, dba United Insolvency hi 8-29-34 9-19-34 Suspen 181, 4-07- Commission Co. 1- 3-35 Rev Susp " ' £ 447 Bland Kirk Bond in 9-11-34 10-27-34 C&D I32.X88..402- 448 Wichita Union Stock Yards Co. Rates in 10-12-34 1- 8-35 Dismiss 278-, 282, 396,403 ; b20 449 Dewey Anderson & Gustave Anderson et al. In3ur hi 10-22-34 12- 3-34 C&D 282,3n ,4o» 450 Denver Union Stock Stckyd in 2- 8-34 2-17-37 Fix Rates b, HiH; ZS-, VI. HI ; 210, 221,224 Yards Co. Rates 11-20-39 4- 1-40 Fix Rates 233,283,304-; *4.1,379-, 403;4o4; 4M •wi-.-s’io; 5T2_. seiisee>.s8T. Mod Order 6-6-40 S8t;583,«1b; S17; E18; S88.bo7 v bIS. brO;bil ,M90ib37. t&3; t&V, mss 451 Pittsburgh Joint Drought Cattle C&D 28i : 4o4-. 5 84;bfl4 Stock Yards Co. Ydge Rates hi 11- 8-34 4-26-35 Vac Tariff 452 Earl Speicher Bond HI 12-11-34 1-28-35 C&D 12b.,2 88.3&2_ 453 Union Stock Yards Co. Weigh & Re- hi 1-11-35 8-24-35 C&D-Fix 24.31-. 180; 4<1'3.,3o4..40S'-, SBli of Omaha, Ltd. weigh Chges Rates 582>30 >b3t-.b74> 454 E. E. L'cComas et al. T.P. hi 1-28-35 8-13-35 Dismiss 218;Z8&,7 < 13t35B;40£- 455 Harry Kennaley, dba Harry Kennaley Com. Co. Bond hi 2- 5-35 4- 2-35 C&D-Susp 288 .3 87 .4.44, feSI 456 Frank H. Connor et al. Comm Rates hi 2- 6-35 8-29-35 C&D-Fix Rates S-.b; a q-. 14-1 K.: iq-.SLIitV; 23,28:31, 141, (48,1 S3-,Ib7; Ib6.»b8,182.-. 187; 3bS;28S--.30l-,4ob; 447, AS4;4&0; #sa.,sb7;S7i,s7t,sei; bt4 ; tat 457 Farmers Union Livestock Com .y 3 corp #y 6t . Comm Rates hi 2- 9-35 8-29-35 C&D-Fix sr,b,6,1; 14. lb, t1,2\,22.23;2&.,3| ; 141 i4ft, 1 S3,Ib7;ItIW; I62-.I87> Rates 21>S;28S; 301* 4 Ob,4-11; 4S4-, 4-80; 458 V.alter E. Manning, dba 5S8;Sb-1., S7I ,S7b; SSI; feb4;t6fc Hanning & Co. Insolvency in 2-12-35 3- 7-35 C&D—Susp 26q.4ot ; fcso 3-28-35 Rev Susp 459 Walter G. Land & John E. Hoze, partners Insolvency hi 2-12-35 3- 4-35 Suspen 288-, 381:448 460 Bland Kirk Bond in 2-25-35 4-17-35 C&D 12b ; 270,3 82- 461 St. Louis National Stckyd Stockyards et al. Services in 3-16-35 8-15-35 C&D 28 S, 40 7, S44-, 54S'; 572, 57 3, b3 3 462 Dick Tippett Bond hi 4- 3-35 5-31-35 C&D 120,288,378 463 A.R.Wilson et al., dba Salina Sales Pavilion Bond in 4-5-35 6-26-35 C&D 12b ,288.*, 362- 464 C. S. Fulton, dba Country Buyers in 4-15-35 11-11-35 C&D-Rep-Suspn l n'4 i ua^ us ; nu,nv, Fulton Commission Co. Repar 4-25-40 Dismiss 183,184, 2o3,27b, 282,4 6 -,, 4. 6fe . 4b6..S24iS35;S40.. Ss4; S(,l ; bs’j 465 C. L. Peterson, Sr. et al . Agency in 5-14-35 8- 2-35 C&D ||fc,184:484,408 466 C. J. Rice Bond in 5-22-35 8-22-35 C&D 127,288,378 467 Charles D. Asbury Bond hi 6-22-35 8-15-35 C&D 12b; 2*8; 378 468 W.J. Buchanan, dba United Live Stock Com. Co. Insolvency hi 8-16-35 9- 6-35 Suspen 288.38 I 469 V/.M. Broderick et al., dba Missouri Live Stock Commission Co. Insolvency in 8-16-35 9- 7-35 Suspen 288.381 470 Levy Meat Co. T.P. ii 8-22-35 10- 4-35 C&D S6,1?: S7..8I: 102. 471 John H. Johnson Insolvency in 8-26-35 10-21-35 Suspen 286-371, b38 472 The Union Stockyard & • Transit Co. Rates hi 9-27-35 5-24-35 Stipulation 284;3o4: 4o6.b73,b74- 473 Joe Bonner Bond in 10-10-35 11-16-35 C&D-Susp 280;3 87;b42.;tS2- 474 M. F. Guilfoyle, dba Agency- Corn Beet Com. Co. Repar hi 10-10-35 12-31-35 C&D-Repar lib,104; 187: 288-;4o9:&7b ; s4.8 475 E. W. Houx et al., dba Agency- Drumm Com. Co. Repar in 10-14-35 1- 4-36 C&D-Repar 112,117:132; IftS; 187; I88-. 224; 284;4oi; 4ib, S4o i tj s'; 187,014 476 The Great Atlantic & S 2, S 3, S b; S 8. b 3,7 5- 71. 82 88, 93;94.8C;8b; 102- Pacific Tea Co., a corp. T.P. ii 10-21-35 12-29-36 C&D 12-28-38 Rev C&D - 886 ■ • Doolcet Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Humber Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 477 Wilmington Provision 4-15-38 CAD S8,7fc ; 84.«8,4<. Co., Ino. T.P. II 10-21-35 9- 7-38 Rev-CAD 478 C. Drive A Co., Ino. Insolvency III 10-25-35 11-13-35 CAD M0 ; 3a<*. 481 Amuriue, Dunn A Co* T.P. II 10-29-35 1-15-36 Indef p/p 54.S 484 E. Greenebaum Co. T.P. II 10-31-35 1-15-36 Indef pA> 5 4- S9 : (,l ; 7fc 485 Hygrade Food Products Indef p/p Cooperative T.P. II 10-31-35 2- 6-36 £4-i S9.bl ; 7fc 486 Washington Court House Union Stock Yards Co. 9 a corp. Bond III 10-31-35 12-19-35 CAD 487 Figge A Hutmelker Co. T.P. II 10-51-35 3- 2-36 Indef p/p St. sq.fcl,7fc 488 Adolph Gobel, Ino. T.P-. II 10-31-35 3- 2-36 Indef pA> 54,S9.fel:7fc 489 Standard Provision Co. T.P. II U- 1-35 1-17-36 Indef pA> s4i S9.fcl.7fc 490 F. G. Vogt & Sons,Ino. T.P. II 11- 1-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p SAS9, bl]74 491 Beck Provision Co. T.P. ri 11- 1-35 2- 5-36 Indef p/p 54 »9.fcl,7fc 492 L. S. Briggs, Inc. T.P. ii 11- 1-35 1-24-36 Indef p/p 5 4. 59; i| [74 493 Cleveland Provision Co. T.P. ii 11- 1-35 1-15-36 Indef p/p 5 4 «9.il ,7fc 494 Cudahy Bros. Co. T.P. ii 11- 2-35 1-10-36 Indef p/p 54 5 9.fcl .74 495 N. Auth Provision Co. T.P. ii 11- 2-35 1-21-36 Indef p/p 54. ?9;fc|.74 496 Frank M. Firor, Inc. T.P. ii 11- 2-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p 5 4-.-S4vfcl-.7fc 497 Jacob Frost Packing Indef p/p Co., Inc. T.P. ii 11- 2-35 12-18-35 5 4;59,fcl.7fc 498 Wood Brothers, Inc. Bond in 11- 4-35 12-13-35 CAD 127,2.09 •»>&& 499 Albert F. Goets, Inc. T.P. ii 11- 5-35 1- 8-36 Indbf p/p S4-.S9.fcl.7fc 500 Knauss Bros., Inc. T.P. ii 11- 5-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p S4-.59.fcl;7fc 501 Blain Live Stock Com- mission Co., Inc. Bond hi 11- 5-35 4-23-36 Di smi s s 132 279.140-,318, 3S6,4oq 502 Frank W. Anderson, dba Frank Anderson & Son Bond in 11- 5-35 11-26-35 Di smi s s 132., 274.784,358 503 Augustus Saugy, Inc. T.P. ii 11- 7-35 1-17-36 Indef p/p S4;54.fct.7fc 504 Stahl-Meyer, Inc. T.P. ii 11- 7-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p S4;S4 ; fcl.7fc 505 Liberty Provision Co., Indef p/p Inc. T .P. ii 11- 7-35 1- 8-36 54- ; 59.fcl;7fc 506 Merkel, Inc. TJ>. n 11- 7-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p 5 4-S9.fcl.7fc 507 Miller A Hart, Inc. T ii U- 7-35 1-10-36 Indef p/p S4;S9 fcl,7fc 508 Taylor Provision Co. T.P. II 11- 7-35 1-15-36 Ixrdnf - p/p SA-sS9, fc 1 : 7fc 509 The Henry Meeks Co., Inc. T.P. II 11- 7-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p S4-;S9.fc».7fc 510 Joseph Phillips Co. T J>. n 11- 7-35 1-10-36 Indef p/p 54^54; br,7fc 511 American Live Stock Commission Co., & corp# Repar m 11-13-35 3-10-36 Dismiss A14-.3SS.54l 512 George £» Porterfield, dba Mt. Vernon Live Stock Co. Bond hi 11-16-55 3-24-36 CAD 12V, 7 89.302. 513 J. E. Ganmon et al.. dba Farmers Union Live Stock Commis¬ sion Co. Trade Name hi 11-23-35 3-24-36 CAD 214T4-ie,.4-7b.fc6&;te.9 514 Barton-Thebo, a corp. T.P. hi 11-29-35 1-14-36 CAD 1 7fc ,Z afc- 2 80,-244-, 4 10 , 51 U. 5 bV 515 Standard Livestock • Commission Co., ft oorp. Bond nr 12- 4-36 1-15-36 CAD l£7 l 2.S4- t 374 516 M. F. Guilfoyie-, dba Corn Belt Commission Co. Draft iii 12-27-35 3- 9-36 CAD-Repar IIT.294v,4lO ; 532.541 517 W. N. Weaver et al.. dba W. R. Weaver A Co . Bond hi 12-31-35 4- 1-36 CAD 133,740/382- 518 The Fort Worth Poultry A Egg -Co. T.P. ii 1-11-36 5-22-36 Dismiss as ,sfc, 59,77 90 519 Frontal A Simon, Ino. License V 1-23-36 2-20-36 Denied 7 44.196.7 at. 8 74- 520 Meyer Marotmik et al.. dba M. U. Poultry Co., Ino. License V 1-23-36 2-10-37 Denied 700,77Z ,T 2fc 741 ; 7f6-1 5& ,m,6 > t. 3-23-37 Modified 521 J. N. Richey Co., a 2.47,2S7 ; 2fc2.2.fc4,2Bb,k^ l.iq4.4U-,SiS : *orp» TJ>. LU 1-25-36 3- 9-36 CAD-Susp 522 Emerson Yoke Bond in 1-27-36 4-14-36 CAD-Susp l2 Is - Hi *o, •J.t-.zz, 133- i4«-.»41 : t S*> \S--To\ 535 Russel Marker Bond III 3- 4-36 3-23-37 5-15-36 5-18-37 C&D-Susp Disniss ; 3.*74-. 2.84*. M2-. 44Q-. 524-; t40 536 Richey-Shaffer, Inc. T.P. III 3- 4-36 4-29-36 C&D 212: -2.4 1.4I3-, 4IS - 537 Jack Cohen et al. Unload Rates V 3- 4-36 7-27-36 Fix Rates S-..4, IO; 14--. 24; 2.S': 2k; M; 72k ; 142 ; 3- 4-37 Fix Ratea 750: 7SI-,7-S2.,n < l: 18S: 6iS'-. 820 , 844: e2S\atl-, 84.0, 84q, 870 538 J. E. Pyke Bond III 3- 7-36 4-16-36 C&D 12k, 210. 3 02. 539 Eiger J. Pfleiderer Bond III 3-25-36 5-21-36 C&D-Susp j2a-,4-e'.8si:8bO;8tl,8ti-.8t3,8t4-;8tS' ; 555 New York Coop Co., Inc. Coop Plates V 6-25-36 8bb:07l.&73-,674- 5, IO; 20; 22,3 O ; 3b, bl 1 ; 1 Ob;1 1 b; 6-13-40 7- 1-37 Fix Rates 7n;7 22,723 ; 72S:7 2k-.7 29;7i2;7S|. 735 7 5k .7S0 ;17ZT;bza-.Q?H .0}Q, 6-22-39 Fix Rates 8si-8s'2.-.8s'i ; 8s4-;856,8st,8si-, «s6J&5l;8t/»;8U. 8b?--.%tY.84,4-; 556 Ed Moore Bond III 6-29-36 7-29-36 C&D-Susp 8 bS;8bb,. 871,873:874- 271 212-.306; 3S0,4l3 557 Booth Bros.,Inc. et al. Insur III 7- 8-36 3- 1-38 Disniss 741; 7U3; 104-, 030 558 Ida Frank License V 7-10-36 8-21-36 Granted 141; 7b 3*. 184-: 830 559 Prospect Poultry Co., Inc. License V 7-10-36 9-23-36 Granted 141; 1b3j 784-; 830 - 888 - Doeket Number Respondent Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page 560 Paul Errioo License V 7-10-56 8-14-56 Granted 74t.l(>J,7»A:«?30 561 Hugo Hechter License V 7-10-56 8-19-36 Granted 14i.lC3,1&4-.**> 562 Marine Live Poultry Market License V 7-10-56 8-18-56 Granted '741.,It 3,7 84. 565 Kufinitz Poultry Corp. License V 7-10-56 6-19-37 Granted 14v.iL4-.76A.8l4 564 We *tem Live Poultry Market, Ine, License V 7-10-56 8-18-36 Granted i4»,i C 3 ; 164- -,e*o 565 John C. Krickbaua Bond III 7-11-36 8 - 4-36 CAD-Susp it<* . 204 . 3 4 - 15 ; 566 Holmes A Robinson,Inc. T.P. III 7-15-36 9-26-36 11-30-36 Rev Susp CAD 20A.Ill;21V21 S ; 3AT4l4rM-i ; JW S4V 567 §. B* Van Norman Co., a. oorp. Drafts III 7-15-56 9- 9-36 Dismiss 27;7L3.7&4,8Jo 585 Irving Poultry Co., Inc. License V 10- 5-36 2-20-37 Denied 706,744759.154.764 784- 88 -82V. 584 Sunray Live Poultry Co., Inc. License V 10- 5-36 2- 3-38 2-13-37 Denied Dismiss 827,823 ; 8 ie 7i3.74t.766.6io 585 North Fourth Poultry Corp. License V 10- 5-36 1-14-37 Denied 74I.75<7;788;8JC 586 Maspeth Live Poultry Co., Inc. Lioense V 10- 5-36 1-23-37 Denied 141, 7 S4.7fS. 786,830 587 Kings Poultry Co., Ino. License V 10- 8-36 9-29-37 12-19-36 Granted to ptnership successor Granted 74l-.1bfr.l64-, 850 588 Marie Wister, dba Lawrence Ave. Live Poultry Lioense V 10-10-36 10-30-36 Granted 141,113,764-, 8 jt 689 Abraham Schut License V 10-10-36 10-30-36 Granted 73l.lL3,7&4-,8Jt 590 C. V. Fowler License V 10-10-36 10-30-36 Granted 14t-.1Ll.784-., 85V 591 J. F. Maokay, dba Chicago Potato Co. License Y 10-10-36 10-30-36 Granted 14t.7tJ.,784-.e3i 692 H. A L. Schenkman, dba Bath Beaoh Live Poultry Market License V 10-10-36 4- 2-37 Denied 708;74-l,758lt>4.7B4.7«M8j» 595 Bathgate Live Poultry Market, Inc. License V 10-10-36 6-16-37 1-23-37 Granted Granted 74t.1L4.7 84.8M 594 Delancey A Pitt Live Poultry Market Corp. Lioense V 10-10-36 10-20-37 Denied 74t : i5 601 DOainiok Fasano Lioense V 10-14-36 12-30-56 Granted 14-*,1*V*tf ; &SO 602 Northwestern Live Stock Commission ♦ 'Sn* ‘ • - • Co. Insolvency III 10-28-36 11-20-36 Suspen 284 , 38 *.. 494 - i sis 1 t 4 .? 1- 6-37 . Rev Susp 609 Empire Veal A Hutton- Co., Inc., et al. T*P» II-III 10-30-36 4—25—37 CAD 4fe: S4-,i8v8M 626 Siegel A Siegel,Ino. Lioense V 11-28-36 4- 6-37 Denied 14l,lto,7(. 5.183,740 9-24-37 Granted 627 Paoifie Live Poultry Corp. Lioense V 11-28-36 3-19-37 Dismiss nr».,1A|.784. &ii 628 Alabama Live Poultry Market, Ino. 14. cense V 11-28-36 1-26-37 Granted 7 61,144,783,84* 629 Harold Horowitz, dba Hackensaok Live * Poultry Market Lioense V 11-28-36 12-30-36 Granted 74-l;1U4.,i$3,8Si 630 Sam Jaffe Lioense V 11-28-36 1-26-37 Dismiss 7J3.76I, 710,841 631 J. Marzigliand Lioense V - 11-28-36 1-12-37 Granted 74li14»4- : ie>,84* 632 American Poultry Farm Products Co., Ino. Lioense V 11-28-36 1- 6-37 Granted 741.14,4.763.891 633 Emil Lombardo, dba U. St Poultry Market Id. cense V 11-26-36 12-50-56 Granted 7 41:14,6.163,8 91 634 Hollie Lipsky et al., • dba Uonroe Live ; '“"Vi *' Poultry Market Lioense V 11-28-36 6-25-57 Granted 7 61:14.4,189-851 636 North Shore Live Poultry Markets, Ino. Lioense V 12-10-36 1- 6-37 Granted 14j : 14,4..109 ; 8>i 636 Barnet Schwarts Lioense V 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted. 74*-.14.6165.. 8 m 637 Berriman Live Poultry Corp . Lioense V 12-10-36 6-25-37 Denied 741.152.14,0,7 61, aiV-631 • 890 - Docket Number Respondent Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of * Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page <98 Linden Poultry Co., I no. Lioense Y 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted ■W;U4,-i ey0»t 659 Charles Seems.Id et al., a partnership Lioense V 13-10-36 4- 1-37 Denied 640 Meyer Seems Id % Harry Fertig Lioense V 12-10-36 3- 1-37 Denied 7*l i 1<.o.,11l.8i3 ; 031 -GO Tavema A Uognoni Lioense T 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 141:144. 642 Queens County Live Poultry Market, Ino. Lioense V 12-10-36 1-12-37 lyTSntod 643 Angelina LLnso Lioense V 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 141,114,7 03-.8M 644 Phillip Mistrette Lioense V 12-10-56 1-12-37 Granted T4I,144-.T#V,8M 645 Louis Goldstein Lioense V 12-10-56 1-12-37 Granted 14i16f;' , 83:8 J » 646 Cornelius Veenstra, dba Veenstra's Poultry Egg Co. Lioense Y 1- - 6^57 ■2- "9-37 Granted 14i;l(.4 : 783,8M 647 Gust Olson Lioense Y 1- 6-37 5-18-37 Denied 14l ; 1U 1U.;-70V.194.8J! 648 Ben Gershcovltz Lioense V 1- 6-37 8-12-37 3-13-37 Granted Granted T4i-.1t4:703.831 649 A. P. & L. R. Sorensen, dba A. Sorensen A San License Y 1- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted 74i-.1l4.103,8»l 650 E. A. Sadowski et al., dba Sunnyside Pro¬ duce Co. Lioense Y 1- 4-37 2- 9-57 Granted 74l,1fc4,7e» ; 8.3t 651 Beatrioe Pickman, dba General Produce Co. Means e Y I- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted 6S2 Fyank B. Strokes, dba Hi-Grade Poultry Co. Lioense Y 1- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted 74Mt4-.ia3.8ii 653 A. Hart, dba South- side Poultry Co. Lioense Y 1- 6-37 3-19-37 Granted 741,11.4-.,703,831 654 Theodore Peters Lioense Y 1- 6-37 2-10-37 Granted 74i.1fc4.763,841 665 W. V. Hunt Bond III 1- 6-37 2-12-38 CAD-Susp 656 A. H. Decker, dba £. Decker A Co. License Y 1- 8-37 3-18-37 Granted SST Jiational Poultry 4 E*g Co# Lioense V 1-14-37 7- 7-37 Granted 74l-.1l.4-. 783,8*1 658 Leo Horwitch, dba Farm Poultry A Egg Co. Lioense V 1-12-37 3-18-37 Granted 733,741:710 831 669 A. L. Peterson, dba Progressive Dressed Poultry Co., "Hot Ine." License V 1-12-37 3-19-37 Granted 741,1b4,183,831 660 Lloyd B. Stafford et al., partners dba Stafford A Brovin Bond III 1-23-37 3-19-37 Dismiss 661 Fred Feohtman A Co., Ino. License Y 1-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted T4t.1fc4,783,831 V62 Tedvabne A Rubenstein, Ino. License V 1-25-37 7- 2-37 Denied 74-l.lfcl .711,831 483 Wax Beller, dba 79th St. Live Poultry Market License V 1-26-37 6-19-37 Granted 741,144:714,783, Bn 664 Wallach A Kranz Lioense V 1-26-37 6-10-38 Granted 141 : 7fc4,7fcS" ; 7ft3,8M 665 Leonard Karp Lioense V 1-26-37 3-19-37 Dismiss 733,74I-,1(i>1 .184,831 668 David Ton A Tom Young, dba Yuen Roy Live Poultry Market Lioense Y 1-26-37 2-20-37 Granted 667 Louis Some naan et al., partners, dba Sani¬ tary Poultry A Egg Market Lioense V 1-26-37 3-19-37 Granted 141,11.47 83,^30 668 Frank Berger, dba The Peoples Poultry A Egg Store Moense Y 1-26-37 3-19-37 Granted 141.-lfc4.103 ,#30 669 John C. Broun et al., dba Fanners Rational Livestock Commission Co • Bond III 1-26-37 2-20-37 Dismlsa i3«-,afco,aai.3se.3vt- 670 Robert T. Jaokson, dba Muskogee Livestock Commission Co. Bond III 1-27-37 3- 1-37 Dismiss 1»4.280,zei,3se : 341. 671 Buck Karrlok et al., partners dba Karrick A Wilson Bond III 1-27-37 4-20-37 Dismiss 134. 280, £84,356.343- - 891 - Dooket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Casa Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 672 A. C. Hansen License V 1-30-37 3-19-37 Granted 673 Isadora Solgan License ▼ 1-30-37 7-16-37 Denied ^oe x 14l,1fctlC<. : 1*VM»4,ahZ U- 9-37 Granted 674 E. Fernhoff, dba Fernhoff's Live Poultry Market Lioense V 1-30-37 3-25-37 Granted T*hlC4.6J2. 676 Mayer T&xel License V 1-30-37 1-11-38 Denied 6-17-38 Granted «T6 Samuel. Edelstein Lioense V 1-30-37 4- 1-37 Granted 677 Anthony Laoqua et al.. \ 5^ partners dba 21st St. Poultry Market Lioense V 1-30-37 3-31-37 Di snd.se 13A.T4l.1B4- i 8JZ 678 Smuel Hillman, Ino., a corp.. License V 1-30-37 11-13-37 Granted 679 Charles Plnous, dba East Ne-w York Live Poultry License V 1-30-37 4-12-37 Granted 141.U4, T 85,83-2 680 Luigi Rea Lioense V 1-30-37 7- 7-37 Denied ■M-hTsaiioiesz- 681 Ike Wernick License y 1^50-37 6-19-37 Denied 74l.75ft;T84 ; 8»2. 682 Minnie Binder et al.. dba M. Binder 4 Sons License V 1-30-37 6-19-37 Granted 141,1SB i ll4-.,18VBiZ 683 Winthrop Live Po til try Co., Ino. Lioense V 1-30-37 7- 7-37 Denied lH-b.isSilB^Sia. 684 Yorkgate Live Poultry Market, Ine. Lioense V 2- 4-37 6-10-37 Granted 'W-.'lfcA-.n 8 }.,©«. 685 Church Ave. Poultry Co., Ino. License V 2- 4-37 11-.21-38 Granted 7CL, 1Bi.82q.Biz 686 Cesare Vitti A Mary Vitti, partner* Lioense V 2- 4-37 4-12-37 granted on Condition 687 Harry Rubin, dba Michigan Poultry Co. Lioense V 2- 4-37 4-26-57 Granted 741,1S'o.'P.4l83.8iZ 688 Ernest Renna et al.. partners -dba Corona Central Live Poultry Maricet Lioense V 2-11-37 4-14-37 Granted 689 W. L. Lane, dba Lane - Me- Livestock Commission Co. Bond III 2-13-37 9-14-37 Suspen zqo.^-is.U-i-.kSl 690 Philip Milovrsky, Ino. License V 2-19-37 7- 8-37 Denied 1 AhlSE.T-Vyt 61,85Z 11-22-37 Granted 691 Max Berg Lioense V 2-19-37 7-16-37 Oranted 692 H. & L. Live Poultry- iM^tA-.ie^ajz Co. License y 2-19-37 5-28-37 Granted 693 Harry L. Blumfield, dba Lee County Live Poultry House Lioense V 2-19-37 3-18-37 Dismiss -iJ4.-i4i.i84- e»Z 694 J. Blumfield, dba J. Blumfield Live Poultry License V 2-19-37 3-16-37 Granted 14-l:lM-.18V,8iZ. 695 C. A. Mitchell Bond III 2-20-3 1 6-15-37 CAD-Susp aaZ 699 Max Buchalter, dba Illinois Live Poul¬ try A Egg Market License V 2-27-37 3-26-37 Granted 14Mtk.l8V8^- 700 M. Rosen Live Poultry Co., Inc. License V 2-27-37 10- 4-37 Denied 141.13a,791;85Z 701 Abe Berger, dba Archer Poultry A Egg Market License V 3- 1-37 3-26-37 Granted 141 > 4 1 83,.812. 702 Joseph Bielinski, dba Brighton Poultry Egg Market License V 3- 1-37 3-26-37 Granted 703 Theodore J. Vtnd, dba Farmers Poultry Station License V 3- 1-37 3-26-37 Granted i4i,TWri«va«. 704 Merchants Produce Co., Ino. T.P. V 3- 1-37 6-25-37 Dismiss iH x i4i»11»^«4»rj. 705 Myer Schlichtman License V 3- 6-37 8-20-37 * Granted 141 ,15 8.141 ,Tf4^A» ; 83l. 706 Herbert Woo man License y 3- 6-37 7- 7-37 Denied 144,151,781 707 Gottlieb H. Hutt, dba Charles Yfau Hutt Co. License V 3- 6-37 2-25-38 Granted 14l,lff» 1(.1;TT( ; 8M 708 Leo Schlosa, Inc. T.P. II 3-13-37 10-20-37 CAD 41-,547 8 ; 41,9 6,101; 102-103 709 Purity Cooperative Association Lioense y 3-13-37 7- 7-37 11- 9-37 Denied Granted 141 ,150-1fe4,1U*18VTfl ; i4i 712 Joseph Staudohar, dba South-Chicago Poultry License V 3-16-37 6-25-37 Granted 713 Haskel Rosen Lioense V 3-16-37 4-14-37 Granted 14i;1fc4- : Te-ve*l 714 Abraham Zimmer et al.. dba Zimner's Live Poultry Market License V 3-16-37 5-18-37 Granted 74l;1t4 : 7ei,8l2. 715 F. B. Midwood Live Poultry Corp. Lioense V 3-16-37 12-18-37 Granted ; n»v,8»v- 716 Philip Sanders License V 3-16-37 5-18-37 Granted 717 Mrs. C. G. Baron Lioense V 3-16-37 8-14-37 Denied 74l ; 754.1t2.7»4 i e32- 718 Max Izenstein, dba Wisconsin Poultry A Egg Market License V 3-18-37 4-12-37 Granted ,8V2- 719 Rosen, Kugler & Zimme ring, Inc. License V 3-19-37 12-13-37 Denied 7A|;7S1 ;7g4..85 -U 720 L. Franzel Lioense V 3-19-37 6 - 7-37 Granted 74-l;1U4-,T@.3 ; 8Vt- 721 Milwaukee Stock Yards Co. T.P. III 3-22-37 5- 6-37 Dismiss 2S0.US,34-S;35®. 411*;S83 722 H. A. Moberly Bond III 3-23-37 8-11-37 CAD-Susp 284-4t<. ; fc43 723 Tri-Boro Live Poultry Corp. License V 3-23-37 7-14-37 Denied n msa.i84-, &J*- 724 Harry Pack License V 3-23-37 6 - 7-37 Granted 14-hK.478i.8ix. 725 328 E. 112th St. Poultry Market,Ino. License V 3-23-37 7-15-37 Denied T 4 1-7 S 8 .7 (. C. ,764-. 1 . 8 3X. 4 7-28-37 Granted 726 Jacob Wo If son License V 3-23-37 5-18-37 Granted 14hK>*-783,e.i7- 727 West 21st St. Poultry 1 4\ , 1 58 7 (*7 .7 81.711.8 1 z. Ma rket, Inc. Lioense V 3-23-37 7-10-37 Denied 11-20-37 Granted 728 The Livestock Marketing Association T.P. III 3-23-37 9-14-37 Dismiss 2ai;Z1S ; 3Sa,47 1,47 E..ASI .402 729 J. Goodman Lioense V 3-26-37 5- 4-37 Granted 14t,U4 783.ej'2L 730 Irving Wechster License V 3-26-37 4-23-37 Granted n4i..U47e*,8ix. 731 Max Muckovd.cz License V 3-26-37 4-26-37 Granted T41,7l4;ie3.a37. 732 Louis Eisenberg, dba Peoples Poultry A Egg Market License V 4- 1-37 5- 4-37 Granted 74-1.7fc4783.&12. 733 M. T. Finkelstein, dba Rock Valley Farm Produce License V 4- 1-37 7-30-37 Denied i < H7s&784.e»t 734 Mike Cassata et al.. partners dba Cassata A Butler License V 4- 1-37 4-26-37 Granted 7A(.,U4.781 ; 832. 735 C. J. Rice Payts to Truckers III 4- 5-37 t- to 1 J to CAD 2.11,41(0.511. 736 Charles Mirotznik et al., partners dba Mirotznik A Rosenberg License V 4-12-37 9-14-37 Denied 1 4» -7 s 8184,812- 737 Jerome Lazar, dba Ohio T4h1t>4 ; 785 1 8l2. Poultry Market Lioense V 4-16-37 7-10-37 Granted 738 Michael Stein, dba Englewood Poultry Market License V 4-16-37 5-12-37 Granted 141.^4,783,612- 739 George N. Fisher Bond III 4-19-37 7- 7-37 CAD 134,284.374 740 Joseph Skupa License v 4-21-37 5-18-37 Granted 74t.1t4.183; 8 12. 741 Herbert Wulf et al.. dba Boris A Wulf Lioense y 4-21-37 5-13-37 Granted 741,114.783,812. 742 Carl Wutzen, dba Halsted Street Poultry Store Lioense y 4-21-37 5-13-37 Granted 7qi,1t4.783;8l2- 743 Bert Fatten, dba South 74li1t4;783 ; 832 Shore Poultry House License V 4-21-37 5-12-37 Granted 744 James Mitchell, dba Franks Poultry Store License V 4-21-37 5-12-37 Granted 14l;1t4.783 ; 832 745 Anton Pesut, dba East 74»;1t^,7B3;812- Side Poultry License V 4-21-37 5-13-37 Granted 746 C. Paul Noble, dba Coulbourn A Noble Payts to Truckers III 4-23-37 5-15-37 CAD 21l 4|(o ; 5l(o 747 Bernard Glasberg License y 4-23-37 6-30-37 Granted 14'-.7b4-. 1 748 Mariangela Cacciola License V 4-26-37 8 - 7-37 Denied 741 758-7 ©4; 8 32. 749 Alex H. Tannenbaum License V 4-26-37 6-25-37 Granted 741,714,7 ©3; 017- - 893 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case {lumber Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 760 G. & G. Live Poultry- Market, Inc. License V 4-26-37 8 - 7-37 Denied 141 -.7$?. 784-632- 761 Mae Usim et al,, dba Cropsey Avenue Live Poultry Market License V 4-26-37 6-16-37 Dismiss 734-.141,784-817- 762 Louis Aronln License V 4-26-37 6-30-37 Dismiss 734.741 >164 ; 8 31.837- 763 Alex Spidle, dba A. Spidle Co. License V 4-26-37 5-10-37 Granted 1«-7,fesa 8 12. ... 757 Levy Kona1sky, dba Jaokson Live Poultry Market License V 5- 3-37 6-25-37 Granted 768 C. H. O’Hera T.P. III 5- 6-37 8 - 3-37 CftD-Susp 202,217.218 240 24-2.,2Bt.2&8-2‘lS; 759 Peoples Cooperative 348,40,847,856 Sales Agency, a oorp. T.P. III 5- 4-37 2-12-38 C&D-Susp 28t,24».4n ; S/b;SU2.8Se, ; 760 John B. O’Reilly, dba Mid-City Farm Produce Co. License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted 741-.Ifef, 7 63,632. 761 Frank Ostrowsky, dba Frank's Poultry House License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted 741 .It 4-, 19 3,8 >2_ 762 Israel Einhora, dba Jaokson Park Poultry House License r 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted 74-<;1tV.783.8*7- 763 Arin Sharicansky License V 5-10-37 7-16-37 Granted 74 l-,1fc4".70y,6»7- 764 William A. Otto License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted 7.41 ;1l4.793 ; 617- 765 Jos. Paprooh License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted 74»,ifc4--.7e3;Si2_ 766 Frank H. Connor et aL, dba John Clay & Co. Repar III 5-12-37 9- 4-87 Dismiss 28l.2qt.3SB.S42- 767 Henry J. Moon et al.. dba Moon & Unthauk Repar III 6-12-37 9-10-37 Repar >12,14^4-11,541 768 Gussy Weinstook Lioense V 5-12-37 6-19-37 Granted 741, 714,783^831. 769 Mulberry Poultry Corp. License 7 5-12-37 6-25-37 Granted 74' 770 John A. Lisa License V 5-12-37 6-25-37 Granted 14lVnt4.793 771 Stanley Paprooh License y £-12-37 7-10-37 Granted 7*4 V?'* 4 ' -' 1 ®* 772 Isidor ft Hyman Haber, 74lV.1t4-.783 partners License V 5-12-37 7-24-37 Granted 773 William B. Wulf, dba Wisconsin Poultry 74' V.1t4793 • ft Egg Co. License y 5-12-37 7-10-37 Granted 774 George Ciohon License y 5-12-37 7-10-37 Granted 1*»V;il4-..7B3 77S William Janowski, dba William Janowski Live Poultry License V 5-13-37 6-26-37 Granted 74lV,'lk4-flSl 776 Matteo Gaudioso, dba Square Poultry Market License V 5-13-37 6-18-37 Granted 74l V.ItVTf* 777 Joseph Manowits, dba White Front Poultry Market Lioense V 5-13-37 4-18-38 Denied 74lt : 75-y.7B4 778 Isaac E. Burg License V 5-13-37 7-14-37 Granted -I4lC-.1t4-.78i 779 Peter Cretaro License y 5-13-37 7-31-37 Granted 74' C.lfe 4,783 780 Max Gold Lioense V 6-13-37 8 - 7-37 Denied 741^764 781 Winstead Hyde, dba Hyde's Poultry Market License V 5-13-37 7-10-37 Granted -l4-lC-.1t4.783 782 Joseph Green Lioense y 5-13-37 7-16-37 Granted 141 C;1t4;7B3 783 Richardson Live -14'l„,1t4.783 Poultry Corp. Lioense V 5-13-37 6-16-37 Granted 784 Geo. Stephenson, dba Stephenson’s Poultry Market Lioense V 5-13-37 7-10-37 Granted 14lV Vi 7b4 ; 783 785 Thomas Cummins, dba Tom Cummin's Poultry House Lioense V 5-15-37 7-10-37* Granted -14'V.'!fe4.783 786 Taylor Street Live 74l C ,1fe4-.7#3 Poultry Market, Ino. License V 5-15-37 6-19-37 Granted 787 Nathan Morrof License V 5-15-37 6-16-37 Granted 74lC.;lW- ; 783 788 Columbia Live Poultry, Inc. Lioense V 5-15-37 7-16-37 Granted 74lV.7fe4.7B3 789 Margaret Misoiogna Lioense V 5-15-37 7-16-37 Granted ”M-> V.lb4;783 790 Morris Tuoker, dba 62nd St. Live Poultry Market License V 5-15-37 7-16-37 Granted 741 V'.l^nS 5 - 894 - Dooket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 791 Arthur Avenue Poultry Market, Inc. License T 5-15-37 7- 7-37 Granted 74 ) 1^.1(»A- 1 7» 792 Berkowitz Live Poultry, Ino. License V 5-15-37 7-16-37 Dismiss *r»4~.74iV , ." , ®4 795 James Penzaveochia Lioense V 5-15-37 7-14-37 Granted H-iV.in-.ie* 794 John Kuren, dba Kuren’s Live Poultry Market License V 5-15-37 7-14-37 Granted 795 B. Rosenblum, Inc. Lioense V 5-15-37 6-30-37 Granted 74iV ) 7k4'-.78» 796 Packs Live Poultry Market, Inc. Lioense V 5-18-37 7-14-37 Granted 797 Weiss' Live Poultry Market, a corp. License V 5-18-37 7-16-37 Granted "HI'V.UMSJ 798 Isaao Meddin & Alex- ander Meddin, partners Drafts II 5-18-37 9-27-37 CAD s-l. 7 a .103 799 Louis Verduooi License V 5-18-37 7-16-37 Granted 74iV i ib4'.7S3 800 Polmen Poultry Corp. Lioense V 5-18-37 7- 7-37 Granted ■W-iicAiS5 : s3a 801 Henry W. Martin, dba Martin's Live Poultry Market License V 5-25-37 7- 7-37 Granted 7A1..1t4 ; 701..&3O 802 A. P* & J. H. Doty License V 5-25-37 7- 7-37 Granted ■nU1U4-iT83.8*> 805 . Pasquale Suraoe License V 5-25-37 7-16-37 Granted 741 s 1(4 • i 7&3,830 804 J. Goldman & Sons,Inc. License V 5-25-37 7-16-37 Granted 741 , It 4 -.-ifci.BJo 805 Marie Uarchioni License V 5-25-37 7-14-37 Granted 74hlU4--, 783,830 806 Dunning A Stevens,Ino. Insolvency III 5-25-37 6-19-37 Su3pen 4.44 807 Frank Keenan Insolvency III 5-28-37 6- 1-38 Susp-ARM E.B94n.t31,t<>9 808 Louis Scala License V 5-28-37 7-16-37 Granted 741-.1(>4-,7ft3,&3o 809 John Bagileo License V 5-28-37 7-16-37 Granted 741,1t4,7&3;43o 810 Dave Reiohenberg Lioense V 5-28-37 7-14-37 Granted 74t ,1b4 811 Benny A Abe Shuster, partners dba Shuster Bros. Lioense V 5-29-37 9-25-37 Denied 74l.7 5 < ?71‘2-.«30 812 Joseph A Samuel Kramer, partners dba Jos. Kramer A Son License V 5-29-37 7-16-37 Granted 7 4l..'K>4.703-.8iO 813 Bartolo De Pietro License V 5-29-37 7-16-37 Granted 74' ;1b4--.78i'.a>0 814 Orlando De Biose License V 5-29-37 7-27-37 Granted 74MU 4 703,830 815 Berkshire Live Poultry 74-1 ;U4;783.830 Co., Inc. License V 5-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 816 Beatrice Solomon, dba Bayonne Live Poultry Co. Lioense V 5-29-37 7-16-37 Granted 7 AI.1(>4-,7e3,$io 817 Louis Feuer License V 5-29-37 7-14-37 Granted 741 ;lU..783-,aiO 818 Mrs. Mary Pappalardo License V 6- 2-37 9-29-37 Granted 741 -.itt,703:030 819 Jerry Esposito License V 6- 7-37 7-16-37 Granted 741 >4- -,7 83,810 820 Thomas La Barbera License V 6- 7-37 9-11-37 Granted 74l-,7b4-\783-,&3o 821 75th St. Live Poultry 7 4-I-.7F4 78^.977,8*7,810 Market, Ino. Lioense V 6- 5-37 3-22-38 Denied 822 John Notax License V 6- 5-37 7-21-37 Granted 74I-.1 (4,783:830 825 Philip Guistino License V 6- 5-37 7-21-37 Granted 74ti1l4-.783.q>30 824 Se Col“t License V 6- 7-37 7-30-37 Dismiss 734,741 ; 784- ; &30 825 Philip Frankfater Lioense V 6- 5-37 7-21-37 Granted 826 Frank Buzzurro Lioense V 6- 5-37 7-21-37 Granted 147 ;1M-, 783)630 827 Isidor Tanchum et al.. partners dba Westchester Kosher License V '6- 5-37 9-11-37 Granted 74l;7<*f,777,7«3 ; &3o Meat Market 7 41.1(4,7 77 ;783;830 828 Ben Hasenfratz Lioense V 6- 5-37 10-22-37 Granted 829 Louis Black, dba Long Island Poultry Market License V 6- 5-37 9- 4-37 Granted 7 41,1(4.7 83-,8X> 830 Sol Phillips License V 6- 7-37 9- 9-37 Granted 7 41.1(4 .7«3.,ei>o 831 Charles Butler Lioense V 6- 8-37 7- 7-37 Granted 141 ; lt,4-783;Bio 832 Chicago Poultry . Merchants Associa¬ tion, a corp. T.P. V 6- 8-37 9-24-37 Dismiss 7 3A\743 ./m ,9 4-0. B70 833 Mr. J. Sohwartz Lioense V 6- 8-37 7- 7-37 Granted 7 83,830 834 Nicolo A Joseph 74l;1(4.783.830 Gallello, partners License V 6-10-37 9- 9-37 Granted 835 Max Feigenbaum License V 6-10-37 9- 4-37 Granted 741.1(4:783;83o 836 Al's Popular Markets, 741:1(4 783.830 Ino. License V 6-10-37 9- 4-37 Granted 837 Star Live Poultry 74l.,7b4783,ai 0 Market, Inc. Lioense V 6-10-37 9-14-37 Graited 838 Gus Abramowitz License V 6-16-37 8-13-37 Granted 741 -,ll4;783i83C> 839 Michael Luciani License V 6-16-37 8- 7-37 Granted 74l;l(,f ;703.030 840 Ralph Marino License V 6-16-37 11- 6-37 Denied 7 41,7 7 84,871 - 877,830 Docket Number Respondent Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest Of Case AppeaN Uh.der Page Ml Filomena Sohiavo License V 6-16-57 8-11-37 Granted 842 Mazzillo Poultry Market, a oorp. Lioense V 6-19-37 8-17-37 Granted 845 Antonio Colangelo License V 6-19-37 9-14-37 Granted 14MUil«»;®%<> 844 Domenico La Barbara Lioense V 6-19-37 8-14-37 Granted 845 John Bitritto License V 6-19-37 8 - 7-37 Granted 846 Fiore Annunziato Lioense V 6-19-37 8 - 7-37 Granted 847 G.O.G. Poultry Corporation License V 6-19-37 9-14-37 Granted 848 Patsy Leocese License V 6-19-37 8-14-37 Granted 74<;1 849 Charles Schonzeit & S. Sudfeld, partners Lioense V 6-19-37 10- 4-37 Dismiss 850 P. Penzaveochia, dba Sackett Street Poultry Market License V 6-19-37 9- 4-37 Grafted 851 South Brooklyn Poul¬ try Corporation License V 6-19-37 8-17-37 Granted 14),it4-l83 ; 8 3<3 852 Anna Freilich License V 6-19-37 8 - 7-37 Granted 14) ; it4- : 18i : %30 853 Bowles Live Stock Commission Co., a corp. Insolvency III 6-23-37 7-14-37 Suspen 854 Thomas Saraoino <3e Co., a corp. Boycott V 6-25-37 11- 9-37 CAD 143..112- 1 &»p.87S- 855 Jay Smith, dba Central Poultry A Egg Market License V 6-25-37 8-17-37 Granted 141 183,830 856 Ernest A. Goldberger License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted ■’4-i-.ik4'nev&'o 857 Michael Capone, dba Flushing Sanitary Live Poultry Market License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted i4),iC4-..i®>.a3o 858 Philip Stem, dba Philip Stem A Sons Lioense V 6-25-37 8-27-37 Granted 14)..1b4-.1&i,8JO 859 Max Joseph's Poultry Market, Inc. Lioense V 6-25-37 10-22-37 Dismiss 860 You K. Moy et al., dba Wing Sang Company A Lioense V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted 1 4l.,1l>4,U&,i83.'11L : 83o 861 Wing Song Company Louis Raby License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted 7V\,1fc4-fl8Y : 8io 862 Shumer's Englewood Meat A Live Poultry Market license V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted 863 Charles Russo Lioense V 6-25-37 12-18-37 Dismiss 135\14>V .184^30 864 Charles Seewald Lioense V 6-25-37 12-13-37 Denied 8 >o 865 Rubin Fleischer License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted 14».1l»4,1 8 »j8 *S 866 Ralph Goldberger, dba Paramount Live Poultry License V 6-25-37 8-27-37 Granted 14).K>4..,183 63o 867 David Kirby, dba Dave 4 s Poultry Market lioense V 7- 1-37 8-17-37 Granted ni-Y1t4-.l83.840 868 Morris Klaiman et al., dba Lawrence Live Poultry Co. T.P. V 7- 2-37 12-18-37 CAD-Susp 143.115.112..Bi\ 869 Frederick W. William¬ son, dba T. S. Williamson A Bro. Lioense V 7- 7-37 8-26-37 Granted 14Y.ib4-*lS»i8»o 870 Samuel Ask in Lioense V 7- 7-37 9-17-37 Granted 14) i1b4-;1bL18J-.&30 871 Samuel Blum Lioense V 7- 7-37 8-31-37 Granted 14< 1U4-183.840 872 Cecil Shapiro, Inc. Lioense V 7-10-37 1-11-38 Granted 14) ..itA-.l 83,830 87$ Nathan Leiman, dba So. Sixth Ave. Live Poultry Market Lioense V 7-10-37 9- 4-37 Granted 141 ,%4-, 183.830 874 John B. Miller License V 7-1CN-37 12-13-37 Granted 14li7b4l183;®30 876 Anthony Soalpato License V 7-10-37 11- 6-37 Denied 14I-.15*? -.18^,81.1,830 876 Joseph L^.-f’orgia License V 7-10-37 9- 4-37 Granted 14l : lM-:18J;«3o 877 Leon C. Calef Lioense V 7-14-37 9- 1-37 Grsmted 14) ;ib4 -184)83° 878 B. Panest, Inc. License V 7-16-37 9-14-37 Granted 14).,itf,183,840 879 Joseph Friedman Lioense V 7-16-37 9- 4-37 Grsmted 14).,it4 : l83;830 880 Max A Carl Firestone, partners dba Bergen Beach Live Poultry Market Lioense V 7-16-37 9-29-37 Dismiss Tjin*t..i«4\6*o 881 James N. Norris, Inc. Repar V 7-16-37 3-14-38 Dismiss 135.14J.14L 882 United Poultry A Egg Company, Inc. License V 7-20-37 9- 4-37 Granted 14l,lt>4- ; 183,830 - 896 - Docket Nature Title pate of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 883 Guiseppe Cardin&le Lioense V 7-20-37 9- 4-37 Granted H-1.,U4.783 : &30 7<4';1t4 : 783 ; e3o 884 Ruth Horowitz, dba Hudson Live Poultry Market License V 7-24-37 10-20-37 Granted 885 Joseph Finkelstein, dba Pleasant Valley Poultry Farms Lioense V 7-24-37 9-25-37 Granted 7 889 Edward Myers, dba The Chicken House Lioense V 7-24-37 9-25-37 Granted 741,1 l »4.783.e,7>0 890 Beacon Live Poultry Company, Ino. Lioense V 7-24-37 12-13-37 Granted 141,11,4,7 63.8 30 891 Metropolitan Poultry Feed Corp. Feed V 7-27-37 8- 4-37 Mod orig 7I0;743.77U113. 8ll, 81-3.818.62^ 3(>0 892 Vito Soarangello A Frank 5avino, part¬ ners License V 7-27-37 6- 8-38 9- 4-37 Order CftD-susp Granted 7 44 U 4,7 83.832. 893 Vincent Mariana et al., partners License V 7-28-37 11-13-37 Granted 144.114-,763,837. 894 kid we si Fa nne rs, Inc. T.P. ni 7-28-37 6-22-38 CftD 2il,£34.2.84,288.50 5 895 Producers Live Stock Commission Assn. Repar hi 7-28-37 3- 1-38 Diamiss 2&l ; 298, 35 8 436 54-2-. 896 897 Theo. Cuny, dba Theo. Cuny & Co. Julius Kastein, Inc. Proceeds Hepar V V 9-14-37 10-22-37 Dismiss Dismiss 157,735,743,713.638,845 735,743,113,824- 898 Cropsey Avenue Live Poultry Corp. License V 7-31-37 11- 6-37 Denied 14.183.832 902 Julius Weiss, dba Marquette Poultry ft Egg Market lioense V 8- 9-37 9-25-37 Granted 14l,U4,783 ; 032 903 John Dieckman et al., partners dba Dieckman's License V 8-11-37 11-13-37 Granted 74-M t>4,7 83; 837. 904 Nick Frattaroli License V 8-11-37 12-13-37 Dismiss 14 -1,15fc l 764;832- 905 Jack Bira, dba Still¬ well Live Poultry Market Lioense V 8-11-37 11-13-37 Granted 735.741.114.783,637. 906 Ralph Kimmelman Lioense V 8-11-37 11-13-37 Granted T44,1t4.78i.832. 907 I. ft F. Kamensky, partners dba Alliance Poultry Market License V 8-11-37 9-26-37 Granted 14;7 83..,83X- 915 James Pellecchio Lioense V 8-17-37 5-17-38 Denied 74 tl Uq,i 8(? .837- 916 Steve Fedele Lioense V 8-17-37 5-17-38 Denied 718.743,147- ,193. 837- 917 Joseph Pennacchio License V 8-17-37 3-18-37 Granted 141 ; 9 fa 4-,783.037. 918 Carlo Minioino, dba Southwest Poultry Market License V 8-17-37 9-29-37 Granted 7 4 . (.'114.183,831- 919 Loyd G. Harrison et al. partners dba Har¬ rison's Poultry Farm P License V 8-17-37 9-25-37 Granted 7 4| ,7 fc 4-. 78 3.032- 897 - Dook«t Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Be spondent of Case of Aot Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 920 Rosenzaeig Live 73U.74yi54-,7q4- Poultry Co., Ino. T.P. V 8-17-37 11-13-37 Dismiss 921 Ed Term&n A Co., ft T07 i 714T-?tS;TW.,v4-t-lSV.n(..T««», 7lA.6vy838,04-Z • oorp. T.P. V 8-17-37 8-1B-38 Repar-C&D Susp 922 Stanley Florko et &1., partners dba North¬ western Live Poultry Ha licet License V 8-18-37 10-28-37 Granted 92S Abe Beshunsky Lioense V 8-24-57 11-13-37 Granted 744 ,it4-7 8v$»i. 924 Guiseppe Uoocio Lioense V 8-24-37 12-13-37 Granted 925 Fenway Fftrm Dairy, Ine. Lioense V 8-24-37 2-23-38 Denied 741, lSq,1&4-.634- 926 Morris Graber Lioense V 8-24-37 2-12-38 Denied 927 C. C. Glover, dba Glover Comnission Co. Drafts III 9- 4-57 3-22-38 CAD 1 15 , m ; *1 u.32.q. 411,4-iq. 541 928 Leo Sohloss, Ino. T.P. II 9- 4-37 6 - 8-38 CAD <4o ; 4-8,S<|,77 929 Clay Kltohens, dba Finley-Kitchens live Stock Commission Co. Drafts III 9- 4-37 11-13-37 CAD 930 C. B. Johnson Bond III 9- 9-37 11-16-37 CAD u4-.za4.4iq 931 M. Richter Sons, Ino. T JP. V 9-13-37 3- 1-38 Dismiss 7/4,723,73t.743-.7l4 932 M. Zimmerman A Co., a oorp. TJ*. V 9-13-37 5- 1-38 Dismiss 7lU.lt. 3.7>L ; 743;744- 933 Ben Sonenbliok et al.. partners dba Sonenbliok & Shapiro T.P. V 9-13-37 2-12-38 Dismiss 7lt>,723,734,743,714 934 Lee Dosier, dba Atlantia Poultry Produoe Co. license V 9-14-37 10-22-37 Dismiss 734,74'; 704,032- 836 Richard Bromberg, dba Garfield Poultry Markets Lioense V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted IV 114,703, 832. 936 Sarah Lewis, dba Jefferson Park Poul¬ try A Egg Market License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 74l.1t4-7e3.6iV 937 Lena Smith, dba Montrose Poultry Lioense V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 741-.1t4,7 63,632. 938 Adolph Glooh, dba Linooln Poultry Market Lioense V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Dismiss -|J4.-H.»;784..83i_ 939 Emmett J. Marshall,dba 7 4-MM-..7 83 : B3v Marshall Brothers License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 940 Farm Food Stores, Ino. Lioense V 9-14-57 10-22-37 Granted 74-Mt4-.7By.6M_ 941 Louis Crawford et al.. partners dba Quality Poultry House License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 74(..7t4.7 8i ; 83X. 942 Caroline Vallo, dba Gold Coast Poultry Market Lioense V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 741,114.763.031- 943 G. J. Soholten Lioense V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 74l..lt4--.7 83 : 8>V S44 Carl Moeller Lioense V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 741 ;ltf;793.834. 945 Louis Comins Lioense V 9-14-37 12-13-37 Granted 741,1t4-i783.e«- 946 Sam Orenstein, dba E BBex Live Poultry Co • Lioense V 9-14-37 12-13-37 Granted 741.ltVv763.63l- 947 William Goldhirsh T.P. V 9-14-37 6-17-38 Revoked 743,784,770,714 948 Brighton Dressed Beef A Veal Co., a oorp. T.P. II 9-14-37 5-17-38 CAD 40:46,51,77,103 949 William M. Liggett,dba Kansas City live Stock Comnission Co. Stolen Cattle III 9-15-37 8-11-38 Dismiss 26<,.t1W,3at,..327.333.33A 35ft 532,540. 950 C. L. Wyouff et al.. 3t>5 partners dba West 8ide Live Stook Comnission Co. Insolvency III 9-14-37 11-24-37 Suepen l6l.4»q,U« 961 Zip Donaubauer's 71 ©.721/744-,7*14- Country Store Repar V 9-17-37 2-12-38 Dismiss 952 Michael & Mary 741,1 763;S3l. FrattaroU. partners Lioense V 9-17-37 12-13-57 Granted 963 Guiseppe Sorudato, dba Linooln Live Poultry Market License V 9-27-37 12-13-37 Granted 741-1^4'. 703; ©31- 964 Irving Goldfein Lioense V 9-29-37 12-13-37 Granted 741,It 4,783.831- 965 Harry I. Steinberg Lioense V 9-29-37 11-13-37 Granted 74 l;l(,4;78b ; e32- 956 Northwestern Livestock Commission Co. Market Privileges III 10- 7-37 5-10-38 CAD 234,H7,4J.0 ; 47cL.477 ; 47l; S7<* ; 507. p 898 Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 957 958 Giovanni San a one R. Y. Dougherty et al., License * V 10-13-37 12-29-37 Granted partners dba Dougherty A Coker Bond III 10-14-37 11-16-37 Dismiss 969 Dewey Thomas Bond III 10-20-37 6-20-38 CAD-Susp 960 Alexander Sherr et al. partners dba Badger State Poultry & Egg Co. Lioense V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted TU-.1L4-; 961 J. Hoberts et al., partners dba Broad¬ way Poultry Co. License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 74l,1bf.,7&3.83i 962 Fred Patton et al., partners dba The Henhouse Lioense V 10-29-37 3-14-38 Granted Dismiss 7 4l,1tf 14,6,763,715, 852- 963 Max Levin, dba Iowa Poultry Lioense V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 74l 1&3..8SZ- 964 Fred Patton, dba Pat's Poultry Fish License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 7 41,164-. 7 63 8>x- 966 Joseph Pratscher,dba Pratsoher's Poultry Market License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted TU.,U4-.T83 i e>«- 966 Green Smith Lioense V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 967 He Oe & Oe Ae W©1©8, partners dba Somerset Farm Store License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 744.1 t4',763,83i 968 Ranzie Guilford, dba South Side Poultry Mart License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 74t..1fcf.763.e3i- 969 Sophia Kirsch, dba States Poultry Farm License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 970 Hugo Werner Lioense V 10-29-37 12-30-37 Granted -.Itf,183,8 31 971 Mae Lyric License V 10-29-37 12-30-37 Granted 7A'..7t4-,7ei : 8Ji 972 John Reber License V 10-29-37 12-30-37 Granted lAl.ltf ,T63,831 973 Albert Rogers License V 11- 6-37 12-30-37 Granted 74-MM-.7W:S31 974 Stephen F. Semenski, 74|..1tfi63;83i dba Prima Poultry License V 11- 6-37 12-30-37 Granted 975 John Rill, dba Rill's 741,16 4-,763,831. Poultry Para License V 11- 6-37 12-30-37 Granted 976 M. Richter Sons,Inc. T.P. V 11- 6-37 8 - 2-38 Dismiss US . T 2- » 1 A4 ,T(S; ft 4-a. & so 977 Farmers Union Live Stock Commission T.P. III 11- 6-37 11-24-37 Dismiss 217, 3S8iS4-2- 978 James Mitchell, dba Frank's Poultry Store Insolvency V 11- 6-37 3-30-38 Suspen 144-;l J r4-.mW;'HS 979 Peoria Union Stock Yards Co. Market Privileges III 11- 6-37 4-18-38 Dismiss 2»l.2Z| ; 23fc;*'n,3S0.4-?.O,sv-r 980 W. R. Maurer et al.. partners dba Drove.s Livestock Commission Co. T.P. III 11- 6-37 12-13-37 CAD-Susp 240;2g(9.3s8.4z0.,(.sa 981 Sig Ellingson 4 Co. T.P. III 11-13-37 8 - 2-38 Dismiss 28b,217,32(o.327,12ft,3S0 ; 3SI.SAi6. SOS’ 982 Feldman Bros. Co. Draft II 11-16-37 6-30-38 CAD fco, 71; lo4- 983 John K. Newbum et al. » partners dba McCall, Newbum & Joyce T.P. III 11-16-37 12-13-37 CAD-Susp- •ASM 2 &U;4 2 o ; fc 58..102 984 Samuel Forman Lioense V 11-22-37 1-19-38 Granted 741 ,1bf: 784832. 985 Walter Sitto, dba Service Poultry 74-l.7tfilft3.ftji, Store License V 11-22-37 1-19-38 Granted 986 Leonard Kurowski,dba • Chick-Chick Store License V 11-22-37 1-21-38 Granted 74U164- .183.831 987 John Bailitz Lioense V 11-22-37 1-19-38 Granted 741; 7fcf .183^31 988 Ida H. Schorr License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 74'vltf; 783..631 989 Harry Leile Cohen License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted lAfltf; 783,832- 990 Joseph J. Nell Repar V 11-22-37 2-12-38 Dismiss 727 7 30,744,7^5,632 991 White Plains Live 741 .,1tf ..783,831 Poultry Market, Inc. Lioense V 11-22-37 5-17-38 Granted 992 Nathan Finkel License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 7 41-,It 4-.78 3,811 993 H. H. Sloat License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 7tMtf-.783..631- 994 John Cannizzard License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 741,7(>4--,783,831 996 Joseph Saitta, dba Hickory Poultry Maricet License V 11-22-37 1-11-38 Granted 9 Dooket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 996 Orazio Ricci, dba Halstead Poultry Market License y 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 997 William Tassani License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted i4i,7l4".i&3 ; 8»2. 998 Tony Azzante Insolvency y 11-22-37 7- 2-38 Revoked 1«4: is vn 0,145 999 Quinoy Lire Poultry, 14l.1l4-,18J;63X- Inc. Lioense y 11-22-37 2-23-38 Granted 1000 Boris & Neuman, Inc., also dba Bette man i k JCoelling Insolvency V 11-22-37 3-22-38 CAD-Revok nza.Ta4-.mo : m.iis 1001 Newark Live Poultry Co. T.P. V 11-22-37 12-18-37 Dismiss 131,14-4 .US.821 1002 L. Miller Lioense V 11-26-37 2-12-38 Granted ■J4iV.it4- ; 7e3,&yj_ 1003 Leon Shuchman, dba Ft. Hamilton Live • Poultry Market Lioense V 11-26-37 1-11-38 Granted 14-!..181,832- 1004 John De Frane et al.. partners dba Com¬ munity Poultry Market License V 11-26-37 1-19-38 Dismiss 134.141,184,832. 1005 Roooo Pisano, dba Chatham Poultry License V 11-26-37 1-19-38 Granted 1006 Gerald Knip, dba Knip'a Farm Store (John Hoekstra) License y 11-26-37 4-11-38 Granted 141.114,183.832. 1007 David Matthews, dba Matthew’s Poultry A Fish Market Lioense y 11-26-37 3-14-38 Granted 141,1t4 l6b ; ftVZ- 1008 Leon Jaffe, dba Redart's Dairy Products License V 11-26-37 1-19-38 Granted 141,l44..1%<\,832. 1009 Benzion Levin License V 11-26-37 1-11-38 Granted 744,1441184,632 1010 Polmen Poultry Corp. Lioense V 12- 1-37 1-21-38 Dismiss 131.144^141. 1011 Dobbin Meat k Poultry 141. Ifc 4-,iq 8.18 3, 8 32 Markets, Ino. License y 12- 1-37 2-12-38 Granted 1012 Antonio Fioarra License V 12- 1-37 1-11-38 Granted 14-I;lfc4,181,832 1013 Samuel Singer Lioense y 12- 1-37 1-11-38 Granted 14|..1t4-,1B3.83-*- 1014 Dodge-Freedman Live 134- , 141 •. 1 « ; 7 54 ■ 11 a. 184. Poultry Co., Ino. License V 12- 1-37 3-22-38 (Denied 5-13-38 [Dismiss HR, 114,14-1*-, 14 k.624- 1015 Karsten k Sons T.P. y 12- 1-37 3-18-38 Dismiss 1016 Joseph Michalski, dba Wisconsin Poultry A Egg Market Lioense V 12- 1-37 1-27-38 Granted 14-I.7(,. 821,835- Co. Trek Payte V 12-18-37 7-18-38 CAD 1024 W. A. Biggerstaff et al., partners dba Biggerstaff A Velflik Trok Payte V 12-18-37 7-11-38 CAD 144;l41 t ftiS 1025 J. E. Hugo Hemman Co. Trok Payts V 12-22-37 11-10-39 CAD 744 1sfc ; 14l,835 1025 B. A W. Poultry Corp. License V 12-23-37 2-25-38 Granted 14-17 83,632. 1027 Anton Bezio License V 12-27-37 1-27-38 Dismiss 131,1*1,184,832 1028 Gladys B. Conley, dba 141-.H4M 83,3*2 Dixie Poultry Co. Lioense V 12-27-37 1-27-38 Granted 1029 Louis Fisher License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 141,it ♦'•.783, 832 1030 N. Nathanson Lioense V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 141,114,183,932 1031 Mae Marshall, dba Jersey Live Poul¬ try Market Lioense V 12-29-37 2-23-38 Granted I4(:7t4.l83;832 1032 John J. Varvaro License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 14«:1t4 ; 183,832 1033 Mrs. Mildred Nochenscn Lioense V 12-29-37 3-22-38 Granted Itliicq-, 7 83,832 1034 John Ciamella License V 12-29-37 2-23-38 Granted 74t;lth78* 8 ”- 1036 Joseph Campanale, dba Lioense V 12-29-37 2-23-38 Granted 14l ! l()4';183,8»2 * 900 Dooket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 1056 Henry R1semen, dba Brooklyn Live Poultry Market License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 141.-iL4.185 1037 Paaqualine Sontoro License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 141 1038 Levis H. Baldwin License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 14L,l(.4>784i 0 ' 1 - 1039 He Ee 0 t &le | partners dba Jett A Duden Insolvency III 12-30-37 2-23-38 Suspen 288.311.421.525 : <,3q 3-18-38 Rev Susp 1040 Ootaf Stragier Bond III 1-19-38 6 - 8-38 C4D 135,2 81.421 1041 Farmers A Shippers Live Stook Comnis- sion Co., et al. T.P. III 1-19-38 8-31-38 CAD U2.ll3..2Zt ; Zt3 : 28t>341 ; 421, 1042 Ransom, Mansfield 4 Co., Ino. T.P. III 1-19-38 3- 1-38 Dismiss E ; s4s 1043 Ralph 0. Wright, dba Ralph 0. Wright Live Stook Commission Co. T.P. III 1-21-38 11-18-38 CAD-Repar 184,211. 422,-5 48-. 550, SS4--I 1044 Mike Cassata Insolvency V 1-21-38 3- 1-38 Dismiss 1VT-.1 44-/1 ifc 1045 Kazimer Libkin, dba Illinois Poultry 4 Egg Ma ricet License V 1-21-38 3- 1-38 Granted 141.1L4 183.832. 1046 William Domke et al.. partners dba Chicago Produoe License V 1-21-38 3-14-38 Granted 1047 Joseph Cassata, dba North Avenue Poultry Market License V 1-25-38 3- 1-38 Granted 741 ;1fc4.18>,8»2 1048 Steve Rogulich, dba 1A|;1fe>4-.7 83;8l2- Damen Poultry House Lioense V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted 1049 Jacob Sacks, dba 14_l.lL4..i 63.832. Redzie Market Lioense V 1-25-38 3-18-38 Granted 1050 Barney Eisenstadt, dba Michigan Poul- -|4|. < lL4-.7e>837_ • try 4 Egg Market License V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted 1051 Charles H. Schlutter, dba Charles Market License V 1-25-38 3- 1-38 Granted 14!/7fc4%7&3,8vz. 1052 Providence Live Poultry Co., Inc. License V 1-25-38 9-24-38 Granted 141 nkf.i sv.ey*- 1053 E. L. Wemiok License V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted 14t-.7t4<70J,637_ 1054 Felioia Ciardella Lioense V 1-25-38 4- 8-58 Denied 14l.1l.Z-.7e4-.8SZ- 1055 Brooklyn Poultry Commission Co., Inc. T.P. V 1-25-38 4-19-38 Rep&r 111 . 1 *4-: 11V, 6 4 6 ; 8 42. 1056 Domato S&vino License V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted 1 41 \11>4\1 83.&31- 1057 Mary Montanino• Lioense V 1-25-38 3-18-38 Granted 1068 Wood Avenue Poultry Market License V 1-25-38 7-11-38 Dismiss 7H-..141;164:831. 1059 Joseph Finkelstein, dba Pleasant Valley Poultry Farms TJ>. V 1-25-38 8 - 2-38 Repar 144,111 834.842- 1060 Stephen Svatik, Jr., dba Central Butter 4 Cheese Co. Insolvency V 1-27-38 3- 1-38 Dismiss 144V1*4- life 1061 James A. Williams Lioense V 1-27-38 3- 1-38 Granted 141.1fcf.l83., 832 1062 Paul Balalas, dba 141:114,183.842. Paul's Poultry Lioense V 1-27-38 3-14-38 Granted 1063 H. J. Stone et al.. partners dba Stone 4 Lloyd Lioense V 1-27-38 3-14-38 Granted m.ll4- ; lB3;8V2. 1064 Barbara Kuhral, dba Union Stook Tard Market Lioense V 1-27-38 3-14-38 Granted 14 !,ltf : 183 ; eiZ- 1065 Martin Brennan 4 Ufa. E. Otto, Admrs of Estate of S. Bruoe Stafford, formerly dba Stafford Bros. Bond III 1-27-38 7- 2-38 CAD 127.181,422 1066 Mary Sottolano, dba New System Poul¬ try Market Insolvency V 1-28-38 6 - 1-38 Revoked 144110:111 1067 Lena Smith, dba Montrose Poultry T.P. V 2- 3-38 7- 2-38 Repar 144.H1-.842- 1068 Boris 4 Neuman, Ino. T.P. V 2- 3-38 6 - 1-38 Repar 145.111,844 1069 Max Riohman T.P. V 2- 3-38 5-17-38 Dismiss 1W ; 131,144.H8 1070 Edward Weber License V 2- 3-38 3-14-38 Granted 14l.lt4.iei ; 832- 1071 Solomon Schorr Lioense V 2- 3-38 3-22-38 Granted I41;1b4.1«.6-183,837- 1072 Samuel Castiglia Insolvency V 2- 3-38 6-10-38 Revoked 144^10-118 Docket Number Respondent Nature of Case Title of Aot Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page 1073 John Battista, dba Michigan Food Shop License V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted Te>‘,.ejz. 1074 Said Do 11 ah A Fair Dollah, partners dba Frank's Lioense V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted 1075 Grocery Harry Goldman License V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted 1076 Rev. He!man Singer, dba Rev. H. Singer Poultry k Egg Market Lioense V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted "lAl./m-. TBy.652. 1077 Judith Lehrer, dba Farmers Poultry k Egg Store Lioense V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted 1078 Morris Geller, dba Gellers Food Store Lioense V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted 1079 John Lyris, dba Spic-N-Span Live Poultry Market Lioense V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted 1080 Morris k Hyman Orman, partners dba Michigan Poultry Co. License V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted 'i4'Y44'..T8i.0a2- 1081 Armour is Co. T.P. II 2-23-38 4-19-38 Dismiss H|57;fc0,«« 1082 Platte Valley Live¬ stock Consnission Co., a corp. Bond III 2-23-38 4-18-38 ' CAD 1083 1084 (Cancelled) M. M. Snyder Bond III 2-23-38 10-15-38 CAD »2b;Z90 ; 4-OZ_ 1085 Power k Loftin, Inc. T.P. III 2-23-38 3-29-38 Dismiss j.ai;Z8t,jsa ; s34 1086 George k Fred William, partners dba Fred William License V 2^25-38 4-22-38 Dismiss 1087 Lillie Thomas, dba De Luxe Poultry Market License V 2-25-38 4-11-38 Granted 1088 Mabelle Smith, dba People's Poultry Market Lioense V 2-25-38 4-11-38 Granted 1089 Medora L. Brown, dba People's Poultry Market No. 2 Lioense V 2-25-38 4-11-38 Granted T4-h7tf-,18i-.85Z- 1090 Security Produce Co., Inc. T.P. V 2-25-38 8-11-38 CAD-Repar w, a«j ; i*sv»s7:H&.8>e>. &+& svi 1091 Goldie B. Polin, dba Farmers Commission Co., et al. Boycott V 3- 1-38 6-20-38 Dismiss-CAD 1092 Irwin Bloch Repar V 3- 1-38 6-10-38 Dismiss 1VT;1 ■71 Z-.&S 2. VT 1093 Molly k Sydney Glass, partners dba Pem¬ broke Poultry Co. License V 3- 1-38 9-20-38 Granted 'miit'.Ta* 1094 Casioniro Canelli Lioense V 3- 1-38 4-22-38 Granted 1095 Eugene Ernest k Mario Negririi, partners Lioense V 3- 1-38 4-19-38 Granted 1096 Laura Gioveneo Lioense V 3- 1-38 4-19-38 Granted 1097 Tom Lee Sun et al., dba Yuen Roy Live Poultry Market License V 5- 1-38 4-19-38 Granted 1098 Constantine Ferrarls Lioense V 3- 1-38 4-22-38 Granted 1099 Ernest Matteo License V 3-14-38 4-19-38 Granted 1100 Jacob Cohen License V 3-14-38 4-19-38 Granted 14l;lk4- -,783.. 1101 Tony Ereddia, dba Tony'8 Live Poultry Market Lioense V 3-14-38 4-22-38 Granted lAl.-lM. .783,032- 1102 David I. k Herman Raokoff, partners dba Grove Street Live Poultry Market License V 3-14-38 7-11-38 Granted H-hlfcf i783 ; 63Z 1103 Luigi Maroiontc Lioense V 3-14-38 4-19-38 Granted 7ft.7t4.,783 : e>12- 1104 Mlhaly Wenxler, dba Wentler's Live Poultry Market License V 3-14-38 4-18-38 Granted / 1105 Leo Sohloss, Inc. TJ 1 . II 3-14-38 7- 2-38 CAD A-l,;fc6 I %0 1106 Abe Segal Insolvency V 3-14-38 5-17-38 Dismiss 1107 George I. Myers, dba Northwestern Live¬ stock Commission Co. Bond III 3-25-38 10-27-38 Dismiss l3S.,*8Z.i®V358.312. 902 Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page 1108 Frank H. Connor et al., partners dba John Clay & Co. T.P. III 4- 1-38 6- 8-38 CAD 2 bV t&W,^7- ; j 3 t- . 4 22 ., SS\ 1109 J. 0. Holmes et al.. partners dba The Holmes Live Stock r Conmission Co. Draft III 2-11-38 9- 1-39 CAD-Repar na i itt,..z*4-.2.sr I t *7- 1127 Michael Mai no License V 5-17-38 12-10-38 Granted 74-1 iTL4i783; 832. 1128 Sam Kramer Insolvency V 5-17-38 5-13-39 Dismiss 738.145,784,82-5 1129 Eastern Livestock Cooperative Mar¬ keting Assn., Ino. Repar III 5-17-38 6-10-38 Dismiss 2t2.2VI.35a 1130 Tim We 1 day Bond III 6- 1-38 10-10-38 CAD-Susp 2aq,4*te,wA« 1131 Harry Conley et al.. 1132 dba Harry Conley Co Independent Livestock . Draft III 6- 1-38 10-21-38 CAD-Repar ua ; iefc ; l44. 205 221225,29^,297,328-321 424~.4tfc,47Z i 477.sbS,539: 5S2..fc^S Conmission Co., Inc. T.P. III 6 - 1-38 9- 7-38 CAD 222,284,297,4-24. 512 1133 Jake Boris License V 6 - 8-38 7-18-38 Granted 741 ;U4 7 83.832. 1134 Rubin B. Ackerman, dba Sanitary Kosher Meat Market License V 6- 8-38 8-31-38 Granted 741.7t♦■•.7 &3.&12. 1135 Isadora Sharkansky License V 6— 8—38 8-31-38 Denied 741-.7 S; fc47 5-26-40 CAD 50; 5 4. to. 4 3. itfc.80.8V.2l 3,2 3fc.2gfc.288; 246 ; 31& 3*1 3Bl.42l;4S».4Sq. An7484. 444: 904 Doolcot Humber 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1185 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 Respondent Mature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Prospect Poultry Co., Ino. Insolvenoy West 21st Street Poultry Market, Ino. T.P. Insolvenoy V 12-50-38 7-15-39 Revoked Kings Poultry Co., Ino. T.P. Insolvenoy V 12-30-58 7-15-39 Dismiss Prank Ostrovsky, dba Frank's Poultry T.P. V 12-30-38 7-15-39 Revoked Houss Repar V 1- 4-39 6- 3-39 Dismiss Walter Maksim&s Great Western Live¬ stock Coiani s si on Insolvenoy V 1- 5-39 2-11-39 Revoked Co., a oorp. Hampton Live Stock Commission Co., T.P. III 1- 7-39 4-10-39 CftD-Susp a oorp. Draft III 1- 7-39 9-18-39 C&D-AHK- Repar- ,Dismiss S. S. * B. Live Poultry Corp. The United Poultry T.P. V 8-17-38 7-19-39 Repar 3c Egg Co., Ino. Repar V 6- 7-38 7-29-39 Dismiss Frank Houser Insolvenoy V 1-14-39 3- 1-39 ^Revoked l Repar mami Stockyards Co. Yardage Dale U. Dashner et aL, dba Johnson Com- in 1-19-39 8-10-39 CftD mission Co. T.P. hi 1-19-39 8-17-39 CftD-Susp Adolph E. Booek Vary Levit, dba Albert Poultry ft Bond in 1-19-39 3- 1-39 CftD-Susp Egg Co. Insolvenoy V 1-25-39 10-12-39 Suap-AHM Joseph Menkes Linden Poultry Co., T.P.Repar V 1-25-39 7-22-39 1-23-40 CftD Repar-Dismiss Ino. Belleville Live Poultry Market, Insolvenoy V 1-25-39 3-10-39 Revoked-Repar Ino. G. L. ft Paul Holden, dba Miami Livestock License V 1-27-39 5-26-39 Q-anted Comnission Co. Max Firestone, dba Bergen Beaoh Live T.P. III 1-19-39 8-10-39 Dismiss Poultry Market Charles Vfai. Hutt, dba T.P. V 2-11-39 4-26-39 Revoked Charles Wm. Hutt Co Vito So&rangolla, dba Soarangella Chloken . T.P. V 2-11-39 7-15-39 Dismiss Market Majestic Live Poultry Lioense V 2-16-39 6- 3-39 Granted Co., Ino. Giacomo Sonmaroo, dba Main Live Poultry License V 2-16-39 9-19-39 Dismiss Market Lioense V 2-16-39 6- 3-39 Granted M. Arnold Hemp Bond III 2-21-39 6- 3-39 CftD-Susp -ARM M. Arnold Hemp Draft III 12- 8-38 7-15-39 Repar Paul J. Anderson Bond J. T. Overstreet et a!L, partners dba Arnold ft Overstreet Live- III 2-28-39 5-23-39 CftD-Susp stook Conmission Co.Insolvency Cranford Livestock III 3- 1-59 6- 3-39 CftD-Susp Comnission Co. Garden Street Live Bond III 3-14-59 3- 1-40 CftD Poultry Market,Ino. (Pending) Mary Levit, dba Albert Poultry ft Repar V 1-19-59 6- 3-39 Dismiss Egg Co. Antonio Romano, dba Bloomfield Avenue Repar V 5-20-39 7-16-39 Dismiss Live Poultry Market Lioense V 3-29-39 - 906 - 6-10-39 Granted Digest of Case Appears Under Page 1OZ.. 1IS -.1 «4 111, ft® ,6 .m; got., 8 n , 8 i 3 T>q.T4a..9o5;04-3 143 •. 144-.1i 3.8«t; 844- n, I 20,188 .t00 ; t0fe,&8q. l4-o 7O0 ; 1t4- 1 14-4-.14-S' ; 11(. .8«3 104-1H ,120.1*1,124,14-5,-75 O,7S8180. 181.604,8*4851 144.116,605.844 n4-iiWki85 ; 85z. 248,34-8 4-*ft 4-01. 3*0-. 531,SbS; stj. S7ft,S83 ; S8S • 14-5.113.004- TW.I^.iAS, %44- TM-UV, 183,832. “124. IZS.iV^i4-1.184,632. 14MW--.18);832 13$, », t<» 8,4-t-4,<> f 81 l(,O ; 10O 120,200, Its, 19 b, 4-^ .4-84,534.333 »30.289,4-16,^40 S>aW.lftR440,S54,tS0;U.t 135,281,4-21 14O..14-3.0O3 IfO, 143,144,803,844-,-848 14-(,HoV ; 183.832 Dooket Nature Title Date of Number Respondent of Case of Act Inquiry 1208 Gayton DeRose Iioense V 3-31-39 1209 Jimmie Carsillor, dba Carailiar Live Poultry Market License V 3-31-39 1210 Samuel Askin Insolvency V 4- 8-39 1211 St. Paul Onion Stookyarda Co. Rates III 4-22-39 1212 Holmes Livestock Commission Co. Repar III 2-11-39 1215 John P. Bruemmer & Sons T.P. III 4-26-39 1214 Joe Bonner, dba Fort Smith Horse A Mule Commission Co. Insolvency III 5- 1-39 1216 A. Peldstein A Co., a oorp. T.P. V 6- 5-39 1216 Los Angeles Union Stock Yards Co. Rates III 5-13-39 1217 Caroline Vallo Bonoimino, dba Gold Coast Poultry Market T.P. V 1-26-39 1218 J. H. Hannemann T.P. V 2- 2-39 1219 Frank C. Hoelterhoff, dba Grand Produo© Co • T.P. V 6-10-39 1220 Joe Katz, dba Texas Fish A Poultry Market Insolvency V 6-10-39 1221 Louis Some man et al.. partners dba Sani¬ tary Poultry A Egg Market T.P. V 6-13-39 1222 E. G. McDonough, dba Drivers Livestock Commission Co. T.P. III 7- 1-39 1225 Home Packing Co. T.P. II 7- 5-39 1224 0. A. Clark Co. T.P. III 3-28-39 1225 Interstate live Poultry Co. T J. V 4-25-39 1226 Interstate live Poultry Co. T.P. V 12- 7-38 1227 (Pending; 1228 Benjamin Superman A Sons Poultry Co. T.P. V 5- 5-39 1229 81ade Bros., Ino. License V 7-20-39 1230 Union Stock Yard A Transit Co. of Chicago Repar III 4-26-39 1231 Frank Carbone Hi, dba Public Live Poul¬ try Market License V 7-20-39 1232 Union Stock Yard A Transit Co. of Chicago Services III 7-26-39 1233 Charles T. McNamara et al. (Pending) 1234 St. Louis National Stockyards Co. Repar III 1235 Creson Commission C6. et al. Repar III 1236 C. I. Stafford A Sons Repar III 2-23-39 1237 William Roy Tucker, dba York Livestock Commission Co. T.P. III 7-29-39 1238 Union Stock Yard A Transit Co. of Chioago (Pending) 1239 Lovell P. Kclake T.P. V 1240 Harry Diokson T.P. V 1241 Asheville Livestock Yards, Ino. Bond III 8-18-39 1242 E* Bo MoKoo f db© E«B• MoKee A Co. T.P. V 8-23-39 1243 Indiana Live Poultry Market, Ino. Lioense V 8-24-39 1244 Mane Skaler Insolvency 7 8-30-39 1245 Abe Schlddhorn Insolvency V 8-30-39 • 906 • Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under page 7-16-39 Denied 14-^K'4.i84-:8»z. 6- 10-39 7- 13-39 Dismiss ASM iiv-nd-i.aoA.asz- ioo : i44-.,i4-s ; nfc 1 ao«- (Pending) 12- 1-39 Dismiss ttl ,181. IS S. ZOO. 1*7; 14 4 ; 378 7-13-39 l CAD-Susp-AEM 8,44 i 2 <• 3! t *b ; 4-iO A IS. SK», Stt, Slot , 102 . 8-15-39 Suspen 9-14-39 CAD-Susp 10S.12S-;14-(i>,8oV ; 82t ; 8M. (Pending) 10-12-39 9- 8-39 Repar Repar *7 0 5; 1 , 1 SS-> so S; 8 4\ 1-16-40 Dismiss l40-.14b'.6«6 12-10-39 Dismiss 12- 9-39 Revoked 8-16-39 10- 18-39 11 - 10-39 CAD-ARM CAD Dismiss (.0^87-<7 2.1 Ob tu .221,244,. 35B*b8,5V» 11- 9-39 Dismiss 9-16-39 Dismiss lA0.14bi^»ff.84S in 1-29-40 11-14-39 Dismiss Denied l0fc i 14b i Qas.84L 1 "M 4-1 i IS 1 *. 184,812. 12-11-39 Dismiss i»l ! aft 05,844- 5-17-40 CAD us, 234 . 4-22 11- 7-39 CAD lH-.ao(.,935 10-18-39 5- 8-40 5-13-40 Denied Revoked Revoked 141,1*4,11* 144, ; -ii3,8oL I25,14t*,n4 8ol> Docket Number Docket Number Respondent Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Pa#e 1248 Humboldt-Boerum Lire Poultry Market, Inc. Repar V 2-10-39 1-24-40 Repar 747-,749 .a»n^35.844- 1249 Nathan Morrof He par V 2-23-39 1-30-40 Repar -ttSVM-7i749, 807.8 8 33-844- 1250 Leonard Jefferson Bond III 10-16-39 1-19-40 C&D-Susp 1251 Mary Levit, dba The Albert Poultry & Egg Co. T.P. V 10-19-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM -703.-J|| ; 710;-IU:T*7,8®7 1252 Louis Neman, dba Franklin Poultry Co. T.P. V IO-31-39 2-10-40 C&D-ARM 703 ; 730-.74-7i8ft-t 1253 Eduard L. Merritt, et al., Partners, dba J. J. Hifford & Co. T.P. V 10-30-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM 7 03,7 >0-7 47 .ft*® 1254 B. Hoberman T.P. V IO-31-39 6-17-40 C&D-ARM 700, 7 0 3ri2S'777,7^®>7’' .74-7.80% 1255 C. T. Handy T.P. V 11-24-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM 703. 71l ; 7}0 ; 73l ; 747 1256 Nathan J. Polln, dba Integrity Poultry Co. T.P. V 11- 9-39 2-27-40 C&D 71 1 : 7 1 Z,7 30.7 jr. ; 747-,e> 0 ft 1258 A. Lerit, Inc., et al. T.P. V 11-13-39 2-27-40 C&D 7 l» i 7 (Z. l 731 ; 73 r.; 747 -- 8 o ‘1 1259 Merchants Produce Co., Inc. T.P. V 11- 6-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM 703,712.-7*7 -.Sol 1260 A. Tlskowitz, dba A. Tiskoidtz & Co. T.P. V 11 - 8-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM 703 ; 73l-.7*7-.8®1 1261 Eduard P. Stein, dba Edward P. Stein & Co. T.P. V 10-31-39 2-10-40 C&D 7lt-,7 *7,®a<* 1266 Bank Commission Co., Inc. Drafts III 12-11-39 6-22-40 Dismiss te, hi. z.oo.wr i »,w ; 2*v,r®J-,7 , w vvt 1 • 1271 McLain Brothers Company, Inc. Payts To Truckers V 12-16-39 2-17-40 C&D 7*8.B»0;8»4 1272 Sol Frankel, Inc. T.P. V 1-22-40 4-25-40 ARM 70^.74a v 8t0,BtB,8iS 1273 M. Arnold Hemp Repar III 9-25-39 4-25-40 Piamias 1276 J. A. Strachan, dba J. A. Strachan & Co. Drafts III 9- 1-39 6-17-40 Dismiss aw. 2IA-. in, r tk 17 1 *U;X3Z-.X33; Z 6 S-, 3lO ; 5 |(; J| 0 , Mod 11-20-3 / 3n .3X1)34U-. 400 ; 4y?,44-3-.441. Mod 9-16-38 4s3AU6-.ssz-.S5i ,sio-.sis : biz Mod 1-16-40 Dismiss ns ; Z&5-.3o3*35S : 81,14.Z1, 3Z-V.3S,S|-3)S1-.b4-U,1Z 81 81-8 IS, lb-1, 100-1, 111; SUU 41 -.St-.ST.U4-U1.lo-.il .1Z-.8Z-.l0; 14.17-.SU9 908 Res pondent Docket Nature Number of Case Title Date of Date of of Act Inquiry Order Order Digest of Case Appears Jnder rage Armour & Co. of Illinois et al. 133 Monopoly II 10-14-24 1-22-25 Dismiss SS; 51.lt. Armc-ir & Co. et al. 440 Price-Fixing II 2-14-34 3-30-36 C&D g.VT .AO^x-a 4S-.44 so si s*- sb Amour & Co. and fcO-.tl.M4-S-. 8S,W-*i Swift & Co. 5?0 T.P. n 9_30-?6 6 - 1-38 C&D 93-fc; 16-1; 100-31} lot- |£>? 34.^,11:85,84,74:13-. I0o Armour & Co. ;3C- ■A T.F. ii 9-30-36 11-29-39 Dismiss tl.ll. IOO Armour & Co. Arnold, J. R., dba 1C81 T.P. ii 2-23-38 4-19-38 Dismiss 4f.51 fcO.Ji Arnold Dairy Calf Co. 329 Bond m 10 -11-30 11-17-30 C&D-Susp lt-4-.t6q.38a.t4-0 Amurius, Dunn & Co. 431 T.F. n 10-29-35 1-15-36 Indef p/p i S4 S» ,t< It Arenin, Louis Arthur Avenue Poultry 752 License V 4-26-37 6-30-37 Dismiss 754- : 141.184-. : 8Sz_ Market, Inc. 791 License ¥ 5-15-37 7- 7-37 Granted 14 ,( v -.ltq- .lSJ Asbury, Charles D. Asheville Livestock 467 3c nd in 6-22-35 8-15-35 C&D I2t. 2 64. Ill Yards, Inc. 1241 Bond in 8-18-39 5-17-40 C&D Askin, Samuel 870 License V 7- 7-37 9-17-37 Granted 74-I-.1L4-. ifct. IS 5 530 Askin, Samuel 1210 Insolvency 7 4- 8-39 7-13-39 ARM -jap ..'•44-.14S-.114>-. 834- Atchison, P. R. 177 T.P. in 9—22—26 5-12-27 C&D n s, 161,3 0 0.3 ti -. 41V. Atlanta Stock Yards, Inc. Atwater Live Poultry 270 Yardage in 10- 8-27 6 -13-28 C&D 285, 515 -. 414-. tSl Co., Inc. 597 License ? ' 10-10-36 [4-12-37 Denied 14r. isq..-fc5 ; -Tgs.B3| 8-11-37 Granted Auth Provision Co., N. 495 T.P. n n- 2-35 1-21-36 Indef p/p SV: S«,44; it Azzante, Tony 998 Insolvency V 11-22-37 7- 2-33 * Revoked TtA-.l54-.no -iqs B. & W. Poultry Corp. 1026 License V 12-23-37 2-25-38 Granted T4MW4.1 fcJ Si*- Baer, James L. 314 T.P. hi 6-15-30 1-24-31 C&D-Susp 2 66,3 3s", 3 8».b38 Baer, Julius 698 License ▼ 2-27-37 4- 1-37 Granted itt-. itv.igv. 83i- Baglleo, John 809 License 7 5-28-37 7-16-37 Granted 74I-. lt,4;16i ; . 630 Bailitz, John Balalas, Paul, dba Paul's 987 License 7 11-22-3” 1-19-38 Granted T4l-.li.4 T 83 Poultry 1062 License V 1-27-33 3-14-38 Granted 14'-.lfc4. I83.8»v- Baldwin, Lewis H. 1038 License 7 12-29-37 2 -12-38 Granted 14i . 1U4. T6.3 3?"V Ball, H. M., & Co. 4U Re par in 5-10-32 7-28-34 Denied Ml; 346-Alt; SW-.SS’ Bank Commission Co., Inc. 1266 Drafts in 12 -11-3? 6-22-40 Dismiss 2 o.ui.us xqi t.tq-.- 2 .- 2 .- 5 . 2 ftv Bangs & Berry, N. S. & Z44 431- FredE., copartners Barefoot Livestock Com¬ 182 T.P. in 10 — 6—26 11-23-26 C&D 231 26t.3t1-.4u-i 4-10,484:500 mission Co. et al. 33 Comm Rates in 2-29—2- 1-25-30 Dismiss 26ST-. 3SB Baron, C. G. 1125 License 7 5-17—38 6-20-38 Granted 14I-. It4. 181,83V- Baron, Mrs. C. G. 717 License 7 3-16-37 8-14-37 Denied T 4 -;. ls?.lti.. 184 , 832 - Barry, Thomas M. 280 T.P. in 12—1^-28 6-14-29 C&D-Susp 266-. 335. 311 414- 644- Barton, D. L. et al. 308 Cofim Rates in 3- 7-3C 7-25-31 Fix Hates i t.S.t.q, V4.lt,IV 15 4B-.V1.6-. 1 vt: 13^. n-19-37 Med Rates tsv.tss , iSts HU 2.04 221 , 2 SS. 3lt-.3l4 34t .383-,441: 4-St.i-TS 486,411-. S5U.SUU 6-20-39 Fix Rates SM si4.;Sii, = ao tiJ4W- Barton-Thebo, a corp. 514 T o iei • m H-29-35 1-14-36 C&D HU ZBfc 288 244 410 : sit-.atZ. Baskin, Max 598 License 7 10-10-36 1-26-37 Dismiss 133141. 186.83 Bates, Claude L., dba Bates Livestock Com¬ mission Co. 1166 Insolvency m 1C—10—33 12 -10-38 Suspen 284.36V L47 Bathgate Live Poultry Market, Inc. Battista, John, dba 593 License 7 10 -10-36 1-23-37 Granted T4i;7t4.-84 ; 83l Michigan Food Shop 1073 License 7 2-23-38 i-11-38 Granted T4-1.1 tv. T 83 ft3T_ Bauer, Frank J. Baughe r & Hazelhurst, 606 License V 11 - 5-36 12-19-36 Granted 74l.TU4.184, 831 J. H. & F., dba E, A. Blaekshere & Co. 129 T.P. in 8-29-24 3- 5-25 Diaoiss 2t1-, 2Bt,3 SB Baum, Max Beacon Live Poultry 170 Bond m 7-24-26 10-14-26 C&D 124.284 3tB Company, Inc. 890 License 7 7-24-37 12-13-37 Granted T4i.it4-.T83 830 Bearley, Pole et al. 391 Bond m 7-23-32 10-27-32 C&D I2T 2 81-3T4 Beck Provision Co. 491 T.P. n 11- 1-35 2- 5-36 Indef p/p54- =4 ti.it Becker, W. H., dba Becker Commission Co. Becktame, 0., dba Becktnme 135 T.P. in 1-13-25 5-13-25 C&D 2 8 - 336,342 3St Poultry Co. 1142 Insolvency V 6 -10-38 9- 2-38 Revoked T44-.TTV-.174 Begel, Morris Bellar, Max, dba 79th St. 400 Bond in 9-1432 1C—18—32 C&D-Susp 210-361:442 tSZ. Live Poultry Market Belleville Live Poultry 663 License 7 1-25-37 6-19-37 Granted T4llt4:Ttt-7B3:83\ Market, Inc. Belt R. R. & Stockyards 1192 License 7 1-27-3? 5-26-39 Granted 14! It4.183-832- Co., The 4 Com Chge in 3-18-22 4-15-22 Dismiss 2US.2BS 3St ttff-.tlt - 909 - \ Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case ^ Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Pare Belt R. R. Stockyards Co* 84 Vaccina rates III 3-10-24 5-24-24 Fix 241.396 , partners dba Blggerstaff 144~.-m-.8JS & Velflik 1024 Trek Payts V 12-18-37 7-11-58 C&D Binder, Minnie et al., dba M. Binder & Sons Bim, Jack, dba Stillwell 682 License V 1-30-37 6-19-37 Granted 144-.iSft- ( lfc4-,l &V. 612- Live Poultry Market 905 License V 8-11-37 11-15-37 Granted 1J5-.14I-.1U4.16J-, 8*1- Bitritto, John Black, Louis, dba Long 845 License V 6-19-57 8- 7-57 Granted 14-U144-; 610 Island Poultry Market Blain Live Stock Com- 829 License V 6- 5-57 9- 4-57 Granted 14-I;lt4--.18J-,810 mission Co., Inc. Blais, Theodore, dba Blue 501 Bond III 11- 5-35 4-25-36 Dismiss IJ2-. 214-,2«fO;5l0; JS6;4-o8 Island Poultry House 1137 License V 6- 8-38 7-18-38 Granted 14-1'It A. 18J-, 817. Bloch, Irwin 1092 Repar V 5- 1-38 6-10-38 Dismiss 1J1-.144~.1 Braunschweig, H. 581 Bond HI 2-19-52 (5-17-52 15- 4-52 CAD-Susp' z< *-i3o-.znC; z 1°: a&n-.fcsi Dismiss Bree, Albert 888 License V 7-24-57 9-25-57 Granted n n- 14 , 4 ... rv 84 o Briggs, L. S., Inc. Brighton Dressed Beef It 492 T.P. H H- 1-55 1-24-56 Indef p/p S4- : ss-. ut-.nc Teal Co., a corp. Brock Co., Horris, a part- 948 T.P. H 9-14-57 5-17-58 CAD S-o.48. ss.us-.103 nerahip Broderick, T. M. et al., dba Missouri live Stock 120 T.P. in 7-12-24 8-27-24 CAD Z53-.ZUI-.Z6W; 3SW;4-«rt Ccndssion Co. Bmberg, Richard, dba 469 Insolvency m 8-16-55 9- 7-55 Suspen 28S-.38I Garfield Poultry Markets Brooklyn Poultry Cn- 955 License T 9-14-57 10-26-57 Granted uo-t-.nuV.Uay, 837- mission Co., Inc. Brooks It Card, C. T. It J. H., dba Brooks Co®- 1055 T.P. T 1-25-58 4-19-58 Repar Ui1-.U4-4~.U11; 84-0.843- mission Co. Brown, John C. et al., dba Earner* Rational Live- 255 Bend IH 10- 8-27 11-22-27 CAD i*4 ; ZB4--. 04O-. 870 a&8,3(.V43T Z15 ; Z41-;iS6 141-.T U4-: lfcfc-,183 v8 tft 832. 14l-.7tV-.T64--.83v- T4l-.Tb4-.T83-, 83V 161V, lt4-.18) 249; 2 ftb,Z 86.3fcb311-. 4^2.. 4-7fc> 59 S'-, b44• fclfc-.b 16 8- 1-25 10-21-25 CAD 12- 5-25 5- 6-26 C&D-Suspen'*2;'31''8'-a81o-.2.8a-,3zz..Z2 4-i 33Z.34S;ib4;4bO;ai., ase> MO,58T.4>4-2-.fcS2- au-.r23-,xm,'ise>.,4-t8'. EV1 ZI8v&»U, 5 S«> |Z&;Z1S;ZVO;3S& 113 . ziq, 2 ^, 3 sa ; T>i 2 - cjo, zib. zev^se.'svz- sv.sq-.fci-.Tfc> 2a^, aqx-. a oo ,'3 a ■»• •» i q-, a z i, q-oi; vm-. vq 4- > fczo •. bu •. bt &; fc8 * 116 , tqq.zqv, 4-i4-,sot, sso-.bas S3 1«|W; aiZ;Z&&.3S^,3kk;Vk1;V1S' i 500 iqv,z6e>-,'5qo i fcvs 2S2-.ZSV..ZST. iftt ■3SS'i Soft , S'Oi 511 T4-l-.-lfc4--.n8V &vv- ijfe.ivi-.ifcv-.iqv.div s.4,10; IV- ZV-.25.ik-.a»-.12t,TVZ-. -i6a- TSi.TSz-.nq.TS Sj&is-szo, szv.azs, e>tT; 6fca.6i.q,9io iVi-.TfcV-.i8a-, 831- 1W-.11V 213, 26V-. 35ft Iav-.T4-I-.104: 8ao 1VI,1fcV;1&3,83o aio. zaq,3s& IVi V.T-^IS* ivi-,t(.v-.t 6>, aai_ i2(p,zqo,a62_ 14-l-.ifcV-.1®3-.&av 116; 18k , iqq, 2 05; 221.ZZ 5 -.ZV b-.ZST,3Z6; 3 zq. 4%V; 4kk, viz .vti, s a s, s aq, s s 2 -. tq s 28 i. 2 qfc-.a»a-.sw s-.b,a-. q, iv-; ifc, iq,zi, zz ; t3 ; 28.at, 1VT. IV6-, l«5 IbT. IfcB; Ibl; I8Z. iqi; 2US-.Z85-.aot-, V ok; 4-4-1; 4-5-V, 4-B O, 55 6;5fc1i-S1i : 57fc;58l.-fck4-.- t&k tfcvzSfc. zqz-.aaz, vzz, 5Si t,a, q. 1 V.. 15 , ib, M. 2 a, zv.zb. at-. 130; 14-1 - IVZ .l Va.ISZ, Ibo. Ibl; IbX, ivfc; za o: 2 6s. 3o&: azo; aaq-.avo, ava, avfc-. ^ V, vafc.; wz. vsa, s ok, S5Z,S5b-.Sb1-.S10;SS0;k6s 26q-.a86,bvi iai.zia-,t6<-.38i-.aq2- ivi,ifcV-.i8a, 8av 26b; 35b ia5-.Z6q-.Va-v J.qi-.a5i,as6 14i V;1fc4:isa 111,2 cV-;2HZ9V:aza-,aZ8-Vil-.5ai, svq-.sss 2ZZ; ZVO -, Z6b-. Z4l-,VX6.fe5^ Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page Cropsey Avenue Live Poultry Corp. 898 License V 7-31-37 11- 6-37 Denied 74-1,7 SI; 7 8 4-. a*i- Crosby, Richard 254 Bond HI 11- 8-27 12- 7-27 C&D |tb;t81; 348 Cudahy Bros. Co. 494 T.P. II 11- 2-35 1-10-36 Indef p/p S 4 -.sq-.u-, 7 b Culler Com. Co., a corp. Cummins, Thomas, dba Tom 346 Bond III 3-24-31 5-19-31 C&D ■at,, no-. asa_ Cummin's Poultry House Cuny, Theo., dba Theo. 785 License V 5-15-37 7-10-37 Granted 14' V, 7fc4-,783 Cuny & Co. 896 Proceeds V 9-14-37 Dismiss TVS ; 7IS; 74.3)71*; 838; 64S Daniels & Dunham, S.P.&W.W. 171 Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 C&D lt3-.Z10.3fc7 Darnell, D. B., dba D.B. Darnell & Co. Dashner, Dale M. et al., 277 Bond III 9-20-28 10-18-28 C&D IZ4. 181.37S’ dba Johnson Com. Co. 1187 T.P. III 1-19-39 8-17-39 C&D-Susp ttt-.tftb-.tl 8-. 47-1-.4bv.Stb j b48-.bbo Davidson & Hinman, E.E. & C.W., Partners 437 Bond IH 12- 6-33 2- 9-34 Dismiss isi.t78>-,te>q-.isa-.4-oi Davis, D. W. 223 Bond III 10- 5-27 1- 5-28 C&D-Susp 1 Z4; t 8>1 37t;b4l Davis Livestock Com¬ mission Co., J.E. 124 Comm Chges HI 7-21-24 Consolidated with Docket No. 132 t8S;3bt-;47 6 Davis, Tom E. et al. 369 Insolvency III 12-18-31 1-14-32 Suspen tat.-, t&4-. 56),b41 De Biose, Orlando 814 License V 5-29-37 7-27-37 Granted 74-1, 7fc4.,7 83; 830 Decker, A. H., dba E. Decker & Co. De Frane, John et al.. Partners dba Community 656 License V 1- 8-37 3-18-37 Granted 7 44 •, 7t4;78J.,&3| Poultry Market 1004 License V 11-26-37 1-19-38 Dismiss 734.7 4-l-.784-.A3V- Degen & Anschler, Dave & Joseph J., a Partnership 416 Bond III 7- 6-33 8-29-33 C&D ItU . t10,38t_ Delancey & Pitt Live Poultry Market Corp. Delancey & Pitt Live 594 License V 10-10-36 10-20-37 Denied 74-(,7SV,7g1-,8M Poultry Market Corp. 1153 License V 8- 1-38 3-15-38 Denied 7 4I-.7S4.77 8; 03V- Delmue Livestock Com. Co. 109 T.P. III 5-24-24 2- 9-25 Dismiss Denver Union Stock Yards Co. 301 Rates III 11-29-29 7-28-31 Fix Rate s 8 ■ 1 * - * ’ • *' ■ ** ’• * ^ * ^‘1 . tvo -. 21); 3)8; 38Z-.44t;474; 4-<| 4-17; 5.s Edwards, Patsy, dba Washington Poultry Market 1150 License V 8- 1-38 9-12-38 Granted T4-l,TM-nft3;8ii- Egan, Ee He 401 Bond III 9-23-32 2-13-33 C&D-Susp 1&4-.38T- £Z3 ; fc52_ 3-28-33 Rev Susp Einhom, Israel, dba Jackson Park Poultry House 762 License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted 14liTfcq--.T83-.83i- Eirick, George C. et al.. Partners dba Dalton Meeks Co. 1017 Insolvency III 12-13-37 1-19-38 C&D-Suep 2.8k, 189-, iqa-. 4il.lo4-T.fcSq Eisenberg, Louis, dba Peoples Poultry & Egg Market 732 License V 4- 1-37 5- 4-37 Granted 7ft. 7fcfr7«>3., 832- Eisenstadt, Barney, dba Michigan Poultry & Egg Market 1050 License V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted lVI-.TfcV-.T63-. 832- Ellingaon & Co., Sig 981 T.P. III 11-13-37 8- 2-38 Dismiss 28fc;iqT,3ifc-,3iT, 126,350-, 351; Ellidtt, C. K., dba C. 2- 6-34 548; Sfcs K. Elliott Co. 438 Bond III 12-15-33 C&D izfc,,iaq-,i 82 _ Ellis, L. E. 319 Bond III 7-24-30 8-25-30 C&D-Susp 28q v 386,fc40 Empire Veal & Mutton Co., Inc., et al. Equity Co-operative Live- 603 T.P. II-III 10-30-36 4-23-37 6-14-24 C&D 4-fcl 54; UZ \fc8;T &; 1 ©Z.\ 2tol\ iqs"; 30S-.33I; 4-iS;S02. stock Sales Assn., Inc. Ereddia, Tony, dba Tony's 108 T.P. III 5-24-24 C&D 3S<0; SOSJ; 50^ Live Poultry Market 1101 License V 3-14-38 4-22-38 Granted 1VML4". 183'. &1V - 915 - Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of * InqalxT Date of Order Order Digest o.f Case Appears Under Pafe . Erickson, M. L. , dba Union Live Stock Conmission Co. 361 Insolvency m 9- 3-31 11- 5-31 C&D-Susp IH Ernest & Negrinl, Eugene & Mario, Partners 1095 License V 3- 1-38 4-19-38 Granted 14-H1U4-.1 Errico, Paul 560 License V 7-10-36 8-14-36 Granted 14l.-Tk.T;Tft4-;B»0 Esposito, Jerry 819 License V 6- 7-37 7-16-37 Granted 14h-iU.v8>.8>o Essem Packing Co., Inc. 479 T.P. II 10-29-35 4-11-36 Indef p/p 54-.Sl,bt-.T(» Evans, J. M. et al. 355 Bond HI 7-29-31 11-18-31 Dismiss no,i1fc:5L10 ; 3r8j»84-;M2- Farm Food Stores, Inc. 940 License V 9-14-37 10-22-37 Granted T4-l\-U4-il81-.83Z. Farmers Commission Co. nn T.P. V 5-17-38 8- 4-38 Dismiss T4-4-.114--.91T. 645-.8U Farmers Educational & Cooperative State Union of Nebraska 76 T.P. III 1-11-24 8-27-24 C&D iic-asn.soa.sn Farmers Educational & Cooperative State Union of Nebraska Farmers Educational & 88 T.P. IH 3-31-24 8-27-24 C&D n4 ; l 4 3; 14-1-, Z48; t VO; 2SS J t Sit a8U,»S1i5lft,SSZ. Cooperative State Union of Nebraska 95 T.P. HI 4- 8-24 8-27-24 C&D HI, l»U, 3 SI .Sift Farmers Educational & Cooperative State Union of Nebraska 96 T.P. III 4-15-24 8-27-24 C&D IT1-, JLftU.SSl-.Stft Farmers & Shippers Live Stock Commission Co., et al. Farmers National Live¬ stock Commission, a 1041 T.P. HI 1-19-38 8-31-38 C&D Suspen liz,n>,r.zi-.tuVJL*u, S4-1; 4U-. ftbls Ml eorp. Farmers Union Livestock 433 Bond IH 11- 7-33 1-12-34 Dismiss IV .aV8Uft4v-»*t; Commission, a corp. 52 T.P. IH 1- 6-24 3-15-24 Dismiss is!.- a aw-, ssw-,4-88; son, sos.sk> Farmers Union Live Stock Commission of South St. Louis, Mo., The 92 T.P. HI 2-23-24 9- 3-24 Dismiss 160, ZZS, *81; 151) 8SZ\ Uft ft Farmers Union Live Stock Commission, a corp.. 5,<•>.!, lU.ll,ZlvZZ;ll,Zft;11-,l41; H-ft-.ISl-.IWl-ts I0Z-.HT-. ZWS. Z66-, 301-, 4 Ob -. 44-T.4-S4-) 4® 0% 5 5ft) Sfl; Si»; 57U > 501-. fcfe4-. b e t et al. Farmers Union Livestock 457 Comm Rates HI 2- 9-35 8-29-35 C&D-Fix Rates Commission, Inc. 524 T.P. IH 2-14-36 4- 25-36 5- 11-36 Dismiss 3L,185-.»lh*sa-.4i«:;S38'.SSQ Den Rehear Fanners Union Live Stock Commission 977 T.P. III 11- 6-37 11-24-37 Dismiss tVV.'SSft-. 34V Farrell, J. C. 423 Bond III 7-25-33 8-29-33 C&D-Susp 2ft!,!&&)bM Fasano, Dominick 601 License V 10-14-36 12-30-36 Granted 14-I-,1S1-,"1U; &S0 Fast, Charles L. Fechtman, Fred, & Co., 901 License V 8- 3-37 10-22-37 Granted -r 4 v.nu 4 --.T 8 i-. 83V. Inc. 661 License V 1-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted Fedele, Steve 916 License V 8-17-37 5-17-38 Denied Tl8)-l4-l-,TUV;7t3-. 83V- Feigenbaum, Max 835 License V 6-10-37 9- 4-37 Granted T4T. TU;T 81; 810 Feldman Bros. Co, Feldstein, A. & Co., 982 Draft H H-16-37 6-30-38 C&D UC-.11-.104- a corp. 1215 T.P. V 5- 5-39 9-14-39 C&D-Susp T0S-.TXS-,T4l»-,8 04--.8VI-. &VT- Felin, John J. Co., Inc. 420 T.P. II 7- 7-33 10-25-33 C&D Sft>t-Ul,ll-.84*8ft-.l4ilb-.too-.IOl Fernray Farm Dairy, Inc. 925 License V 8-24-37 2-23-38 Denied -|4-I;TSV.8lV Feuer, Louis 817 License V 5-29-37 7-14-37 Granted T4-l-.Tt4jT81.8lo Ficarra, Antonio 1012 License V 12- 1-37 1-11-38 Granted 14-l-.lb4-,T8l.,8lT- Figge & Hutmelker Co. 487 T.P. H 10-31-35 3- 2-36 Indef p/p 54 --.s 8 -.ui-,it Finger, W. H. 241 Bond HI 10-10-27 10-28-27 C&D 1 & SR > 3*8 Finger, W. H. 271 T.P. III 5- 1-28 5-29-28 Fix ARM Zllillfc-.bllvTOI Finger, W. R. 353 T.P. m 7-20-31 8-10-31 C&D-Susp Finkel, Nathan 992 License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted TM-.ibA--.T8l-. 81V- Finkelstein, Joseph, dba Pleasant Valley Poultry Farms 885 License V - 916 7-24-37 9-25-37 Granted ll-iptA-.Tfti.. ftio . > Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page Finkelstein, Joseph, dba Pleasant Valley Poultry Farms 1059 T.P. V 1-25-38 8 - 2-38 Repar l4-4.;i Fitzgerald, Edward J. 260 Bond in 12 - 7-27 2 - 3-28 C&D |ZU,2.%V,36B> Fitzgerald, Joseph M. et al. 266 Bond HI 12 - 7-27 1-12-28 Dismiss 213; t%4;35& Fitzgerald, J. W., et al. 403 Bond III 10 - 7-32 4- 8-33 C&D Itfc-.lMvV&SL Flanagan, James J. et al. 150 T.P. III 3 - 11-26 10 -18-26 Suspen tat .zaa-.3fcb.4-w~i-.4-az-.soo. szi-.t*? Fleischer, Rubin 865 License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Grahted 141-.11. 4-. 163.830 Flickinger, M. M. et al. 351 Insolvency III 6-30-31 9-15-31 Suspen M0-.38Z-.l 44--.11W-.&J-1. S3S Forman, Samuel 984 License V 11-22-37 1-19-38 Granted 14l-.lU4-.18V, &VI- Fort Wayne Union Stock- yards Co., The 155 Yardage III 6 - 3-^6 10 -16-26 Dismiss 26ST-. 3S8; S<»l-,S13-.S61:fet(o;(.14 Fort Worth Poultry & Egg Co., The 518 T.P. II 1 -11-36 5 -22-36 Dismiss 33,sa,s, 8JO Gamble, Thomas 283 Bond III 2-25-29 5-20-29 Suspen ZB4 310; L40 Gammon, J. E. et al. Gammon, J. E. et al.. 363 T.P. III 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D ze,u ; zi a -. 3 3Z-. 31 jms dba Farmers Union Live Stock Commission Trade Co. 0. & G. Live Poultry 513 Name III 11-23-35 3-24-36 C&D 2.14-.4I0; nfc>86,k8n Geller, Morris, dba Cellars Food Store Getty, Samuel, dba 1078 License V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted ■.'ll.4--.785; 8JZ- Lyons Produce Co. 620 License V 11-25-36 12-30-36 Granted 14-t-.-U.a--.-iav.8M Gerber, Morris, Inc. 1114 Insolvency V 4-18-38 7-18-38 Dismiss i38-.ia4--.iai Gershcovitz, Ben 648 License V 1- 6-37 3-13-37 Granted 141-.1b4-. 1B3-, 831 Gershcovitz, Ben Gershman Poultry 1141 Insolvency V 6-10-38 8-31-38 Revoked 14V' mi CO•| Be Gibbons & Carnes, J. E* 612 License V 11-10-36 12-17-36 Granted 14|-,1b4-,1bS-, 184; 831 ZtO ! ZZ3.,ZZ8.Z3S;ZSZ-,2b4..Z6b. 334, 451; 4tob;SZ1 & J. c. 47 T.P. III 11- 3-23 6-14-23 C&D Gillespie, B. W. Gillespie, Clark & Beck, 390 Bond III 7-15-32 12- 6-33 Dismiss l3l,m ; 24a-.3Sg»;31 Giovenco, Laura Gish, Carmichael & Co., 1096 License V 3- 1-38 4-19-38 Granted 14W 1U4-.18 J-, 83v* a partnership 74 T.P. III 1-11-24 1-30-24 C&D 2 41-.ZSZ-.Z8b,3SS;SlO Glasberg, Bernard 747 License V 4-23-37 6-30-37 Granted ituit/h-igy.gjo. Glass, J. G. 323 Bond III 8- 1-30 10- 2-30 C&D |Zb,ZBib+o Partners dba Pem¬ broke Poultry Co. 1093 License V 3- 1-38 9-20-38 Granted l4V.1b4-.183 Globe Rendering Company, The Gloch, Adolph, dba 899 T.P. III 7-31-37 3-22-38 Dismiss 234. “2 35ft-. 4l8, 48 l-S4fc Lincoln Poultry Market 938 License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Dismiss 13 4-, 14I-.184-.811- Glover, C. C., dba Glover Commission Co. 927 Drafts III 9- 4-37 3-22-38 C&D 115; tlA , Z4b 13 29.4l4 ; 4-14; 54-1. Gobel, Addph, Inc. 4 88 T.P. II 10-31-35 3- 2-36 Indef p/p Goetz, Albert F., Inc. 499 T.P. II 11- 5-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p 54-, 54. bl; 1b G. 0. G. Poultry Corporation 847 License V 6-19-37 9-14-37 Granted I4l-.it 4- -.181,830 Gold, Led 572 T.P. V 8-12-36 12-11-36 Suspen IZb; 142; 114; 18 & Gold, Max 780 License V 5-13-37 8- 7-37 Denied 141 V-. 184- Goldberger, Ernest A. Goldberger, Ralph, dba 856 License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted -]4(-1b4-.183-. 830 Paramount Live Poultry 866 License V 6-25-37 8-27-37 Granted 141.1L4-.183-. 830 Goldfein, Irving 954 License V 9-29-37 12-13-37 Granted I4l.1b4-.183-.83Z. Goldhirsh, William 947 T.P. V 9-14-37 5-17-38 Revoked 143-.1S4-.1lo-.114- Goldman, J., & Sons, Inc. 804 License V 5-25-37 7-16-37 Granted 14t-.ib4-.163-, 830 Goldman, Harry 1075 License V " 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted l4|-.1b4:183-,83V- Goldstein, Louis 645 License V 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 1411b 4-. 183-, 8 31 - 918 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page Goodman, J. 729 License V 3-26-37 5- 4-37 Granted + ; 783; 832- Oraber, Morris Graves, Nave & Company, 926 License V 8-24-37 2-12-38 Denied 14-I-. 1S1.18V; fc3 2- a Partnership 62 T.P. III 12-21-23 2- 8-24 C&D isz-. 2SV 258; 2ftfa, 3Sfa, SIO, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co,, The, a corp. 476 T.P. II 10-21-35 12-29-36 C&D S2, 53 ; 5fa; 58. UV. 13-.1<»-. 82 -61-. 12-28-38 Rev C&D I3;14,4ff.,4fa-,I02 Great Western Livestock IT. 110 -. » 88 ;2 OO, Zofa; 2 61. 2 2 62, *5 6, aet-. 3SS--, 3SU-.SIO The 43 T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 8-24 C&D Greenwald, Moses E. et al. 422 Bond III 7-25-33 12- 6-33 C&D (27 . 2 84,31^ Grewe, Bernard 172 Bond III 7 - 26-26 10-14-26 C&D-Susp 123. 21 0,3 fa2 ,4- ; 783; ftlo Hambridge, Charles R., dba Farmers Livestock Commission Co. 413 Bond III 3-21-33 4-25-33 C&D-Susp 210.361 ; fa42-, fa S 2_ Hampton Live Stock Com- mission Co., a corp. 1182 Draft III 1- 7-39 9-18-39 [C&D-ARM- i8&; 20fa-, 222; 241 , 28fa;20|4-, 211 iRepar- [Di amiss Z1&-,'3S8i4X&-,SVJ-, SS4.10X- Hancock, Morris H. & L. Live Poultry 436 T.P. III 12- 1-33 1-30-34 C&D-Suap 231;26fa,£.a6-.4oo;b4-fa-, fast. Co. Handley, S. B., dba S. B. 692 License V 2-19-37 5-28-37 Granted 14-I-. 1tV.l83-.832 124; 212 . 21 0; 35& Handley & Co. 199 Bond III 8-31-27 9-23-27 Dismiss Handy, C. T. 1255 T.P. V 11-24-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM 103,111.130-.131.141. 808 ,-818 Hannemann, J. H. 1218 T.P. V 2- 2-39 9- 8-39 Repar ioE-.1vt-.1ss’-. 8os-,8 V4 Hannigan, D. J. 169 Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 C&D 123, 210,3fc1 Hannon, Dan B. 576 Bond III 9- 9-36 9-29-36 Dismiss 1 31; 21 8-. 210-. 3 S e-. 35 2- Hansen, A. C. Harding, Chas. E., dba 672 License V 1-30-37 3-19-37 Granted 11-1 -.1 fa4 -, 18 3 & 32. Hardings-Pioneer Live¬ stock Commission Assn. 261 Bond III 12- 7-27 2-17-28 C&D I21-, 201 ,- 31S - - 919 - Respondent Dockst Nature Title Date of Date of Number of Case, of Act Inquiry Order Order Digest of C*se Appears Under Pag* d Harding, Charles E., Co., a corp. 385 T.P. hi Harrison, Loyd G. et al.. Partners dba Harrison's Poultry Farm 919 License V Hart, A., dba Southside Poultry Co. 653 License V Hartman, Sol, dba Hart¬ man Commission Co. 38 T.P. III Hasenfratz, Ben 828 License V Hawley, E. M. 224 Bond III Heale, H. 256 Bond III Healy, John P. et al. 326 Bond III Hechter, Hugo 561 License V Hefner Commission Co., a corp. 410 T.P. III Heilbron & Loeb, a partnership 103 T.P. III Henman, J. E.Hugo, Co. 1025 Trek Payts V Hemp, M. Arnold 1199 Bond hi Hemp, M. Arnold 1200 Draft HI Hemp, 11. Arnold 1273 Repar hi Harrell, H. T. 176 Bond hi Hillman, Samuel, Inc., a corp. 678 License V Hilton, W. E. et al 3 Comm.~Chges. HI Himmelberger, L. 0. 186 Bond HI Hoberman, B. 1254 T.P. V Hoelterhoff, Frank C., dba Grand Produce Co. 1219 T.P. V Hoffman, Joe, dba In¬ dependent Packing Co. 183 Bond in Holden, G. L. & Paul, dba Miami Livestock Com¬ mission Co. 1193 T.P. hi Holestine, J, C. 320 Insolvency hi Hollar, Charles 359 Bond HI Holman Poultry Co., a corp. 552 T.P. V Holmes, J. 0. et al.. Partners dba The Holmes Live Stock Com¬ mission Co. 1109 Draft IH Holmes, J. 0. et al., Partners dba Holmes Livestock Commission Co. & Union Packing Co., a corp. 1175 T.P. II- -III Holmes & Robinson, Inc. 566 T.P. III Holme 8 Livestock Commission Co. 1212 Hepar HI Home Packing Co. 1223 T.P. II Honenstein & Spatz, Inc. 1167 Repar V Hormel, Geo. A., & Co. et al 269 T.P. II Horowitz, Harold, dba Hackensack Live Poultry Market 629 License V Horowitz, Ruth, dba Hudson Live Poultry Market 884 License V Horwitch, Leo, dba Farm Poultry & Egg Co. 658 License V Houser, Frank 1185 Insolvency V Houx, E. W., et al., dba Drumm Com¬ mission Co. 475 Agency- Re par HI Hubbard, Hauss & Rags¬ dale Co., The, a corp. 102 T.P. IH 920 3-18-32 4— 8—32 C&D nb.XBW-.tlt-, 8-17-37 9-25-37 Granted 74-1-.-TC4-, -T&v 0 *i_ 1- 6-37 3-19-37 Granted 74l.7b4--.7t3.63l 12-12-23 No Order 6 - 5-37 10-22-37 Granted 741, 7b4;777- 1 70J-,63o 10 - 8-27 11-18-27 C&D-Susp ii4-.t64, 57»>4» 11 - 9-27 1 - 31-28 C&D 1X7; t&4. 9-19-30 1-31-31 C&D-Susp l74.761)5A7;bS| 7 - 10-36 8-19-36 Granted 74».7bV,7 64 i 630 1-12-33 6 - 9-33 C&D t<.x-,a8b,3ifc 4-25-24 8-27-24 C&D ZtO,S.8U.3*t,AS6 12-22-37 11-10-39 C&D 744~.7Sb-.717.8»S 2-21-39 6 - 3-39 (C&D-Susp- I 3 S-. % t<\ o-.tqv. LARM uuo.noo-. 12 - 8-38 7-15-39 Repar IXO/taO; XX3, Mb-, 474,464; 531.S53 9-25-39 4-25-40 Dismiss tB3;MU-.4yx-. 47X.S55 7 - 28-26 8 - 23-26 C&D US, t81-.3be> 1-30-37 11-13-37 Granted 741. 7(p4s 763*. ft JX. 3-13-22 , 4-29-22 Fix Rates iso : \nA-.i84iZts-.ssaL 11-19-26 02 - 18-26 (.2-26-27 Suspen Rev Susp IM .57 0 .SZt .b4O IO- 31-39 6-17-40 C&D-ARM l00.703%7>fi7VV.13o-. 731) 717)006 6-10-39 1 - 16-40 Dismiss 740)T4t-, 80 S 10 - 14-26 1-24-27 Dismiss t7l-.t84-.3S6 1-19-39 8-10-39 Dismiss 7tB;.74&;47#.4»»-. SXO.S VV. Si.5; 977. S76iS 6»:5«S t06)37l;b3l 7-31-30 11-21-30 Suspen 8-15-31 9-30-31 C&D-Susp |7U 1 8<»-. 6 t.Z 1 / X0b. Z. 6 6 . M 0. 3 »ft 1 37.7 . 3 5 V v 4X7 ) C&D — '\4sa : 4si-.4T1.484-.441 12 - 28-38 5-25-40 7-13-36 11-30-36 C&D 104-. % t7-. X3 3; XI5 1 347 ; 414; 447 ,i»71;5b4 2-11-39 12 - 1-39 Dismiss 111-. 104. I^S-.tOO.'tOT-.Z'Mv 3S0 7- 5-39 10-18-39 C&D to-.ftt-. 87-.1X-, tob 6 - 21-38 1-27-39 Dismiss 731.7 45; 601.843 12-31-27 4-28-28 Dismiss 33;34j55; S6.7Z-V 84;lBjloo 11 - 28-36 12-30-36 Granted 141,714., 783; 831 7-24-37 10-20-37 Granted 74t-.7b4\7fcV03O 1-12-37 3-18-37 Granted 733-.74l-.740; 83V 1-14-39 3- 1-39 Revoked Repar 7 44-.713-, 80 3-, 844- 4-25-24 5-29-24 C&D Z5it33,tt.O,tBlD-.3Slo;4ss Respondent Docket Number Nature of Gaae Title Of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Buffaker, Frank H., Jr. et el. Humboldt-Boerum Live 299 Boycott III 10_ 7_29 1-23-30 Dismiss Poultry Market, Inc. Unaniftt, Sam R., dba Huanicutt Live Stock 1248 Re par V 2-10-39 1-24-40 Repar Commisaion Co. Hunsaker Livestock 371 Insolvency III 12-19-31 7-14-32 Dismiss Conaiaalon Co. 111 T.P. III 5-24-24 2- 9-25 Dismiss Hunt, H. J. et al. 195 T.P. III 5-12-27 7-13-27 C&D Hunt, W. V. 655 Bond III 1 -6-37 2-12-38 C&D-Susp Hunter, H. J. 321 Bond III 8- 1-30 10- 8-30 C&D Hunt singer, C. F. et al. Hott, Charles fa., dba 374 Insolvency III 1- 7-32 1-30-32 Suspen Charlaa Mm. Hutt Co. Butt, Gottlieb H., dba 1195 T.P. V 2-n-39 7-15-39 Dismiss Charles fa. Hutt Co. Hyde, Winstead, dba Hyde's 707 License V 3- 6-37 2-25-38 Granted Poultry Market Hygrade Food Products 781 License V 5-13-37 7-10-37 Granted Cooperative Ideal Live Poultry 485- T.P. II 10-31-35 2- 6-36 Indef p/p Market, Inc. Independent Commission 530 License V 2-24-36 4- 1-37 Denied Company, a eorp. Independent Livestock 51 T.P. in n- 22-23 2-23-24 C&D Coamdasion Co., The Independent Livestock 123 Comm Chgea in 7-21-24 Consolidated with Docket No. 132 Commission Co., Inc. Independent Meat & 1132 T.P. m 6- 1-38 9- 7-38 C&D Poultry Market, Inc. Indiana Live Poultry 1110 Insolvency V 4-18-38 7- 2-38 Revoked Market, Ins. Insurance Company of 1243 License V 8-24-39 10-18-39 Denied North America Interstate Live 900 Repar in 7-31-37 1-11-38 Dismiss Poultry Co. Interstate live 1225 T.P. V 4-25-39 11- 9-39 Dismiss Poultry Co. 1226 T.P. V 12- 7-38 9-16-39 Dismiss Irviqg Poultry Co., Inc. Isenstein, Max, dba Wisconsin Poultry & 583 License V 10- 5-36 2-20-37 2- 3-38 Denied Denied Egg Market Jackson, Robert T., dba Muskogee Livestock 718 License V 3-18-37 4-12-37 Granted Commission Co. 670 Bond in 1-27-37 3- 1-37 Dismiss Jacob, Seigfreid Jaffa, Leon, dba Redart's Dairy 206 Bond ni 9-14-27 11-15-27 C&D Products 1006 License V 11-26-37 1-19-38 Granted Jaffa, Sam Janowaki, William, dba William Janowaki 630 License V 11-28-36 1-26-37 Dismiss Live Poultry Jana, William, dba Jana 775 License V 5-13-37 6-26-37 Granted Live Poultry Stores 605 License V n- 5-36 12-19-36 Granted Jarman, C. F. et al. 303 Bond in 12-10-29 3-27-30 C&D Jefferson, Leonard Jennings, W. 0., dba ^250 Bond in 10-16-39 1-19-40 C&D-Susp W. 0. Jennings & Co. Jersey City Stockyards Company, The, Jersey 357 T.P. Stockyard in 8-15-31 9-19-31 C&D-Susp City, N, Je Jett, He Se et &1«, 61 Services in 12- 7-23 12-10-23 Dismiss Partners dba Jett & Dodan 1039 Insolvency in 12-30-37 (2-23-38 (3-18-38 Suspen Rev Snap Jirasek, Jos. 616 License V 11-13-36 12-30-36 Granted Johnson, C. B. 930 Bond in 9- 9-37 11-16-37 C&D Johnson, John H. 471 Insolvency ni - 921 - 8-26-35 10-21-35 Suspen t Digest of Case _ Appears Pnder Page I IB; M4; MI ; »S8; 44-1 ITS-. IM-.3.S&; 1B4 isu.vrg. n<.;ies-,5«.i I1-. Ii4-.HI -.lW-4«S% It-MMiS-IS IM-.i&v.m TM.T44;T4S;fto4- l4»,TS3-.TWT; Til.931 5 <-> si-.wi-.nifc, lo8.n4l-.130-.nsa-.T8Z- t45-,l8t ; SSU IBS'; 3l.1-.4-n6 ZTX; 2 at; in, 4-t4-.StV 1M-.mi-.T48 i4-i-.ns4,nia 28l.Mt-.iSB; 4 •& "In-. 110-,144-,8off;84l 140^T4fc,.&0C';84S’ 1B8-.74<-.nS8,ns1&1-. 8i1- 153-.74l-.T40-, 831 14lV.184--.18> 14U1U4;784v8>1 H8;MO;3ML,44t. 155,1-84,43V-, 840 ;»45; 1ST; K.4;« Bfci VIZ.; fcss- a atw zgs-asn X88i5T1;4H.6>5-.b51 14UU4'183-.83» I34.t84.4-I4 288^14-,til Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act' Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page Johnston, E. E. Joseph's Poultry 180 T.P. in 9-30-26 12 -31-26 C&D-Susp n5 ; £0ftiiis.2.*aj 500; SS3-. SSS; bS3;bftb Market, Max, Inc. Joyce Commission 859 License V 6-25-37 10-22-37 Dismiss 134-,14-1; 184; Company Kamensky, I. & 7., 55 T.P. III 1-19-24 2-28-24 C&D 248, 2 5Z-. 2S8-, 281m; iSfc.SlO Partners dba Alliance Poultry Market 907 License V 8-11-37 9-25-37 Granted 14l,-|fc4;ia3,8»r Kane, James 145 Insolvency HI 2 - 3-26 9-13-27 Dismiss tTo-.aag,. Kansas City Stock Yards Reugh Co., a corp. Kansas City Stock 166 Chges III 7-24-26 11 -26-30 Dismiss 211; 2<10-. 3s&, 410:4-18 ZZ4,-X8S\35S.303 Yards Co. 305 Rates III 1- 4-30 11-24-36 Dismiss Karp, Leonard 665 License V 1-25-37 3-19-37 Dismiss T33.,14.|-,1UI-,194-s©3{ Karp, Mrs. P. Karrick, Buck et &1., 755 License V 4-28-37 7-28-37 Dismiss 134-.-74.l-. 78 4- Partners dba Karrick & Wilson 671 Bond HI 1-27-37 4-20-37 Dismiss 134 , 2 a 0-. aai-. 3sa ; Karsten & Sons 1015 T.P. V 12- 1-37 3-18-38 Dismiss 1i8-.Ti1;144-. 144*824- Kasteln, Julius,. Inc. Katten, Bert, dba South 897 Re par V 10-22-37 Dismiss 135.T 43, 113- 0X4- Shore Poultry House Kata, Joe, dba Texas 743 License V 4-21-37 5-12-37 Granted 14-1 v ybjf.; 7fl} ; 83i_ Fish & Poultry Market 1220 Insolvency V 6-10-39 12-10-39 Dismiss Kaye, C. L., & Sons, Inc. 37 T.P. III 10 - 8-23 1-30-24 C&D lTV.tBfc;3©©;3SS; SOT. Sib Kaye, C. L., & Sons, Inc. Keefer, Eduard E. , dba 350 T.P. HI 6-26-31 8 - 6-31 C&D-Susp 2 8 fc 1 2. a a ; 34 1; 5 31 ; a b l -, b 4-8 ; b 5 S’ Doud & Keefer 414 Bond III 4-17-33 5-31-33 C&D-Susp 240;SB-\.. 3e,vi3)<.v3 Kloppenbarg, Q. J. 756 T.P. III 4-28-37 6-19-37 C&D-Susp a+o.a-s^.zefe; aas.xV; f/7 ; eV7,ts», Kneaes Bros., Inc. 500 T.P. II 11- 5-35 1 - 8-36 Indef p/p*b*i'H..->l» Knight, Henry, & Son, Inc. Knlp, Gerald, dba Knlp'e 244 Bond HI 10-11-27 11-29-27 C&D 12.1.; HO-. 31.1 Farm Store (John Hoeketra) 1006 License V H-26-37 4-11-38 Granted ‘U-uvMn'i**; «V2- Kolaka, Lowell P. Koat, Chandler, & 1239 T.P. y 8-22-39 Revoked IHOlV.Sot Company 31 T.P. III 9- 8-23 10- 2-23 C&D tt\, tew.3oo.iss-.jsse Kothmann, J. W. et al. Kowalaky, Levy, dba Jack- 302 Bond III 12-10-29 2-26-30 C&D son Live Poultry Market Kramer, Joseph & Samuel, 757 License V 5- 3-37 6-25-37 Granted I4l-.lfc4,831 Partners dba Joa. Kramer & Son 812 License V 5-29-37 7-16-37 Granted Kramer, Sam 1128 Insolvency V 5-17-38 5-13-39 Dismias 'h&v'rs-.t&v. ax* Krlckbaum, John C. 565 Bond HI 7-11-36 8 - 4-36 C&D-Susp IX3-.X63; 366; 4H r SX'i-;4>40 9-26-36 Rev Snap Kruekemeyer, Edwird M. Kuckler, Con, dba 293 Bond HI 8-12-29 10-16-29 Di anise IX1,X14; 263-.-53® Farmers Commission Co. 73 (No formal Docket made) Kuhral, Barbara, dba Union Stock Tard Market 1064 License y 1-27-38 3-14-38 Granted iw'.iu-. T&v, a*v Kunkei, Chas. S. et al. 335 Ineolvency HI 12-29-30 3-28-31 C&D-Susp Dismiss 215, 230 , 330; SOt .i.yS’; 4.13,4,43 Kuren, John, dba Huron's Lire Poultry Market Kurowski, Leonard, dba 794 License y 5-15-37 7-14-37 Granted 14-1V, Chick-Chick Store 986 License V 11-22-37 1 - 21-38 Granted 6 IX. Kusinits Poultry Corp. 563 License y 7-10-36 6-19-37 Granted 141,34.4:164-; BX3; 830 La Barbara, Domenico 844 License y 6-19-37 8-14-37 Granted La Barbara, Thomas Lacqua, Anthony et al., 820 License y 6 - 7-37 9-11-37 Granted Partners dba 21at St. Poultry Market 677 License y 1-30-37 3-31-37 Dismiss TJl-.14i;184;853- Lacy, Frank ft. J.79 Bond m 8 - 3-26 8 - 26-26 C&D 124,2.83, La Forgla, Joseph Laird, J. If. , dba Laird 876 License V 7-10-37 9- 4-37 Granted Live Stock Commiaalon Co. 285 Insolvency HI 3-13-29 3-29-29 Suspen 2a3.yn-.4>43 Lake, Percy J. 373 Repar HI 12-29-31 2 - 12 -32 Dismiss SL«V2-.3se»-.S40 Lambert, Harry S. 324 Bond HI 8-13-30 12-23-30 C&D |tfe-.2&3}-yi3 La Mear Poultry & Egg Payts Co., Inc. Land, Walter 0. & Mose, 1282 To Trkrs v 3-20-40 5- 3-40 C&D 148; 81 0 ; 263 >81,4.41 John E. , Partners 459 Insolvency in 2-12-35 3- 4-35 Suspen Landis, Theodore B. Lane, W. L., dba Lane 130 T.P. HI 9- 3-24 11-21-24 C&D 243;&U;2 61. i 331 Livestock Comdaalon Co. 689 Bond HI 2-13-37 9-14-37 Suspen 2<\0; 4«S ; 4,41->S1 Lauer, W. A., dba W. A. Laner A Co. 202 Bond HI 9-14-27 11 - 15-27 C&D 114,830-. *47 Laurence Lire Poultry " ' Co. 599 T.P. y 10 - 10-36 12-30-36 C&D 74X..IIS'; 184; 8 58 Lazar, Jerome, dba Ohio 14-\-. If. 4 ,783; 852. Poultry Market 737 License V 4-16-37 7-10-37 Granted Leecase, Patsy Lee Livestock Com- 848 License V 6-19-37 8-14-37 Granted 741slW4; 1 83, 8 50 mission Co., Jack, a corp. 192 Insolvency m 4-15-27 5- 4-2? Dismiss «l-.Z40j3y& Lee Livestock Com- mission Co., Jack, a corp. 197 T.P. m 6-22-27 8-12-27 Suspen J41.,XS4,Z8U,l&«iVJl;AU ; Hf, Lahrsr, Judith, dba 5«;Sl6, ?bO;(.S4- Parmare Poultry & Egg Store 1077 License y 2-23-38 4-11-38 Gears ted 74I-. 14>4:785-. SIX. Lslm&n, Nathan, dba So. Sixth ave. Live Poultry Market 873 License ? 7-10-37 9- 4-37 Granted 74I-.74.4.7 85.850 Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page La liters & Sons, Inc. 545 License V 5-15-36 7-15-36 Granted ,143,784- Larin, Bension Larin, Max, dba Iowa 1009 License V 11-26-37 1-11-38 Granted i«-i. 1W4; 184,83*- Poultry 963 Ucense 7 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 14U1W4.,1»*,8»8- Lerlt, A., Inc. at al. 1258 T.P. V n-13-39 2-27-40 C&D 1U ( 1lV,73l-.13X,14l-, «•<) Larlt, Mary, dba Albert Poultry & Egg Co. 1122 License V 5-17-38 10- 5-38 Granted Larlt, Mary, dba Albert Poultry & Egg Co. 1189 Insolvency V 1-25-39 10-12-39 Susp-ARU 1 oo-.m-4-•• T T 4-S; TU». 6 o A Larlt, Mary, dba Albert Poultry & Egg Co. 1206 Bepar 7 3-20-39 7-15-39 Dismiss 140,14. VI 4V l eo3-.944- ( 846 Lerlt, Mary, dba. The Albert Poultry & Egg Co. 1251 T.P. 7 10-19-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM Lery, L., dba L. Lory Lirastock Commission Purchasing Co. 137 T.P. III 6-29-25 11-25-25 Dismiss 216.no 385. *se> Lery Meat Co. 470 T.P. II 8-22-35 10- 4-35 C&D 54,18, 61-.4I-. 108- Lewis, E. R. 154 T.P. III 5-7-26 6- 8-26 C&D-Suspen 2»e-.a8fc-,3UL,58t-.USl> 12-18-26 Rev of susp Lewis, Sarah, dba Jefferson Park Poultry & Egg Market 936 License 7 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted Lewis, W. H. et al. Liberty Provision Co., 367 Insolvency III 11-17-31 1- 8-32 Suspen Indef p/p 2M-. 38i-.fcM Inc. Libkin, Kazimer, dba 505 T.P. II n- 7-35 1- 8-36 54,S4-,Wl;1lp Illinois Poultry & Egg Market 1045 License 7 1-21-38 3- 1-38 Granted Liggett, William M., dba Kansas City lire Stock Stolen 80<. l MVJ8t.s»81..333:3!4-i!56! ill. 3 4-8,3W3 Coosdssion Co. 949 Cattle in 9-15-37 8-11-38 Dismiss Llndeq Poultry Co., Inc. 638 License 7 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 14'-. 144,183,881 Linden Poultry Co., Inc. 1120 Remittances 7 4-18-38 7-11-38 Dismiss 138x1*4-4 lit Linden Poultry Co., Inc. 1191 Insolvency 7 1-25-39 3-10-39 (Reroked- (Repar G44,113:808,84A- Linao, Angelina Lipsky, Uollle et al., 643 License 7 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 14»4ifr*-.18>;«M dba Monroe Lire Poultry Market 634 License 7 11-28-36 6-25-37 Granted 74i-, 144,183-, B3i Usa, John A. Livestock Marketing 770 License 7 5-12-37 6-25-37 Granted 141 V.7U-.183 *81-. 21S.3S8;4H,i-n.;481.482. Association, The 728 T.P. m 3-23-37 9-14-37 Dismiss Lombardo, Sail, dba D. S. Poultry Market Long, C. Olin, dba C. 633 License 7 11-28-36 12-30-36 Granted 14I-.144-. 1884 631 01In Long & Co. 141 T.P. in 2- 4-26 5-13-26 Suspen l4U.,a8& ! 3fc4;U37;C3B Longenecker, H. S. 210 Bond m 9-21-27 12-12-27 C&D 11*184,34.8 Lorah, Seth M. Los Angelas Onion Stock 69 T.P. in 1- 9-24 1-30-24 C&D 2S2-. Z.S V. 28bi 1SS-, S lO-. S21 lards Co. 1216 Rates m 5-13-39 (Pending) Losco, Salratore, dba Cortlandt Lire Poultry Market 913 License 7 8-17-37 12-13-37 Granted 14M14 4^83,831- Lowrtan, Thomas T. 279 Bond in 12-18-28 2- 6-29 C&D I8U;2 A4 i "3I.& Lttdani, Michael Luther, C. J. , dba 839 Ueense 7 6-16-37 8- 7-37 Granted l4l-.lfc4;7 83:83o Lather & Co. 332 Insolvency m 10-28-30 11-21-30 Suspen 2ft6-.wr.U33 Iyens, Louis et al. Lyris, John, dba ^ple- 67 T.P. m 1- 9-24 1-30-24 C&D 233,38U;8S5;SZ1 M-Span Lira Poultry Market 1079 Ueense 7 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted 1 4T.1U4:163.83V Lyris, Mae Mackay, J. P. , dba 971 Ueense 7 10-29-37 12-30-37 10-30-36 Granted 1M-.1U4;'I84833- Chicago Potato Co. 591 Ueense 7 10-10-36 Granted 7*l-.1434l8*,«Jl Maino, Michael Majestic Lire Poultry 1127 Ueense 7 5-17-38 12-10-38 Granted 1M-. 11.4,183-, 833- Co., Inc. 595 Ueense 7 10-10-36 9-25-37 Denied 14i-.isr.i84.. «3l Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Majestic Live Poultry Co., Inc. 1197 License V Uaksimas, Walter 1180 Insolvency V Mandell, Maurice 614 License V Manning, Walter E., dba Manning & Co. 458 Insolvency III ManowLtz, Joseph, dba White Front Poultry Market 777 License V Marohioni, Marie 805 License V Marcionte, Ldgi 1103 Id. cense V Mariana, Vincent et al., Partners 893 License V Marine Live Poultry Market 562 License V Marino, Ralph 840 License V Marker, Russel 535 Bond III Marlow, A. J. 252 Bond III Marotznik, Meyer et al., dba M. M. Poultry Co., Inc. 520 License V Marshall, Emsett J., dba Marshall Brothers 939 License V Marshall, Mae, dba Jersey Live Poultry Market 1031 License V Martin, Henry W., dba Martin's Live Poultry Market 801 License V Marzigliand, J. 631 License V Maspeth Live Poultry Co., Inc. 586 License V Matteo, Ernest 1099 License V Matthews, David, dba Matthew's Poultry & Fish Market 1007 License V Maurer, W. R. et al.. Partners dba Drovers Livestock CoBission Co. 980 T.P. III Maszillo Poultry Market, a corp. 842 License V McComas, E. E. et al. 454 T.P. III McDonald, Thomas F., dba McDonald Live Stock Commission Co. 424 Bond III McDonough, E. G., dba Drivers Livestock Commission Co. 1222 T.P. III McHugh, John L. 138 Insolvency III McKee, E. B., dba E. B. McKee & Co. 1242 T.P. V McKissick, Alcorn & Magnus Company 50 T.P. III McLain Brothers Company, Inc. 1271 Payts To Trckrs V McNamara Charles T. et al. 1233 (Pending) Meddin, Isaac & Alex¬ ander, Partners 798 Drafts II Meehan, Frank J. 372 Insolvency III Meeks, Henry, Co., Inc., The 509 T.P. II Meeks, Boren & Thompson, Inc. 41 T.P. III Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Onder Pag* 2-16-39 1- 5-39 11-10-36 9-19-39 2-11-39 12-17-36 Dismiss Revoked Granted iHiiHiuioiinev. 8»i- 84-4- 74u7fc4.> 1 7tv..783..&9» 2-12-35 3- 7-35 3-28-35 C&D-Susp Rev Susp id-. 4®t-. fcSO 5-13-37 5-25-37 3-14-38 4-18-38 7-14-37 4-19-38 Denied Granted Granted 74IV.154-. •*$«- 74-1; 7W4-;7 83;03O 7tA-.78J.83V 7-28-37 11-13-37 Granted gIV 7-10-36 6-16-37 3- 4-36 3-23-37 11- 8-27 8-18-36 11- 6-37 5-15-36 5-18-37 1-31-28 Granted Denied C&D-Susp Dismiss C&D 74.l-.7«.y.7M.;830 7 4|.,7SV.1A4; fti.7. 8x1; 63o 12.1,*ntill3sa.3Sb;31Xi *4-0) SX4-.<*4-C izt-.x&qote 1-23-36 2- 10-37 3- 23-37 Denied Modified T0ft.1XX.7lWO 4-I-,7 4-b; 19©-,78Z^8»X 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 74.U7b4-.,7&3; ftsv 12-29-37 2-23-38 Granted 74h7t40&*BV*- 5-25-37 11-28-36 7- 7-37 1-12-37 Granted Granted 744; 7t4-.78V, 640 744 V 7W4...7»3;89I 10- 5-36 3-14-38 1-23-37 9-29-37 4-19-38 Denied Granted to ptnership successor Granted 741.751; its. 7fce>.e>*a 741; 7W4-.1ft»\ 83V 11-26-37 3-14-38 Granted 744%7U4~.7ftV.891. 11- 6-37 12-13-37 C&D-Susp 2 4-0 •. X 8W-. 9 3 8 \ 4*V P-.W S b 6-19-37 1-28-35 8-17-37 8-13-35 Granted Dismiss 74l;1fc4;7ft*;8*> 21&..28B,21J; 9S8.4off 7-31-33 11- 6-33 C&D-Susp 281.^»7,WSV 7- 1-39 6-30-25 8-16-39 10-31-25 C&D-ARM Suspen 2ftt-.49o-. Sto-.-loo 8-23-39 11- 7-39 C&D 1H;&ok;89S 11- 8-23 2-23-24 C&D 14V £ S X; e S v2 W4.. 1 ftt - 3 SU: 9 07: 5io. sn 12-16-39 2-17-40 C&D 14&-.8IO-.8H, 5-18-37 12-19-31 9-27-37 1-14-32 C&D Dismiss S4..7 6, 102 27W..Z8S.3 5&..319 11- 7-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p 10-18-23 2- 8-24 C&D tsa-. 2ftt;35W 925 Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page . Menke, F. E. et al., Partners dba Steers & Uenke 1018 Insolvency V 12-14-37 9- 7-38 Dismiss 1YT.14-4-, iqb Menkej Frank, & Rice, Jas. E. , dba Uenke & Rice 174 Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 C&D-Susp I2b.2&<»,3<.q-.b4 0 Menkes, Joseph 1190 T.P. V 1-25-39 7-22-39 '"C&D 104,H1.1XO-, 1 Zl ,T2-4\ 1 4-5,1 so Repar 1-23-40 Repar- JDismiss ls&. 1 iao-.ie>i-, fto3-, 8 x 4 ; 8 si Merchants Produce Co., Inc. 704 T.P. V 3- 1-37 6-25-37 Dismiss 134--.14l-,iqi-,82J-.832 Merchants Produce Co., Inc. Meridian Union Stock 1259 T.P. V 11- 6-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM 1o3.,1ix-. 14T. 8o9 Yards 316 Bond III 7- 9-30 9-15-30 C&D-Susp li.4-.Z84-, 3ST. 522,b5l 12- 6-30 Rev Susp Merkel, Inc. 506 T.P. II 11- 7-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p S 4i S4 ■, W i b Merritt, Edward L. et al., Partners, dba J. J. Hifford & Co. 1253 T.P. V 10-30-39 2-27-40 C&D-ARM 1oJ-,1JOi141i8°& Metcalf, E. H., dba Metcalf Commission Co. Metropolitan Poultry 243 Bond III 10-11-27 11-29-27 C&D-Susp 12.4; 2.84-. JIZ.bSI Feed Corp. 891 Feed V 7-27-37 [8- 4-37 Mod orig U- 8-38 Order C&D-Susp 8i8i6i3.8to Miami Stockyards Co. 1186 Yardage III 1-19-39 8-10-39 C&D 2q&-.J48;4XS: 4-a\-, 520, 531.SbS- Uichalski, Joseph, dba 5TV.518-.583-. 585 Wisconsin Poultry & Egg Market 1016 License 7 12- 1-37 1-27-38 Granted 14-1. 1 fcA; 183: 832- Michigan Central RR 2 0 8 , 2»421. X 8 S' ; 3 S 8, S18,4.31, MU; blft-.b-lb Co., The 25 Feed Chges III 6-26-23 1-30-26 Dismiss Middlesworth, Hugh, dba Middlesworth Comm. Co. 78 T.P. III 1-25-24 8-27-24 C&D 2S2-. 2 S5-. 2 8b; 35b , SIO; S2& Middlesworth, Hugh, et al. 181 Bond III 10- 2-26 11 - 12-26 C&D-Susp |24;2H.284; 3bftj3bq-.bSI Mid-West Farmers, Inc., Payts To The 397 Trkrs III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 C&D 2lQ-.2i2;2t<4;241-.34b-. S04;SIV. biff Midwest Farmers, Inc. 894 T.P. III 7-28-37 6-22-38 C&D 22I-, 23 4-; 2 ftb2 6 ft; 24 b. 33b . Midwood, F. B. , Live 4lft; 481. SOS Poultry Corp. Miller, Chester, dba 715 License V 3-16-37 12-18-37 Granted 14l-.lb4-.7a3-.652. Fanners Poultry & Egg Market 1172 License V 11-17-38 1-14-39 Dismiss 134*141.6o4; ©32- Miller, John B. 874 License V 7-10-37 12-13-37 Granted 14l-.7b4.T8J-. 630 Miller, L. 1002 License V 11-26-37 2-12-38 Granted 14lV.3ta4--‘l83-.8}v Miller & Hart, Inc. 507 T.P. II 11- 7-35 1-10-36 Indef p/p s4-,sq,bi-.lb Uilowsky, Philip, Inc. 690 License V 2-19-37 7- 8-37 Denied 144 *1S 6-.1 b 4-.*1 U b ; T 8 J , 18-.7t4;183;832 Frank's Poultry Store Mitchel & Kuhner, John J. 978 Insolvency V 11- 6-37 3-30-38 Suspen llHV-,lS4-,11b-.iq5 lib,240i3bl & Henry C. 242 Bond III 10-10-27 11- 8-27 C&D Moberly, H. A. 722 Bond III 3-23-37 8-11-37 C&D-Susp 284-, 4ib ,b43 Moccio, Guiseppe 924 License V 8-24-37 12-13-37 Granted l+l.lb4 ; l&V.83X Moeller, Carl 944 License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 14-l-,ib4%l8J; 832 Montanino, Mary 1057 License V 1-25-38 3-18-38 Granted 14l-.1b4-.183-.832 Montgomery, C. Alex Moon, Henry J. et al., 229 Bond III 10- 8-27 11-18-27 C&D 12 4 ; 2 84 •. 3b>8; 3TJ dba Moon & Unthauk 767 Repar III 5-12-37 9-10-37 Repar H2-.24b-.4n-.S41 - 926 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page Moore, Ed. Moore, iil. H., dba Moore 556 Bond III 6-29-36 7-29-36 C&D-Susp 21f: 2 Partners dba M. & K. Poultry Co. 1118 License V 4-18-38 8-11-38 Granted lAvV.1t4--.T8a Morrof, Nathan 787 License V 5-15-37 6-16-37 Granted 74-1 V; -Jfef; -TS3 Morrof, Nathan Moy, You K. et al., dba 1249 Repar V 2-23-39 1-30-40 Repar 17-511 Vb 1 w •. 8 ol813-, 8 18 4 4- V/ing Sang Company & Wing Song Company 860 License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted 14l-.lt4..1t6-,183-,19V-. 830 Muckoiri.cz, Max 731 License V 3-26-37 4-26-37 Granted 1*1-. 7b4i 783; 637- Mulberry Poultry Corp. 769 License V 5-12-37 6-25-37 Granted 74-I-. Ib4--. 183; 637- Murbach, William et al. 282 Bond III 2-25-29 4- 9-29 C&D 17b. 261.53 V Murphree, Roy Murphy, William J., 546 License V 5-15-36 7-11-36 Granted 14-1-.7 (.j; 184- llt-.ZB4-.aaz_ dba Murphy Bros. Murphy, William J., dba 404 Bond III 10-28-32 11-26-32 C&D 2y\ • 24-1 -. 2 At -. Z at -. 34 B: 151: Murphy Bros. & Co. 407 T.P. III 12-28-32 8-15-33 Susp- C&D-ARM b4<\ ,TOV Myers, Edward, dba The Chicken House Myers, George I., dba 889 License V 7-24-37 9-25-37 Granted -W-V.lb4--.163.630 Northwestern Livestock Commission Co. 1107 Bond III 3-25-38 10-27-38 Dismiss 135,2.8,7.2 M, 356, y\x. Myers & Housman, a corp. 126 T.P. III 7-29-24 12- 1-24 Dismiss m-.2U-.2b1-,26b.356; 4b1 Nangle, Henry 184 T.P. III 11- 3-26 2- 4-27 C&D-Susp 231.236,2 41.28b-. 310 ,413; 44 b; Nashville Union Stock- Ydge bS3;bl3;b14-}bn yards, Inc. 18 Chges III 1-23-23 2-21-23 Dismiss 285. 307.. 3 5S’; U3V bl1 Nashville Union Stock- Com yards, Inc. 87 Chges III 3-31-24 9-14-25 Dismiss 28S - -. 3SB. 4-bU Nashville Union Stock- I Flfa 2Lb .73S;21V-.3Vb;3IS;318-,444-. 4-1b; yards, Inc. 291 Rates III 6-15-29 8- 2-29 Fix Rates] JM .S7B-. sao -,584 .SI*; b OO; bol •, bo 61 bn J LbT-l .H-4-, bvs-.b37-,fab&-,bl3 Nathanson, N. National Livestock Com- 1030 License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 14-l-.1b4-.163.03V mission Company National Livestock Com- 42 T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 6-24 C&D 258.2 8t-.3Sb, 28b; 356 mission Co. no T.P. • III 5-24-24 2- 9-25 Dismiss National Live Stock Commission Co. National Poultry & 578 Bond m 9-28-36 11-16-36 Dismiss 133.2Bo-.264.35312 Egg Co. 657 License V 1-14-37 7- 7-37 Granted 141.1t4-.l83 5 331 Nell, Joseph J. 990 Repar V n-22-37 2-12-38 Dismiss 17-1; 13U-.14V-.1 S S •• ®3V Nelson, Ludwig 387 Insolvency III 4- 1-32 9- 2-33 Dismiss 21b : 264;3s&-.384- Newark Live Poultry Co. 1001 T.P. V n-22-37 12-18-37 Dismiss 131,1 44-.115-. 621 Newark Stockyards of Feed 2tt; 2 85; 3 51>bb ,b12- Kearney, N. J. 56 Chges III 11-30-23 12- 6-24 Dismiss Newark Stock Yards, Corn & Hay Kearney, N. J. 131 Chges III 9-24-24 10- 1-24 Dismiss 211.2 & S’-, 3fc 2. : 014; 112- Newark Stockyards of Feed Newark, N. J. , The 21 Chges III 3-23-23 4-11-23 Dismiss 2bb : 28?; 3?8; btsr.bll Newbum, J. K., formerly - dba McCall, Newbum & Joyce 58 T.P. III 12-20-23 2-14-24 C&D 252; 258; 2 St; 3 55; 4SQ-.5IO, Newbum, John K. et al., Partners dba McCall, Newbum & Joyce 983 T.P. III 11-16-37 12-13-37 [C&D-Susp- 28t-.A7-©-.t5a-.i 01- 1 ARM New Jersey Coop Co., Inc. 553 Coop V 6-25-36 S;IO; 20; 22; 3 ©; 3b -.bll .10 b-,1 1 b, 111; Rates 6-13-40 7- 1-37 Fix Rates 12 7 •. 12 3 ; 12 S ; 12 b ; 1Z1 14-7 ■. 7 51 ; 7S . 15b>;7sa-,111 ; 781:188.011;8 12 8iA 8-13-37 Consent Ord 8zo-,a23;e,2S;62i-,82&-,824;8Jcy, 6-22-39 Fix Rates 8 SI; 852-.8S J;654; 8 SS,8 Sb; 8 S7-. Newman, Louis, dba S S8i 8S7; 8bo-tb ;&ll , 873; 674r Franklin Poultry Co. 1252 rp p V 10-31-39 2-10-40 C&D-ARM- 103-.130-.141-. 8 01 New York Central RR Co. 26 Feed Chges III 6-26-23 1 - 30-26 Dismiss 208; 2l-285-; 358-.S78-.b3l-. tlZ-.bll.blb New York Coop Co., Inc. 555 Coop V 6-25-36 Rates 6-13-40 7- 1-37 Fix Rates S’; IO; 20-.22, 30; 3 b -, b 14 -.1 Ob; 7 1 b-(7j 8-13-37 Consent Ord 122-23; 125-fc; 12.1; 742 ; 1S(;7S5-, 15b; 1S8 -.114-. 181:188; 8«-f2; 8 6-22-39 Fix Rates 820; 823; 8 25;821-30; 851-bb; 8H-. 813;874- - 927 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Pa«e. New York Poultry Market 1155 License V 8- 2-38 9-20-38 Granted 7 vuiu-t a-3-. ftix- New York Live Poultry- Trucking Co., Inc. 554 Trie & Load V 6-25-36 S-, IQ; ZO-.ZZ'.SO •, it-, t7S/; 7SS-L'.7SS.77‘»:787;788; 8U-7,®l4-. 8-13-37 Consent Ordsgcez^&zs.Bzi-io-. ssi-tt; 6-22-39 Fix Rates 8 71; 87 3; 874- New York Stock Yards Co. 117 T.P. III 7-12-24 8-27-24 C&D 2&1.3UZ'.4S7 Nifong Conmission Co., Comm Consolidated with 2BS:5b2'.4ie> The 122 Chges III 7-21-24 Docket No. 132 Noble, C. F., dba ■* Coulboum & Noble 93 T.P. III 4- 3-24 5-27-25 Dismiss 2W7',l%b,3S& Noble, C. Paul, dba Payts To Coulboum & Noble 746 Truckers III 4-23-37 5-15-37 C&D Ml . Sib Nochenson, Mrs. Mildred 1033 License V 12-29-37 3-22-38 Granted 74-i-.-n>«".7&3,eiv- Noll, John 167 Bond III 7-26-26 10-14-26 C&D I77.iaq.it6 Norris, James N., Inc. 881 Repar V 7-16-37 3-14-38 Dismiss 735,74-3',717- North, Nathan North Fourth Poultry 1148 T.P. V 8- 1-38 2-11-39 Repar 7 70 fl7t-;744-.e>0l', 8*1 Corp. North Fourth Poultry 585 License V 10- 5-36 1-14-37 Denied 141,7 94-, 188; 6^0 Corp. North Shore Live 1124 License V 5-17-38 6-20-38 Granted 74 ., 'V;7t4.'.7&i Poultry Markets, Inc. 635 License V 12-10-36 1- 6-37 Granted 741', 7t4- ',783', 831 Northwestern Commission Payts To Co., Inc. Northwestern Live Stock 394 Triers III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 Dismiss i-n •. xq i •. 3 s 8-. iq t on b; s it. Commission Co. , a corp. Northwestern Live Stock 412. Bond III 2-17-33 5-25-33 Dismiss m.zvv.zqo . 3S& Commission Co. 602 Insolvency III 10-28-36 11-20-36 Suspen 2.M-, iatvAtA.-. sxs.bAq 1- 6-37 Rev Susp Northwestern Livestock Market Comnission Co. 956 Privileges III 10- 7-37 5-10-38 C&D zqi. 215. 348:4n.b47.tS8 Olson, Gust 647 License V 1- 6-37 5-18-37 Denied 74.i-.1tl'.7WU-. T83',n4",e>» 8-12-37 Granted Omaha Horse & Mule Com¬ mission Co., a corp. 149th St. Live Poultry 296 Bond III 8-31-29 10-26-29 C&D li-!;iaq ; V11 Market, Inc. O'Reilly, John B., dba 528 License V 2-24-36 9-23-36 Granted W;1H;704 Mid-City Farm Produce Co. 760 License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted m.7t4-.78V8yj- Orenstein, Sam, dba Essex Live Poultry Co. Orman, Morris & Hyman, 946 License V 9-14-37 12-13-37 Granted Partners dba Michigan Poultry Co. 1080 License V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted TM: 1t«- ; 78V. Six. Orr, T. W. et al., dba • Ozark Commission Co. 541 Bond III 4-23-36 5-28-36 C&D l77i2Sq ; iS6 Oss, Charles A. et al. 246 Boycott m 11- 1-27 2- 9-29 C&D-Susp 2i3-XTq.,2qi ,3 05;H 5; 314-; 175-., 44X4-, 4 41 •. 417 ; 4-7 1 ; 4 q (.; S TT . bS4- : tq4- 12- 5-32 Rev Susp Ostrowsky, Frank, dba Frank's Poultry House 761 License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted I4t-,7t4;783 . &?X Ostrowsky, Frank, dba Frank's Poultry House Otten, Howard, & 1179 Repar V 1- 4-39 6- 3-39 Dismiss 1iq,744i &03>, 8 4-1 Gallagher, C. L. 272 T.P. III 5- 3-28 10- 3-28 Dianiss 2I3,X1 3.266-. 35S;37t Otto, William A. Overstreet, J. T. et al., 764 License V 5-10-37 7-10-37 Granted 74\'.-1t4".18V,81X Partners dba Arnold & Overstreet Livestock Commission Co. 1202 Insolvency III 3- 1-39 6- 3-39 C&D-Susp Z&t'.XBI,430:351'. bso-.bbl Owens, C. S., dba C. S. Owens Commission Co. 284 Bond III 3- 1-29 5-17-29 C&D ITt.ilOi itl Oyler, S. G. Oyler, W. K., dba E. N. 226 Bond III 10- 8-27 11- 8-27 Dismiss 12 5; 27 Z; 2 64; 44(. 124. Z61, 31VC.41 Oyler & Son 225 Bond III 10- 8-27 11-18-27 C&D-Susp - 928 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inauirv Order Order Appears Under Pa^e Pacific Live Poultry Corp. 627 License V 11-28-36 3-19-37 Dismiss Pack, Harry Packs Live Poultry 724 License V 3-23-37 6- 7-37 Granted Market, Inc. 796 License V 5-18-37 7-14-37 Granted V4-1: 7fe4--. 78.3 Palmer, Carl Palumbo, Frank S. et al.. 376 Bond III 2- 9-32 3-18-32 C&D IZ:b8<3 Peoria Union Stockyards Market Co. 979 Privileges hi 11- 6-37 4-18-38 Dismiss 2 It; 131 is fc-. 187-. 3 5 B. 4-1-0 ■, Sn Perkins, J. K. 198 T.P. hi 7- 8-27 7-21-27 C&D-Susp 2fcV;t&&tVJZ.-,fc83l Peterson, C. L., Sr. et al. 465 Agency III 5-14-35 8- 2-35 C&D llfc; 184-j Z44; 4oB Pfleiderer, Eiger J. 539 Bond III 3-25-36 5-21-36 C&D-Susp lZ4..ZB4.36B.,fc4-D Phillips, Joseph, Co. 510 T.P. II 11- 7-35 1-10-36 Indef p/p S4-; 34;fcl\7fc Phillips, Sol 830 License V 6- 7-37 9- 9-37 Granted 74l.7b4.,7 83 ; 830 Phillippy, Samuel 209 Bond III 9-21-27 11-29-27 C&D I24.2.a4,3fc8 Piccolo, Joe Fiekman, Beatrice, dba 622 License V 11-28-36 12-30-36 Granted 74b7fcV.783.,89» General Produce Co. Pineus, Charles, dba 651 License V 1- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted 74l-.7t4-,78}-.83\ East Hew York Live Poultry 679 license V 1-30-37 4-12-37 Granted 74I-. 7t4'.,783 , i 83Z. - 929 - Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page Piotrowski, Marcella Pisano, Rocco, dba 1171 License V 11-17-38 12-22-38 Granted 74l,-|fc4--,783 v Chatham Poultry Pittsburgh Joint Stock- 1005 License V Drought Cattle 11-26-37 1-19-38 Granted fC&D Vac 74-1,7fc4--. 146. S&4-: k&d- yards Co. Pittsburgh Union Stock- 451 Ydge. Rates Com III 11- 8-34 4-26-35 'Tariff yards Co., The Platte Valley Livestock 24 Chges III 5-29-23 6-25-27 Dismiss eit > itt.,iaS;3ii.jii v 3s&.so-*- kfcfc; fcli. Commission Co., a corp. 1082 Bond III 2-23-38 4-18-38 C&D Itt-. 7.40 . 4o0- Poland, C.P., Prop. Mississippi Valley Stock Yards 1163 Yardage III 9-29-38 3- 1-39 Dismiss 2.Z1-.£46.3S&,54S-. U33 Polin, Goldie B. , dba Farmers Commission Co., et al. 1091 Boycott V 3- 1-38 6-20-38 Dismiss- “1XV, T0-3-.11&S . C&D Polin, Isadore F., dba Integrity Poultry Co. Polin, Nathan J., dba 1112 License V 4-18-38 6- 1-38 Dismiss 7 33-, 7 41.784: fiJT- Integrity Poultry- Co. 1256 T.P. V 11- 9-39 2-27-40 C&D 7ll\7IZ-,730-.732.i7 47i8o& Polmen Poultry Corp* 800 License V 5-18-37 7- 7-37 Granted 74l-.7fc4i78i-,&30 Polmen Poultry Corp. Porterfield, George E., 1010 License V 12- 1-37 1-21-38 Dismiss 737 -. 744 --. 74 c> dba Mt. Vernon Live Stock Co. 512 Bond III 11-16-35 3-24-36 C&D nioxW-.i&i- Portland Union Stock 14 l : 3 tx - vn ; 4-11, VI4-., S4& St4; L.-M LLX-.lot'b Yards, a corp. 278 Repar III 10-20-28 5-29-29 C&D Rep Fix Rates Potts, J. C. et al. 364 T.P. III 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D Ifcfcj 292- -.3X1-,343; 44& Power & Loftin, Inc. Pratscher, Joseph, dba 1085 T.P. III 2-23-38 3-29-38 Dismiss 2&1.-.Z8C,-. 358 -. 5S& Pratscher's Poultry Market 965 License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 74\-. 841. Prelutsky, Myer, dba Farmers Poultry & Egg Market 1140 License V 6-10-38 7-18-38 Granted 74-i. 7C4-1 783-, &3v Pritchard, H. R. 341 T.P. III 3- 2-31 3-19-31 C&D—Susp 34ll38fc; fc4L Producers Cooperative 25fc-.2ftCr.3St, Commission Assn. * 40 T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 8-24 C&D Producers Cooperative *54 ;t&C>;3Sl, Commission Assn. Producers Cooperative 90 T.P. III 3-31-24 7-12-24 C&D m s tl*•.28-. 35&,4 i 8: S4i_ Marketing Assn., The Prospect Poultry Co., 1165 Repar III 8- 6-38 2-11-39 Dismiss tftt.147-. 356; 4lfc;48l Inc. Prospect Poultry Co., 559 License V 7-10-36 9-23-36 Granted 744 ; 7t3-,784-;830 Inc. 1176 Insolvency T.P. V 12-30-38 7-15-39 Revoked 7 Ot-.llS; 7 44; 111 ; 8 01; 8 17 .813 Prosperity Live 741-.754-.7 8&-, 831 Poultry Corp. 596 License V 10-10-36 1-14-37 Denied Prouty Commission Co. Providence Live 28 T.P. III 9- 7-23 12-29-23 C&D 2.51-. l&t>-.3SS; 47 7 Poultry Co., Inc. Public Live Poultry 1052 License V 1-25-38 9-24-38 Granted 74i-.7fc4;783-.a31- Co., Inc. 529 License V 2-24-36 3- 4-36 Dismiss T33-.74l-.184- Purity Cooperative f 7- 7-37 Denied 74-l-.758-.1C4-.7kfc-, 78V,789; 831 Association 709 License V 3-13-37 111- 9-37 Granted Pyke, J. E. 538 Bond III 3- 7-36 4-16-36 C&D Iiu-.140i3&2- Pyle, J. S. Queens County Live 211 Bond III 9-21-27 11-22-27 C&D IJ-4; 2.89-,3fc.& Poultry Market, Inc. 642 License V 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 141 ;7C4-i78)i 8M Quincy Live Poultry, Inc. 999 License V 11-22-37 2-23-38 Granted 74i-.7fc4-.783-.83V Rabenstein, Chas. L. 217 Bond III 9-23-27 12-12-27 C&D 125.284. 3C& Raby, Louis 861 License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted 741-. 7fc4-,7 83 ,830 - 930 - <► Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Pae-e Rackoff, David I. & Herman, Partners dba Grove Street «< Live Poultry Market Ralston, James S., dba 1102 License V 3-14-38 7-11-38 Granted lAi.lfcA-, 183,811- Ralston Brothers Live¬ stock Commission Co. 300 Insolvency III 10-26-29 1-20-30 Suspen 28,1 •.'3 81 >4-1 Ransom, Mansfield & Co., a partnership Ransom, Mansfield & Co., 99 T.P. m 4-23-24 5-16-25 C&D 2SU-. 2S1-, 2 8t, 3feO,4-tl Inc. 1042 T.P. in 1-19-38 3- 1-38 Dismiss 211,3S0-. 54-3 Rea, Luigi 680 License V 1-30-37 7- 7-37 Denied T4I-.166-.T81-.83T_ Reber, John 972 License V 10-29-37 12-30-37 Granted Rebhan, John A. 232 Bond in 10- 8-27 10-31-27 C&D-Susp I24,iai-,312>4-t Reed, Andrew S. 212 Bond hi 9-21-27 11-29-27 C&D 124, 281,3t& Reichenberg, Dave 810 License V 5-28-37 7-14-37 Granted 141-. ltA-,183; 8*0 Reneker, T. J. Renna, Ernest et al., 204 Bond HI 9-14-27 11-15-27 C&D-Susp t24 ; 281. 312->4-l Partners dba Corona Central Live Poultry Market 688 License V 2-11-37 4-14-37 Granted 14l-.lt 4-. 183,832- Rhodes, Leslie C. et al., dba Nortown Live Poultry Co. 617 License V 11-13-36 12 - 30-36 Granted 141-. 114 -, 181 fi>31 Ricci, Orazio, dba Halstead Poultry Market 996 License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 14t.lt4-.1 83, 83V Rice Brothers, a corp. 63 T.P. III 12-30-23 1-31-24 Dismiss 2tl-. 28t, 351 Rice, C. J. 94 T.P. HI 4- 3-24 4- 8-24 C&D 25S-.2t4-.2at.3st-.4S8 Rice, C. J. 466 Bond HI 5-22-35 8-22-35 C&D 1 11 -.Z 84. "311 Rice, C. J. 735 Payts to Trkrs III 4- 5-37 5- 4-37 C&D 2.41; 4lt- S/t Rice, Luther K. & Rains, Emil S. Richardson Live 427 Bond III 8-18-33 10- 5-33 C&D-Susp 210;3©1 ,fe«-Z >SZ- Poultry Corp. 783 License V 5-13-37 6-16-37 Granted 141 K: It4: 783 Richey, J. N. et al. 161 T.P. III 7 - 10-26 8-13-26 C&D 2&fe ; 3fel-.5»8 Richey, J. N., Co., a corp. 521 T.P. IH 1-25-36 3- 9-36 C&D-Susp 141-, 2 51 -, Z12,214; 2 8t, 211 >14-; Alt-. 5IS, fe41 Richey-Shaffer, Inc. 536 T.P. HI 3- 4-36 4-29-36 C&D 2IZ.Z41; 4l3; 4lS- Richman, Max 1069 T.P. V 2- 3-38 5-17-38 Dismiss H1-.131-.14 4-.lie> Richter, M. , Sons, Inc. 931 T.P. V 9-13-37 3- 1-38 Dismiss llfe-.l2 3-.13t,l 4-3,114- Richter, M., Sons, Inc. Rill, John, dba Rill's 976 T.P. V 11- 6-37 8- 2-38 Dismiss lia-.ll-l-.l 44 s IIS . a 40-. 8 SO Poultry Farm Riseman, Henry, dba 975 License V 11- 6-37 12-30-37 Granted liU-.lt4-.183-. 831- Brooklyn live Poultry Market 1036 License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 141. It4s 183-.S3V Ritter, Irwin, dba Flushing Avenue Live Poultry Market 1115 License V 4-18-38 6-10-38 Granted 14t.lt 4-. 183,831- Roberts, Charles C. Roberts, J., et al.. 333 T.P. IH 11-29-30 1-30-31 C&D-Susp 231; 28t\208-v 381-,t ASjtss- Partners dba Broad¬ way Poultry Co. 961 License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 14l.lt4-.183-. 831- Roberts & Oake, a corp. 160 Bond IH 7- 3-26 5-28-28 15-da 124; 228,2 81-.314--.3 tl-.4 33 : 41S Notice Robertson, George 366 T.P. HI 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D 41& Robinson, Charles 0., Feed & Co., a corp. 1117 Chges (C&D-Susp- 30; 2Zt-. 2 3 4-, 244-.2 1 3; 2 8t. 241; 3 >8, T.P. III 4-18-38 12- 9-38 1 ARM 423; 4-4S ; 4S-| -. s or, 5 IV, 5 33-, 558; 554-. feSO Rogers, Albert 973 License V 11- 6-37 12-30-37 Granted liVt-.lt4-,lS3; 831. Rogers, J. S. 434 Bond HI 2- 8-33 1-24-34 C&D-Susp 240; 381,400:5 23,t42->5 2 5-25-34 Rev Susp Rogers & Amundson Com¬ mission Company Rogulich, Steve, dba 48 T.P. HI 11- 3-23 3-20-24 C&D 252. as3-.2 0t;3OO;3Sfc,5IC> Damen Poultry House Romano, Antonio, dba 1048 License V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted 14-l-.lt4-.l83,832. Bloomfield Avenue Live Poultry Market 1207 License V 3-29-39 6-10-39 Granted I4l-.lt 4-, 183-, 837- - 931 - Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Pa*e Honan, T. J. 275 Insolvency III 5-25-28 8-29-28 Suspen i40 ; 3iu.fayr,<.4i Rorich, C. H. 262 Bond III 12- 7-27 9-15-28 Dismiss IZ(.,21V,Z81, 1st, Rosen, Haskel Rosen, Kugler & 713 License V 3-16-37 4-14-37 Granted TM-.1fc4-.l81.833 Zimmering, Inc. Rosen, M., Live Poultry 719 License V 3-19-37 12-13-37 Denied 14-I-. isq-. 784--. 8»J- Co., Inc. 700 License V 2-27-37 10- 4-37 Denied 141; iSe.lSI-, 8iX- Rosenblum, B., Inc. Rosenstein, Harold et al. Rosenzweig Live Poultry 795 574 License Unload Rates V V 5-15-37 8 - 19-36 6-30-37 3- 4-37 Granted fC&D-Fix lRates S-.4-. IO; I4-. Z4- fc-. 31 -. 1Z fcfl 4Z.-.15 0,1 SZ, 111:185-. 8lS ; 8Zo ; ezS , 8fc1-1m Co., Inc. Ross Brothers Horse & 920 T.P. V 8-17-37 U-13-37 Dismiss 7Sfc;14-i-.1S+-. : 744- Mule Co., a corp. Rothschild Live Stock 421 Bond HI 7-22-33 9- 9-33 Dismiss Co., The, a corp. Rouse, A. H., dba A. H. Rouse Commission 345 Rates III 3-19-31 7- 1-31 Suspen 2qO;3&*1;kV* Co. Rubin, Harry, dba 331 Insolvency III 10-28-30 H-26-30 Suspen Michigan Poultry Co. 687 License V 2- 4-37 4-26-37 Granted 14l-.150-,1b4.-.1B>;8»Z- Rush, W. L. et al. Rush, W. L., dba Inde¬ pendent Livestock 365 T.P. III 10- 8-31 1- 4-33 C&D Z0fc.2<»Z:352..313;4l8 Commission Co. 569 Bond III 7-29-36 1- 6-37 Dismiss 1VJ-. 7.11-, Z-ai .-iSe i'MZ- Russo, Charles Sacks, Jacob, dba 863 License V 6-25-37 12-18-37 Dismiss 73S;74-l*i.-,ie4-,61o Kedzie Market Sacks, Jacob & Harry, Partners dba Sacks 1049 License V 1-25-38 3-18-38 Granted Brothers Sadowski, E. A. et al., dba Sunnyside Pro- 1174 T.P. III 12-23-38 4-22-39 8-28-39 11-28-39 C&D-Susp Hv ( iq8; UliMOiWU; 44-1 Pet for Mod Denied Order Reduc Susp Period duce Co. 650 License V 1- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted 14h-|fet*.183; 831 Safran, Herman, Inc. St. Joseph Livestock Com¬ mission Co., a partner'- 532 License V 2-24-36 9-23-36 Granted 14-l.1fc3-.184.ft30 ship St. Joseph Stock Yards Co., So. St. Joseph, 104 T.P. III 4-30-24 8-27-24 C&D Z44.2 4B,ZWXZ8fc-,lSfc ; 4-fc0 Mo. St. Joseph Stockyards 114 T.P. Rate III 5-19-24 10-29-24 Dismiss 2fe8-.t8S-.3S8 Co. St. Louis National 298 Case III 10- 9-29 7-20-31 On Rehear 5- 4-34 Fix Rates n : i^zi.zv, lU.n-.aB.M, Mod 4-14-36 4H . 44| .4-1 ~T ; 574-;sar Fix Rates 58&-.510;54i-s73 ) S‘f4- ; fcoi-,(,oz, Mod 4-13-38fco8-.toi ; fcn->ie;Mz£r.4.x<..fci2. Stock Yards St. Louis National 306 Rates Stckyd III 1-14-30 11-24-36 Dismiss Z14--.28S-. 358-,»8* Stockyards et al. St. Louis National 461 Services HI 3-16-35 8-15-35 C&D 24V.401-, S44-; 55S; SI 2; 513; fell Stockyards Co. St. Paul Union Stock- 1234 Repar Rates & III 8-15-39 Dismiss t83-.ZH-.35fi-. 431 yards Co. St. Paul Union Stock- yards Co. Saitta, Joseph, dba Hickory Poultry 116 1211 Chges Rates III III 7-11-24 4-22-39 5-17-27 (Pending) Dismiss 2Zfc. t U1 ; 2 a S; 31 8; 3fcl, 4-44- 4-1 0 t Hsr, StB;513; set; fcZi Market 995 License V 11-22-37 1-11-38 Granted 74h1fcV.38l:4-l3-,S25;fe4t- bst-.fcsz. Sanders, Philip S & K Live Poultry 716 License V 3-16-37 5-18-37 Granted 14-l-,7fc4-.1 8 3-, 837- Co., Inc. 531 License V 2-24-36 9-23-36 Granted 14l-.1fe3.184 Sansone, Giovanni 957 License V 10-13-37 12-29-37 Granted 14.1. ii.V;iav.a 3 v Santangelo, Michael Saracino, Thomas, & Co., 1119 License V 4-18-38 6- 1-38 Granted 14-' -1 loA-i 183-. 837- a corp. 854 Boycott V 6-25-37 H- 9-37 C&D -uvv^v.eiu., si s - 932 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Page Saugy, Augustus, Inc. 503 T.P. II 11- 7-35 1-17-36 Indef p/p Savino, Domato 1056 License V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted S3V- Scala, Louis 808 License V 5-28-37 7-16-37 Granted n-bin-jiaji 830 Scala Packing Co. 581 Drafts II 10- 1-36 1- 7-36 C&D 41 •. 4-t. si-.m Scalpato, Anthony Scarangello, Vito & 875 License V 7-10-37 11- 6-37 Denied 74l-.7S1-.784.ftZ7, 8*0 Savino, Frank, “ Partners Scarangello, Vito, dba 892 License V 7-27-37 9- 4-37 Granted q*i, 7fc4-. 7 8S-.&12-- Scarangello Chicken Market 1196 License V 2-16-39 6- 3-39 Granted 741 .Ibl-.-lBi-.&lT- Schario Livestock Co. 711 Bond iii 3-16-37 11-13-37 C&D-Susp aLW-.4»4:4.4-3 Schar, Louis Schenkman, H. & L., dba 1136 License V 6- 8-38 7-18-38 Granted 74h1<»4\ 783.831- Bath Beach Live Poultry Market 592 License V 10-10-36 4- 2-37 (Denied Toft: 74»: 7yfi, 14.4-: 7BZ.. 6-15-37 [.Granted 783-, 831 Schiavo, Filomena 841 License V 6-16-37 8-11-37 Granted 74l-.7fc4 ; 783;830 Schiedhom, Abe 1245 Insolvency V 8-30-39 5-13-40 Revoked 7>5,74fc-,774-.8 < >fe Schlichtman, Myer 705 License V 3- 6-37 8-20-37 Granted 7 4-1-.7 5 A •, 7b7 • 18 4 8 i t . 831- Schloss, Leo 294 T.P. ii 8-12-29 12-15-30 Dismiss Sfc-.S7-.fcl; 73 Schloss, Leo, Inc. 708 T.P. ii 3-13-37 10-20-37 C&D 47. 94-.78j4l-.18-. io>-. 10*.-. 103 Schloss, Leo, Inc. 928 T.P. ii 9- 4-37 6- 8-38 C&D 4-0,48% SI, 11 Schloss, Leo, Inc. 1019 T.P. ii 12-14-37 2- 3-38 C&D 48-.S4-.ni Schloss, Leo, Inc. Schlutter, Charles H., 1105 T.P. ii 3-14-38 7- 2-38 C&D 4fc'.fc°-.80 dba Charles Maricet 1051 License V 1-25-38 3- 1-38 Granted 74l-.nb4-.78l>.. ajl- Scholten, G. J. Schonzeit, Charles & 943 License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 74l-.7t4-.78i., 837. Sudfeld, S., Partners 849 License V 6-19-37 10- 4-37 Dismiss 134-.7 4-t- t 7e4-. 830 Schorr, Ida H. 988 License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 74»-.7b4: 783-. ftiv- Schorr, Solomon 1071 License V 2- 3-38 3-22-38 Granted 74.l-.-Tb4-: 71&-.78i;837- Schut, Abraham 589 License V 10-10-36 10-30-36 Granted 74l.7fc3-.764-.83t Schwartz, Barnet 636 License V 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 741-.7U4-. 783; 831 Schwartz, Mr. J. Scrudato, Guiseppe, dba 833 License V 6- 8-37 7- 7-37 Granted 74'; 7fc4-,78i-. 830 Lincoln Live Poultry Maricet 953 License V 9-27-37 12-13-37 Granted 74-V-.7fc4-;76>3-. £>37- Seal, C. C., dba C. C. Seal Commission Co. 118 T.P. in 7-12-24 11- 6-24 C&D Z5fc,2bO;2«fc : 3Sfc.S27 ; 52.8 Seal, C. C., dba C. C. Seal & Co. 162 T.P. iii 7-14-26 5- 5-27 Dismiss Z44. z 7 o -. 28 fc, 31.7 -, 4 fc7; 4 8 fc. 445|So4- Seattle Union Stock- Feed yards Company 23 Chges iii 3-30-23 5-11-23 Dismiss /2tfc..Z85; 10 0 ) 3 02 . i S a-, blofc J wn t .. V.lo72 ; fc7e> Security Produce Co., fC&D- Inc. SeewAld, Charles et al., 1090 T.P. V 2-25-38 8-11-38 (Repar 11. Z1-. 145- 7S7-.74 ft.818; 84S-,847 a partnership 639 License V 12-10-36 4- 1-37 Denied 74I-, 7fc0-,7 B2-.811 Seewald, Charles Seewald, Meyer & 864 License V 6-25-37 12-13-37 Denied 741. 7S4.784-;8lo Fertig, Harry 640 License V 12-10-36 3- 1-37 Denied 74l-.7b6-.74l -.8l3-, 831 Segal, Abe 1106 Insolvency V 3-14-38 5-17-38 Dismiss 738-.7 4S-.74fc Segal, Hyman Semenski, Stephen F., 1111 Insolvency V 4-18-38 11- 6-37 7- 2-38 Revoked 744-. 771.777 . 711 dba Prlma Poultry 75th St. Live Poultry 974 License V 12-30-37 Granted 14l-,7fc4-.7 83-,8i2- Market, Inc. Sevier, J. W. Jr., dba 821 License V 6- 5-37 3-22-38 Denied 741-. 751; 784.827. 82-f; 83o Sevier Commission Co. Shannon & Farrell, a 349 Bond III 6-16-31 8-29-31 C&D l27-.2ft1-,371 n4-.t4fc s 2 S3i2S8: 28fc,3oo. 3 S7; 451.4Sa-.5M partnership 53 T.P. III 12-26-23 4-30-24 C&D Shapiro, Cecil, Inc. 872 License V 7-10-37 1-11-38 Granted 74l.7fe4.783 830 Sharicansky, Arin Sharkansky, Arin, dba 763 License J V 5-10-37 7-16-37 Granted 74l-.7bi-.783-. 817- Quality Poultry & Egg Maricet 1170 T.P. V 10 - 3-38 4-22-39 Repar 7T7-.745-. &o|-. 843 Sharkansky, Arin n73 Insolvency V 11-17-38 7-21-39 jRevok- 1 ARM 700-.7 4-4-.77Z-, ftoi-. 87 4- Sharkansky, Isadore Sherr, Alexander et al.. n35 License V 6- 8-38 8-31-38 Denied 741-.7S1-. 711". 832- Partners dba Badger State Poultry & Egg Co. 960 License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 7 4i-.7fe4-.7ft3.837- - 933 - Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inauirv Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page Shippers Commission Company, The 44 T.P. III 10-18-23 2- 8-24 C&D ase-, sio Shore Road Live Poultry Co., Inc. 600 License V 10-13-36 11-24-36 Granted 14-1-. V W 3; V 84--, 830 Shuchman, Leon, dba Ft. Hamilton Live Poultry Market 1003 License V 11-26-37 1-11-38 Granted 141-. TW4-.V83-.8iz- Shumer's Englewood Meat & Live Poultry Market 862 License V 6-25-37 9- 1-37 Granted I4l-,lfc4; V8»-. Shurte, Charles H. 27 T.P. III 6-27-23 9-29-23 C&D rn ; 221. 23S: HV, 2SB: 28U-. 337; 3ss->t»i»-.4-aa Shuster, Benny & Abe, Partners dba Shuster Bros. 811 License V 5-29-37 9-25-37 Denied 141; V64-, Vo 1 -. 8ll Simon, Benjamin 623 License V 11-28-36 5-13-37 Denied 12b\14l-. 1SX-,1S8-.TS1vV81"iV4o-, 831 Simon, S. 203 Bond III 9-14-27 11-11-27 C&D I24 : 2&1.3fcfc Sinclair, G. R., dba Sinclair Commission Co. 417 Bond III 7- 7-33 10-19-33 C&D-Susp 281; 381,WS2. Singer, Rev. Heiman, dba Rev. H. Singer Poultry & Egg Market 1076 License V 2-23-38 4-11-38 Granted l4»-.1b4; 18V, &3V- Singer, Samuel 1013 License V 12- 1-37 1-11-38 Granted 14l-.1t4--.ia3: giv- Sioux City Stockyards Co., The 268 Stckyd Services HI 12-21-27 2- 8-28 Dismiss 28S;303;3Sa.,Sol Sioux City Stockyards Co. 425 Rate III 8- 2-33 12-13-34 C&D-Fix 2.3.4..V-.8; IZ, l3;22;Z4- ; Z5:2t; Sioux Livestock Commission Co. et al. 79 Case Comm. Chges III 2- 6-24 No Order On.po 2V>2a..21..3l,34-.3a-,232-, 242.303; Amend 8-6-34s<)o. s?u ; st7i AmendH-6-37*>ofe;fci3-. t c4-> i 4 > 2 o : fe28><»24; fc3o.bfaV.,wt1;feB3 2 . 8(0 Sipp, Milton 625 License V 11-28-36 12-30-36 Granted 144; 1b41183; 831 Sitto, Walter, dba Service Poultry Store 985 License V 11-22-37 1-19-38 Granted 14i-.lt4-.18i-.a3v Skaler, Mane 1244 Insolvency V 8-30-39 5- 8-40 Revoked V4to-.nv.8ok, Skupa, Joseph 740 License V 4-21-37 5-18-37 Granted 14l-.Vt4-.V8i-. 83V Slade Bros., Inc. 1229 License V 7-20-39 11-14-39 Denied Vn-.V4I-.V54-.V8 4; 832- Sloat, H. H. 993 License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 14l-.lt4-.V83-.8iv Smith, A. B. 228 Bond HI 10- 8-27 10-29-27 C&D-Susp 124", 12 5; 240: IV 4: tSI Smith, August 219 Bond III 10- 1-27 10-28-27 C&D-Susp I24;2 84.3V2:t,4l Smith-Burrows Company 35 T.P. III 9- 8-23 10- 2-23 C&D 2S2 ; 28W-.300-.3SS Smith, Green 966 License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 14l.VW4--VS5-.S32- Smith, Jay, dba Central Poultry & Egg Market 855 License V 6-25-37 8-17-37 Granted 14t.Vt,4;VS3-,S30 Smith, Lena, dba Montrose Poultry 937 License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 141.1W4-.V83-. 832— Smith, Lena, dba Montrose Poultry 1067 T.P. V 2- 3-38 7- 2-38 Repar 144 ; vqi-,84l- Smith, Mabelle, dba People's Poultry Market 1088 License V 2-25-38 4-11-38 Granted V4h v 14; V 83-, 832. Smythe, Dallas 196 T.P. III 6- 1-27 8-24-27 C&D 114:208-,3b4i3VI Snyder, M. M. 1084 Bond III 2-23-38 10-15-38 C&D I2W-.210-. 4 02- Sokaloff, Siegel & Zarkin, Inc. 533 License V 2-24-36 3-18-37 Denied V4l-.VS0-.V58 1 V82;83O Solgan, Isadore 673 License V 1-30-37 7-16-37 Denied loa^bVtl- 1fe(o.1BV,V84|g3Z. 11- 9-37 Granted Solomon, Beatrice, dba Bayonne Live Poultry Co. 816 License V 5-29-37 7-16-37 Granted 14l.Vfe4-.18V, 8 Jo - 934 . Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Digest of Case % Order Appears Under Page Somerman, Louis et al., Partners, dba Sanitary Poultry & Egg Market Somerman, Louis et al., Partners, dba Sanitary Poultry & 667 License V 1-26-37 3-19-37 Granted - 741 * ni»4,ie3,e%o Egg Market Sommarco, Giacomo, dba Main Live Poultry 1221 T.P. V 6-13-39 12- 9-39 Revoked Market Sonenblick, Ben et al., Partners dba Sonen- 1198 License V 2-16-39 6- 3-39 Granted t4i-, 1L4-. nsv blick & Shapiro 933 T.P. V 9-13-37 2-12-38 Dismiss Sontoro, Pasqualina Sorensen, A. P. & L. R., 1037 License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted nn-.nH-.n&V dba A. Sorensen & Son Sonner, William & 649 License V 1- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted lAl-.’lfcA;*I®*\*M Gallagher, C. L. Sottolano, Mary, dba New System Poultry 273 T.P. III 5- 3-28 10- 3-28 C&D-Susp u *• r1 V z & 8. VTfc, 44.1 •. UVJ. n o I Market South Brooklyn Poultry 1066 Insolvency V 1-28-38 6- 1-38 Revoked l44- t "no- t Hi Corporation 851 License V 6-19-37 8-17-37 Granted 74-i ; nw4~,ie>;*>3o Southern Stockyards Corp. 80 T.P. III 2-20-24 8-27-24 r«.n IT S» l t tSUs 4- *T. 4-fc 1 ; WJJ 4-ai.sn So. St. Paul Commission Co. Southwest Commission Co. 32 T.P. III 9- 8-23 1-30-24 C&D 2S*iZat>>300v 3 5 5. Sl4j S2.6 of Los Angeles, Calif. Sparks, Allan C. 193 1161 Re par Switch Hogs III m 4-20-27 9-12-38 7-18-27 10-16-39 Dismiss ai3..Z40\3lV>-.a60;3sa;44t»-.4n 0; 414 1 s 00 ; s 3 o •. » ,S 40 ; 5 (o 4- C&D-Susp Z&a;l8&;yjW;4Xb;S *■■■ Corp. Stacy, Bement & Beadle, 1183 T.P. V 8-17-38 7-19-39 Repar nv 4 -:n>a ; 744--. 8ol.,84l Inc. 91 T.P. in 3-31-24 3-16-25 C&D 25J,i5<»-,Z8L,3SL Stafford, C. I. & Sons Stafford, Lloyd B. et al., Partners dba Stafford & 1236 Repar in 2-23-39 9-21-39 Dismiss 3S8 Brown Stafford, S. Bruce, Estate of, formerly dba Stafford Bros., Martin Brennan & Wm. E. 660 Bond in 1-23-37 3-19-37 Dismiss *60. Otto, Admrs. 1065 Bond iii 1-27-38 7- 2-38 C&D Iti-.ZSS-.AXX. Stahl-Meyer, Inc. Standard Livestock 504 T.P. ii 11- 7-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p54-jS1:M*,1U Commission Co., a corp. 515 Bond in 12- 4-35 1-15-36 C&D *"■ 19 Standard Provision Co. Star Live Poultry 489 T.P. ii 11- 1-35 1-17-36 Indef p/p 5 9 - t sq>l.l(o Market, Inc. Staudohar, Joseph, dba 837 License V 6-10-37 9-14-37 Granted n4-l’.nk>4-, “id3; 83a South-Chicago Poultry Stauffer Sales Co., 712 License V >16-37 6-25-37 Granted 83,632. a corp. Stein, Edward P. , dba 220 Bond iii 10- 3-27 11-29-27 C&D 12 S'. 2.84-. 3T 2 - Edward P. Stein & Co. Stein, Michael, dba Englewood Poultry 1261 T.P. V 10-31-39 2-10-40 C&D *ia-.n4-T. 80 S Market 738 License V 4-16-37 5-12-37 Granted 14t-. lU4-.n83-,83X- - 956 - Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Page Steinberg, Harry I. 955 License V 9-29-37 11-13-37 Granted 14-l.-ii.4-, IS3; 832. Stein, Fischer & Mentz, Inc. 582 License V 10- 5-36 11-24-36 Granted 14t-,lfe3-, 1 B4-; 8-50 Stephenson, Geo., dba Stephenson's Poultry Market 784 License V 5-13-37 7-10-37 Granted l4l'V-.7t4-;183 Stern, Philip, dba Philip Stem & Sons 858 License V 6-25-37 8-27-37 Granted 1A-I-. Ifc4s 183; 830 Stewart, Carson, McCormack Co. et al. 2 Boycott III 3- 3-22 4-15-22 C&D 28S-. 140., 341-. i41-.3 5Z-.446-.MO St0wflrt j tJ • A» 315 Bond III 6-26-30 1- 5-31 C&D-Susp IZ4.Z10-.3&1-. szzjfcsi Stiel, Charles H. 144 Insolvency III 1-26-26 2- 11-31 3- 11-26 Rev Susp Suspen 288-, 301 -, 3fc5-. soo-, SSLl-,fe38 Stone, H. J. et al., Partners dba Stone & Lloyd 1063 License V 1-27-38 3-14-38 Granted 14l\ lfc4;18J-.632- Strachan, J. A., dba J. A. Strachan & Co. 1276 Drafts III 9- 1-39 6-17-40 Dismiss 20l-.Tl4--.zn-, -111-, 23C-, •. 343\ 4-17.-. Si4-.Slb-.S4-3-, left! Stragier, Octaf 1040 Bond III 1-19-38 6- 8-38 C&D 135 . Z84. 4-ZI Strain, R. H. et al., dba Strain & Co. 619 Insolvency III 11-24-36 1- 5-37 Suspen 264; 3&i-.b44 Strebel, Charles et al. 245 T.P. III 10-20-27 12-27-27 Dismiss 2.8b32S; 3 S6,314-; S 3t, SS 3 Strokes, Frank B., dba Hi-Grade Poultry Co. 652 License V 1- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted 14-1.1 U4->T83i 8M Studna, Jennie, dba Studna Horse & Mule Co. 577 Bond III 9-23-36 10-13-36 Dismiss 133-.Z.1&, z<\o- 35& ; 34z. Suddeth, T. G. 380 Bond III 2-15-32 7- 2-32 C&D-Susp 2qo.344--.b4.l-.feSt Sullivan, E. 249 Bond III 11- 8-27 2- 3-28 Dismiss |2fe.213- f 2&8-.3S& Sullivan, John L. 384 T.P. III 3-17-32 8-17-32 C&D-Susp 14 V •• 2 88 -. 3 IS; 4-1 S- fc 4U Sundheimer, Samuel 127 T.P. III 7-29-24 10-15-24 Dismiss Zfcl; 2.6b, 3SB-.4fel ; Sift Sundheimer Livestock Commission Co., Inc. 163 Insolvency III 7-16-26 2- 9-27 Dismiss 210-.Z84.3SB Sunlight Produce Co. of Sioux City, Iowa et al. 185 T.P. II 11- 9-26 6-15-27 12-18-26 Dismiss Dismiss ss-.sa-.ia--, tot Sunray Live Poultry Co., Inc. 584 License V 10- 5-36 2-13-37 Dismiss 1V5.14-1-.18&, 830 Sun, Tom Lee et al., dba Yuen Roy Live Poultry Market 1097 License V 3- 1-38 4-19-38 Granted 14-1-. 1(*4-. 18 V 851- Superman, Benjamin, & Sons Poultry Co. 1228 T.P. V 5- 5-39 1-29-40 Dismiss lofc-.lA-fc-. 80 S; 8 4fc Surace, Pasquale 803 License V 5-25-37 7-16-37 Granted 14-l-.lfc4-.18i-.830 Sutherland, Edward 250 Bond III 11- 8-27 1-19-28 C&D IZfc-.ZM-.3fe6 Svatik, Stephen, Jr., dba Central Butter & Cheese Co. 1060 Insolvency V 1-27-38 3- 1-38 Dismiss 13 4-. 14-4:1 4fc Swanston, C., & Son 549 Draft II 6- 6-36 11-11-36 C&D 40, 4-1; S4-.11-, IOS - Swope, Hughes, Waltz & Benstead Commission Co., a corp. 100 T.P. . III 4-23-24 5-16-25 C&D Z48-.Z5b;ZS -.1 fc>4-; 184 ; 831 Tanchum, Isidor, et al.. Partners dba West¬ chester Kosher Meat Market 827 License V 6- 5-37 9-11-37 Granted 14i-.lt 4-. m-,18y,8jo Tannenbaum, Alex H. 749 License V 4-26-37 6-25-37 Granted 14-I-. 1(|>4-, 18i; 83Z. Tassani, William 997 License V 11-22-37 1- 7-38 Granted 14-1 Mb 4--. l&v, &3V Tavema & Mognoni 641 License V 12-10-36 1-12-37 Granted 141-.lfc4-.l83; 831 Taxel, Mayer 675 License V 1-30-37 1-11-38 Denied 141-. 1 (.1-, lfeb-,183-.184-, 8 32. Taylor, Joe S., & Company, a partnership 68 T.P. III 1- 9-24 5-17-38 1-30-24 Granted C&D ZS2.2&fc.3S5;S10 Taylor Provision Co. 508 T.P. II 11- 7-35 1-15-36 Indef p/p S4-.S4, fel-.lfc Taylor Street Live Poultry Market, Inc. 786 License V 5-15-37 6-19-37 Granted 14iV.lfc4-.185 Teater, Kirby 429 Bond III 8-31-33 11- 4-33 C&D-Susp 210-.381-.fc4T-.fcS2- Tennyson, S. W. 1162 T.P. III 9-20-38 12-17-38 C&D-ARM 1 13-. 11 fc-, Z40,X® fc-.ll 8.33 8-. 4-it; foz - 936 - Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest.of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order Order Appears Under Pa^e Terman, Ed., & Co., a corp. 921 T.P. V 8-17-37 8-18-38 Repar- C&D-Susp 10\-.fc4 .'3&*- Partners 328 E. 112th St. 1145 Bond m 7-18-38 n-18-38 C&D I3S;2&44- & 'Wells Tom, David & Young, 188 T.P. m 1-19-27 5-19-27 C&D-Susp Tom, dba Yuen Roy Live Poultry Market 666 License V 1-26-37 2-20-37 Granted 14l-.1b4-,18*,830 Topping, Ed. C., dba * Ogden Livestock ’; ■ * .. 2 at-, x a vi s .. s a z •. s s s •. s b i •. u s u Commission Co. 388 T.P. in 4- 2-32 6- 7-32 C&D-Susp Townsend, W. E. 290 Insolvency nr 6-14-29 9-20-29 Suspen 288,3W3 : fcv* Tracy, Paul 378 Bond in 2-15-32 5- 4-32 C&D-Susp 2&v. *&€>-. fcAo Tri-Boro Live Poultry - ’ : v Corp. 723 License V 3-23-37 7-14-37 Denied 10-1; 7S8;184 .8VU Trunz Pork Stores, Inc. 419 T.P. n 7- 7-33 10-25-33 Dismiss S6-.l»l,bq-.73..84-.8B-.84- i too.toi C&D Tucker, Morris, dba 62nd St. Live Poultry Market 790 License V 5-15-37 7-16-37 Granted 10-1 V ;1lo0;18* Tucker, William Roy, dba York Livestock Commission Co. 1237 T.P. ni 7-29-39 10-12-39 C&D-ARM 28k.-. X0&: 4-M-.SUV10O Turner, Howard S. 159 Bond in 7- 3-26 5-28-26 Suspen 22&. X 81 -. 3 0 O ; 3 1 6; 3 U1,0-* 6 ; 4-4 3; Tumipseed, George, 500, (.4-0 et al. * Union Stockyards & 375 Insolvency in 1- 7-32 3-18-32 Suspen 240, 384-.fc34-.fc44 Transit Co. of Reweigh J8-.2M-, 22& ; 2tfc.2BS;30t;3o2^ 354-; 4-4I-.4M, 460,484; 484; S41- 502., »fc8;S8b-,fc2r, Chicago, The 7 Rates in 6- 8-22 7-10-23 12-12-27 C&D Dismiss, except for fc70 . 4,71. tis - , fcia-.M3.7ot repar feature 4-15-30 Repar Dismiss Union Stockyards & Transit Co. of Com Chicago, The 16 Chges ni 11-20-22 No Order 28ST, 4,34 :fc4 3 Union Stockyard & Transit Co., The Union Stockyard & 97 T.P. Hog in 4-12-24 4-30-25 Repar 281; 3ZS’; 35 Union Stockyard & Stipu- 244 -,3o 4--.406-.lo13-. I»l4- Transit Co., The Union Stockyard & 472 Rates in 9-27-35 5-24-35 lation Transit Co. of Chicago Union Stockyard & 1230 Re par in 4-26-39 12-11-39 Dismiss 2U-. 7-^q . 37-4-. 59 8;S4W Transit Co. of Chicago 1232 Services in 7-26-39 3-22-40 C&D U7-. l8l-.783-.r44-.30S-, 43l-.A-l.i-, Union Stockyard & 4t3-,U6 Transit Co. of Chicago 1238 (Pending) - 937 Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inquiry Order_Order Appears Under Pa*re Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha, Ltd. 6 Reweigh m 6- 8-22 7-10-23 Open for 4.3e>.ftZ7-. aus\ a as. 301 , »S3 ; Rates further 4-4-1. 547-, S4ft>-.U*5--.UU4< U.10-. orders til 5-13-25 Repar den 7-U-27 Dismiss Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha, Ltd. Union Stockyards Co. 207 Yardage in 8-16-27 5- 4-28 Dismiss 240,3 43, 373 .41» .474-;VU.41L-, Union Stockyards Co. 3 03 ; 547, 3 48 ; UU2-, 47 S' of Omaha, Ltd. 286 Repar in 3-20-29 7-16-29 Dismiss I74.z Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha, Ltd. 344 Rates m 3-13-31 3- 1-33 10- 6-37 Fix Rates uoH Vis, s w. s *o> Mod Order gaj . 542 .■ S 4 s-.i#o 6 '. UoU-.u u. Union Stockyards Co. k»2-, U 13 ; <» 14 •. UJ-7;U7.® : U U3 U C7- ( of Omaha, Ltd. 453 Weigh & U.VW7S;<>8J_ Reweigh Chges in i-n -35 8-24-35 C&D-Fix Rates 24-.3I-, (4o, 2-43-.3 04-, 40 S ; Se.1, S8Z->30, L3Z-, UvL Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha, Ltd. 571 Pens in 8- 8-36 9- 3-36 Dismiss Z64-.Z4S, 3S&-.4-I4-; 6 82, Union Stockyards, San Resale 4-.l1S.tlS-.27l.l40i3o0\3S&-.37l;4b7-,470i 411 ^4flfl-. 42U-.3Z7.MW, United Poultry & Egg 475.44 4-:419-.-So4iSll;SlZ-. (045 Company, Inc. 882 License V 7-20-37 9- 4-37 Granted 74f. 144-, 783,830 United Poultry & Egg Co., Inc., The Usim, Mae et al., dba 1184 Repar V 6- 7-38 7-29-39 Dismiss T34-744: aoy.841 Cropsey Avenue Live Poultry Market 751 license V 4-26-37 6-16-37 Dismiss 734-.74-l-.744-.83J- Vallo, Caroline, dba Gold Coast Poultry Market 942 License V 9-14-37 10-28-37 Granted 74l-.7U4-.7ft3.. &3l_ Vallo, Caroline (Caroline Vallo Bonciadno), dba Gold Coast Poultry - 144-.7ss-.8os-> 844 Market 1217 T.P. V 1-25-39 10-12-39 Repar Van Norman, S. B., Co., n4.Z4Si4l4;*47 a corp. 567 Drafts in 7-15-36 9- 9-36 Dismiss Varvaro, John J. 1032 License V 12-29-37 2-12-38 Granted 7 4l-.7U4-.7 8V 037- Veach, William C., dba za4.fte»-.4-7fc>wso Veach Commission Co. Veenstra, Cornelius, 428 Insolvency in 8-22-33 12- 6-33 Suspen dba Veenstra's - 74I-.7U4j78V83» Poultry Egg Co. 646 license V 1- 6-37 2- 9-37 Granted Verdueci, Louis 799 License V 5-18-37 7-16-37 Granted 74lV-.7U4--.763 Veth, George L. et al., dba Wisconsin Produce House 547 License V 5-15-36 7-15-36 Granted 741-.7U3-. 784- Vind, Theodore J., dba Farmers Poultry Station 703 License V 3- 1-37 3-26-37 Granted 14|..7U4-;78); 837. Vitti, Ceeare & Mary, Partners 686 License V 2- 4-37 4-12-37 Granted on M4-.74l ; 7«,7-74l;832. Condition Vittum, Percy, & Company Vittum, Percy, & Co., 29 T.P. Payts to ni 9- 7-23 1- 3-24 C&D I14-| m,25l-,Z 8U-,35S;4-7ft-,5iU a corp. Vogt, F. G., & Sons, 395 Triers III 8-25-32 3- 2-33 C&D 20Z-.J»7 .23l-,i4«- 1 -34U-41fc-. 5U 5»V.L1S Inc. Waitt & Lake Com¬ mission Co., a 490 T.P. II n- 1-35 1- 8-36 Indef p/p 54 ; Si-.u»-,7U> partnership 128 T.P. III 8-29-24 1-22-25 Dismiss m-.zftu, 3se> - 938 - # Docket Nature Title Date of Date of Digest of Case Respondent Number of Case of Act Inauirv Order Order Appears Under Page Waitt, George W. & Lake, Frank, dba Waitt & Lake Com- mission Co. Wales, R. 0. & 0. A., 190 T.P. III 3-16-27 5-14-27 C&D ns, MO-, 3u«t-,wt.2_ Partners dba Somer¬ set Farm Store 967 License V 10-29-37 12-27-37 Granted 14U1U4-. 18V. 83 v. Wallach & Kranz 664 License V 1-25-37 6-10-38 Granted 1VI; 71.4". 1U S; 18 S. 8 % \ Wall, Lawrence 248 Bond III 11- 8-27 3-14-28 C&D-Susp 2&4.312- Walz, J. F. 912 T.P. III 8-14-37 9-27-37 C&D-Susp Z1fc-.4>8; S4V fcsg Ward, Riley 356 Bond III 8-11-31 9-15-32 Dismiss 130. ilU; 2.64.338 Warren, Merlin 234 Bond III 10- 8-27 11-13-27 C&D-Susp l24;ZftV 4.4-1 Warrick, Cliff, dba * Sioux City Livestock Comm. Co. 65 T.P. III 12-31-23 2- 8-24 C&D ZSZ.i&U; 3SS; SIO Washington Court House - , Union Stock Yards .• '^•s' . ’■ - ■ Co., a corp. 436 Bond m 10-31-35 12-19-35 C&D 382. Watkins, G. L. 236 Bond in 10- 8-27 11-18-27 C&D i«.4, zqoiMrr Watkins, John et al. 'Watkins Live Poultry 548 Draft m 5-22-36 7-22-36 C&D-Repar W8|IH.»n-, V. 47U; S2S; 538)54-1; 6 SO Co., Inc. Weaver, W. N. et al., 1123 License V 5-17-38 8- 4-38 Denied dba W. N. Weaver & Co. 517 Bond in 12-31-35 4- 1-36 C&D 133; M0-.3 62- Webb, George B. 231 Bond in 10- 8-27 10-29-27 C&D-Susp I2.4-: 2.BA-. 31Z ; U4-» Weber, Edward 1070 License V 2- 3-38 3-14-38 Granted T4t-.lM-.iav, 83V Wechster, Irving 730 License V 3-26-37 4-23-37 Granted 14-V.VtA, 7 83,832. Weil, Abe 439 Bond III 12-29-33 2- 9-34 C&D-Susp iftq,3 8e>-.b4-t Weinstock, Gussy Weiss, Julius, dba 768 License V 5-12-37 6-19-37 Granted l4-t-.1t4-.lg?. 032. Marquette Poultry & Egg Market 902 License V 8- 9-37 9-25-37 Granted 14V.1U4;1 8V, 832- Weiss' Live Poultry 14-1 V.1U4--.763 Market, a corp. 797 License V 5-18-37 7-16-37 Granted Welday, Tim 1130 Bond III 6- 1-38 10-10-38 C&D-Susp 2&1-. 4iL-.U4o Weller, Morris Wenzler, Mihaly, dba 304 Bond III 12-12-29 2- 1-30 Suspen Wenzler's Live Poultry Market 1104 License V 3-14-38 4-18-38 Granted 141-Kd4--.18V.9Yv Werner, Hugo 970 License V 10-29-37 12-30-37 Granted 14l-.1l»4-; 183-. 83V Wemick, E. L. 1053 License V 1-25-38 3-14-38 Granted 14l-.1U4-.183-, a 3V- Wemick, Ike 681 License V 1-30-37 6-19-37 Denied 14I-.1S8;1&4-.831- Wertheimer Cattle Co. 754 Fail to Pay III 4-26-37 10-20-37 Repar 2.H-. 12 8-.4-It-. 538; 5SO Western Live Poultry Market, Inc. West 21st St. Poultry 564 License 7 7-10-36 8-18-36 Granted 14t;1U3;T84;830 Market, Inc. 727 License V 3-23-37 7-10-37 Denied 741 1S 8 -.11>7-, 184 -.181.83 2_ • 11-20-37 Granted West 21st St. Poultry Market, Inc. West 21st St. Poultry 1154 Bond V 8- 2-38 4-18-39 Revoked 14v;ni,8oi Market, Inc. 1177 Insolvency T.P. V 12-30-38 7-15-39 Dismiss 10X; US, 131.144;112- .8 01,811.873 Whaley, H. S., dba Rice & Whaley Co. 89 T.P. III 3-31-24 3-16-25 C&D zss-. 2au>,3 5q .4ss V/haley, J. E. Wheeler, Guy X. & 222 Bond III 9-27-27 12-30-27 C&D ia5;zai-,33z- Polley, Thomas K., dba United Commission Co. 446 Insolvency III 8-29-34 9-19-34 Suspen 284.402- 1- 3-35 Rev Susp White Plains Live Poultry Marie et, Inc. 'Wichita Union Stock 991 License V 11-22-37 5-17-38 Granted 14K1t4-.18i-.832- Yards Co. 448 Rates III 10-12-34 1- 8-35 Dismiss 216,24 2-; 358-.4o3>UZO •Wilkerson, B. R. William, George & Fred, 115 T.P. III 6-13-24 8-27-24 C&D 26U; 3UI; S2.I Partners dba Fred William 1086 License V 2-25-38 4-22-38 Dismiss 133-,14l-,184; 832- Williams, Geo. F. 218 Bond III 9-23-27 12-12-27 C&D-Susp I2s,e84)3u& Williams, James A. Williamson & Devnis, 1061 License V 1-27-38 3- 1-38 Granted 141.1UA--.1&Y-. 632- a .corp. 107 T.P. III 5- 6-24 9- 3-24 C&D 118; 2 6(d,344 ; 3I o 0 : 3UI 939 - Respondent Docket Number Nature of Case Title of Act Date of Inquiry Date of Order Order Digest of Case Appears Under Pare Williamson, Frederick Vf„ dba T. S. Williamson & Bro. 869 License V 7- 7-37 8-26-37 Granted 74is1t»4-i7®*-.83o Williams, 0. R. 415 Bond III 6-30-33 9-16-33 C&D-Susp 210.,%8'V,<.V2-,7B3 ; 8M_ Wood Avenue Poultry Market 1058 License V 1-25-38 7-11-38 Dismiss Wood Bros. & Company, a corp. 66 T.P. III 1- 4-24 1-24-24 Dismiss isa.tuT.agt-.isT Wood Brothers, Inc. 498 Bond III 11- 4-35 12-18-35 C&D 111 ; Z 84 -.388 Wool Growers Commission Co., Inc. 307 Insolvency III 1-25-30 4- 7-30 Suspen 187-,381-.fc44 Wooraan, Herbert 706 License V 3- 6-37 7- 7-37 Denied 74-h H«-.T84 Worst, F. S. 214 Bond m 9-21-27 11-29-27 C&D-Susp US; ;>&<»•. 3 1*-.(.41 Wright, Ralph 0., dba Ralph 0. Wright Live Stock Commission Co. 1043 T.P. in 1-21-38 11-18-38 C&D-Repar l8(,,t4-i-.4-M.,s«-8;S50i 5S4-; Wulf, Herbert et al., dba Boris & Wulf 741 License V V-21-37 5-13-37 Granted iesr.was 74K-HI; 18 V, &32- Wulf, William B., dba Wisconsin Poultry & Egg Co. 773 License V 5-12-37 7-10-37 Granted Wutzen, Carl, dba Halsted Street Poultry Store 742 License V 4-21-37 5-13-37 Granted 741-, 7fct-. 783-. 837- Wycuff, C. L. et al.. Partners dba West Side Live Stock Commission Co. 950 Insolvency m 9-14-37 11-24-37 Suspen ae>3-, vwvuvi ledvabne & Rubenstein, Inc. 662 License V 1-25-37 7- 2-37 Denied 74-1-. 1(e t-.TAI -, 8 M Yedvabne & Rubenstein, Inc. 1113 License V 4-18-38 7-11-38 Denied *l4l-.lSl.l(.V.l^ Yoke, Emerson 522 Bond III 1-27-36 4-14-36 C&D-Susp 17.9 \ 2.4 0 ■, 3 87-, 4-M S24;<„S1 Yorkgate Live Poultry Market, Inc. 684 License V 2- 4-37 10-17-36 6-10-37 Rev Granted 14l-.lt4-.183, 831. Zimmer, Abraham et al., dba Zimmer's Live Poultry Market 714 License V 3-16-37 5-18-37 Granted lH,lfcls 193- S32- Zimmerman, M., & Co., a corp. 932 T.P. V 9-13-37 3- 1-38 Dismiss HU,“12.V.13U,-t«,lS4- Ziv Livestock Com¬ mission Co., a corp. 149 T.P. III 3-11-26 5-29-26 Suspen 2.9fc-.2.8&: 3(.L..4--7 0..Sa(o.(c.3A - 940 - i kx ■ • ;•* ' ; ^ . .' '■ V \ '■ '•!' r-^SVf! $a m s.;|»