# Appellant Railroads Statement of Jurisdiction — Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad v. Frozen Food Express > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_0979%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appellant Railroads Statement of Jurisdiction - **Published:** January 1, 1957 - **Citation:** 355 U.S. 6 ## Text vw & are be : > ay « i & . ‘ , ae) he - rrrryay Ss o bate | x ' - ° IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1956/ AKRON, CANTON AND ‘YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD ’ COMPANY, ‘et al. | Appellants FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, et al., - Appellees APPELLANT RAILROADS’ STATEMENT | OF JURISDICTION fetcna * ‘Filed: Juty — , 1997. Cart HeLmetac, Jr, 1138 Transportation Center, ® Six Penn Center Plaza, Philadelphia 4, Pa. James W. NisBeET, ° ¢ « _ 280 Union Station Building, Chicago 06, Ill, Cartes P. Reyvowps, Seaboard Air Line R. R. Building, ' Norfolk 10, Va. Counsel for Appellant Ratlroads. . : - « . a Re ”~ . . ’ ’ me “ . . - ae at» ° \ OS. - r At . wa ? 7 > é* 2 “ee PI y - © Fas - ‘> 1 ; ; . OPINION AND JUDGMENT BELOW™ - P \ 1 : . _- . mat : ; JURISDICTION i hes cag bs es 2 THe Question RalsEp ON APPEAL. .... yt, ee STATEMENT OF THE CAasE..°.... Ms 4 . “ PAGE- THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE QURSTION...... 2. er) Lier, CONCLUSION... . re ; , 2 20 Y ; re CGRTIFICATE OF SERVICE... . : , ae .22 = Arrenpix A—List of Appellant Railroads... ee ee ae - Appenptx B-Final Judgment of the Court Below..°....... 0° ~... ’ 26 s Table of Cases Cited | = - : PAGE hbctnt Assn. v. United States, 207 U. . 556 (1908) ° 13 « Baltimore & Ohio K. Co. v, Premier Peat Moss Corp.., No. 1042 US. :. Sap. Ct. October Term, 1956. eet! a. ity - 15 Consolidated Tyeck Service v. U nited States, 144 F. Supp. 814 (Dist. N. J., 1956) . . . ies is | 814 - Determination ‘of Encenpted Agricultural Commoditi®, 52 M:.C.-C. 511 — (1951). Lie Be cd aewcaees a 4,5, 6; 7.9, 10,41, 16 East Texas cz v. Frozen Food Expréss, 351 U.S & (1956) 2,3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20° ‘Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40,(19563....... ,- 2,3,8 Frozen Food Express @ United States, = F. ‘Supp. 399 z : (S. D. Texas; 1956)... ...... ee eee hae wus oe bees PS an SS 2,3, 9, 14 Frozen Food Express v. Cnited States, 128 F. Supp. 374-(S. D. Bena, 1955)... 2, ?. Fruit Growers, Ing. v. a Co., 283 U.S. 1 (1931) “a bees es 13 ‘Hartranft ». Wiegmann, 121 U. S., 609 (1887)... 0.0... Plc che Home Transfer & Storage Co. v. -United States, 141 F. Supp. 599 ee ia ME Crecdacas oul eseWas s¥cecess sere Wk aad . .8, 10, 4, 19 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Home Transfer & Storage Vo., 352 U.S. 884 (19567. eat cians Sere ee earkae es ©. .3, 10, 14, 19 Premier Peat. Moss Ong 0. United States, 147 F. neat 169 (S-D_N. Y., SWS wo Guie-aco wa ; PS Pte Pitas ee pa! hw ee ga ee . i4 Table of Statutes Cited ° ; 0p peti Commerce Act § 203 a sas Poa an oly SB, YOF14; 20°. SE aC La ak By aes Fenty cee e sen hes 2 1.8. C$.651253, Os a. S... ; 3 28 U.S.C 4 1336, 1398, iis aie inc. © 28: U.S. C, § 2825... Lett ge eet ne ene nage ees: 2 49 U.S.C. § 303 (iy(6) ore ; pegeerednees : 4 U.S. CLG 305 (g) : 2 DE ee > ae ee monica f Table of Other Authorities Cited : > Agricultural Statist ics, U. S: Dept. of Agriculture 1955. ..... ye Tee i Transport Statistics for 1954, Interstate Commerce Commission. cree Se a _ IN THE ..° ; ~ Supreme Court of the United States OcTOBER Tin, 1950. eight Ne. ¢ 4 Vv -_ Akron, ‘Canton and Youngstown Raibroad C ompany, of ‘al., } Appellants, . ar z v. Frozen F 000 E rpress, et al., Appellees Cc APPELLANT RAILROADS’ STATEMENT oF JURISDICTION.” © . ‘In compliance with Rule 13, paragraph 2, of the Re- ' vised Ryles of the Suprenie Court of the United States, the Appellant Railroads, a list of which is attached. and ‘marked Appendix A, each.of which was an intervening - defendant below,.most respectfiilly submit this their state-— ment ‘particularly’ dise.osing the basis upon which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on appeal to review the — order and “judgment of the District Court of three judges entered i in this cause. — _ OPINION AND J UDGMENT BELOW. . at . The opinion ‘of the United States’ District Court for nr Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Which ; Court consisted of the Honorable J. C. Hutcheson, Chief Circuit Judge; the Honorable Ben. C. Connally, District Judge: and the Jlonorable T. N. Kennerly, District Judge, « 3 is reported under the -name Froz en Food Express v. United States, 148 F. Supp. 399 (8. D. Texas, 1956). The , final jadgment of that Court was entered on oak 14, 1957, a copy of which is attached and marked Appendix B. ‘It sh8uld be notéd at this point that-this appeal. is from only-a portion of. the.judgment. It should also be rioted _— that this appeal involves, to some extent at least, Ktiga- tion previously before this Court, and therefore it deemed_ appropriate to invite ‘attention to the following reported eases, all directly concerned: with the question here the subject of review : : - Prosen Food ae v. United States, 128 F. - Supp. 374 (S. D. Texas, 1955) ; |. Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40 (1956); . East Texas Lines x, Frozen Food Express, 351 a | U. S. 49 (HE6F, ? | ne a ae JURISDICTION. . ae. Pee oe The scene had its beginning in an action go to enjoin and set aside cartain orders of the, Interstate - . Commerce Commission pursuant to the requirements/of: 5.U. S. C. § 1009, 28 U. S. C. $1336, 1398, 2321-2325,’ ‘and 49 U. S.-C. § 305 (g), brought by the Appellees Food Express. ‘That cause was heard by a Dis of three judges in _accordance with the requireffents. of 28. - U. S. C. $2325. The Court, after considéring the matter,’ concluded that the order of.the Commission was not re- viewable and ordered the action dismissed. oe Express ‘v. Umited Stdtes, 128 F. Si p. 374, 379 (S. D Texas, 19: Do). These Appellants and others appealed the order dismissing the action to’ this Court and thereafter this Court held, contrary to the District Court, thd the °" 3 Commission’s order was reviewable and ordered the Dis- trict Gayrt to adjudicate the merits. Frozen Food Evpress District Court thereafter heard ‘arguments addressed to - the merits of tlt® Commission’s order, and on December as 1956, issued an opinion in which it sustained to sone éx- ' tent, and enjgined to other-extent, the Commtiasionts order ‘which was-the subject Sf review. -Frozen Food Express v.- _ a judgment entered March 14, 1957. It. is-from a portion f= “ of this judgment that the instant appeal is taken. A Notice of Appeal from this judgment was filed by these Xppel- lants in the v nited States District Court for the Southern i District-9 v9 Texas, Houston Division, on May 11, 1957. | 2) 4 urisdiction of a direct appeal from a. pes judge dis- | trict court in matters of the type here involved is vested: ./in the Supreme Court by — 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253 and. “2101 (b). TF (3) Such jurisdiction. of the Supreme Court is also made plain by East. Teras Lines stale cen F ood Express, dol U.S. - (1956), : THE QUESTION RAISED ON APPEAL. Whether the three judge district Court below was in ' error in interpreting the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States-in the cases of East Texas Lines v: Frozen Food Express, 351 U. S. 49°(1956), and -Interstate Commerce: Commission v. Home Transfer €: Storage Co., 352 U. S. 884 (1956), and thereby holding that dried egg _ powder; dried egg yolks; milk, powdered; buttermilk; and fruits or végetables (quick frozen) are “agricultural v. Unité “dd States, 351. U.S. 40, 45 (1956). The three judge _ _ United States, 148 F. Supp. 399 (S. D. Texas, 1956). The - se determinations of the Court below were made effective by." JO 4° ‘ eominodities’’ as that ternr is nséd in Section 203 (b)(6) & of the Interstate Commeree“Act, 49 U.S. C. §303 (b) (6), and, that- beso averd commodities m&v be moved over ' the highways jn interstate commerce by motor carriers not — apo fing-& certificate ¢ or ‘permit issued: by the Commission a STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The matter. now before this Court was first presented in a proceeding before.the Interstate Cominerce. Commis- . _ sion, Determination of Exempted Agricultural Commodi- ties, 52 M: C-C. 511: (1951). That proceeding involved ‘an — extremely important. but very troublesome section of the ~ Interstate Commeree Act, namely, Section, 203° (b) (6)? 49 U. S.C. § 308 (b)(6), which provides as follows: ‘Nothing in this part [t.e., the: provisions pro- - viding: for economic regulation of the motor carrier industry] * * shall be construed. to include * * motor vehicles used in carrying a 7 agricultural eommodi- — ties (not including manufactured products thereof) « e. 9? , ~ s > Wes = + Prior .to the Determination case, and from the very _ inception Af regulation of the interstate motor cartier _ industry in 1935, there bad been considerable doubt and — much eonfusion among those in. the transportation in- dustry as to wheré'the line should be drawn in separating agricaltuyal commodities that had- been merely processed from-those which had been manufactured, in ‘determining -whether such items had to be handled under regulation or could be transported over the highways outside of regu- lation. The language of the statute itself was not af all helpful in establishing this line, and the legislative history’ was little better. Left.to their own devices, the carriers made such determinations largely upon the basis of what was individually thought beneficial without regard: for the ’ basic and over-all objectives of the statute dnd the regu- ¢ . \ we ‘scheme éreated’ by it. "Attempt on the waits vi. the - Commission to classify particular items were on ‘an isolated or fragmentary ‘basis and, in the few instances: . where the courts -became inyolved, the approach was‘sub- - . stantially the same. Direction and a well defined course — "were, entirely lacking and it is fair to say that the regu- latory étheme was being ‘seriously endangered by the flounderings: ‘that were taking place. It cannot be gainsaid that what was urgently needed was. Commission action -whigh would outline a pattern that could be easily followed - ” and which would at the same time provide a sensible and _ workable ‘solution so that the entire industry, within rea- - sonable limits, would have clearly jn mind what type of items were exempt and what type of items were required to be handled under regulation: - Stated a little differently, . what was needed was a Commission interpretation of the statute which would have every-day workability, as con- — trasted with legalistic and academic accuracy and precision. * - In the’ Determination case it is apparent that the. Commission’ s objective and purpose were to provide: the transportation industry, shippers, and others vitally. con- _ eerned with interstate commerce with just such an inter. — pretation and application “of the statute. A reading of * the Commission’s report will demonstrate that the method . it followed was to review the legislative history of the - . section and the. court decisions dealing’ ‘witli similar Con-. gressional language. From this-review it was concluded that the term ‘agricultural’ : ordinarily includes farming, horticulture, forestry, dairying, and live stock “and poultry — raising, and that the term when used in the _Interstate Commerce Agt should be given its ordinary meaning. Thus ‘*apricultural commodities” as used in Section 203 (b) (6), the Commission said: ~ ) berth embraces all products raised or produced on farms by tillage and cultivation of the soil (such. ‘as vegetables, fruits, and nuts); forest products; live a . . Fen aes , poultry and bees’ and commodities produe ae by ordi. enary livestock, live poultry, ‘and bees .(sach. as ‘milk, ; ‘wool, eRES, and honey).”’ : Re) ies embraced Having found the Scope of the commod) within the- term ‘‘agricultural commoditié . the .C ommis-". sion next turned ‘to the meaning. of sie ‘(not in- cluding - manufactured. products thereof)’?. which is the statutory standard whiéh. détermines ‘whether the trans-° portation is: under/ regulation er outside of it. This term’ takes on importance when commodities; which in the first instance are adinittediy agricultural commodities, are . Subjected. to processing. In such situation the inquiry is whether the processing has converted the once agricultural commodity, into a manufactured product. No deep or He searching thinking is required: to reach the conclusion that such fn inquiry—with the myriad: degrees of processing” actually applied, or likely. of application as new techniques — are developed, to agricultural eommodities—results in the- finest shades of distinetion and almost hopelessly con-- fusing analogies. The line between merely progessed and 7 manufactured would seem to be as difficult to ‘draw as the ‘line between educated | and uneducated. . ' Attempting. to deal with this perplexing problem, the Commission looked ta.the decisions of this Court and con- — cluded that. an agricultural. commodity becomes ‘‘manu- facture” when, as.a result ‘** * of treating ox_process-. ing, [it acquires] new forms, qualities, properties, or com-. .. binations’’,?\and on the basis of this definition it then classified & number. of processed agricultural commodities ; ‘as either in the exempt classification of ‘agricultural com- : modities’’ or in the regulated classification of ‘*manufac- tured, products. 23, ie \° . 527- 558 inc. (1951). 1 Determenation of Exempted . Agricultural Commodities, 52 M. C.'C. 511, 519 (1951). 2 Determination of Exempted Agricultural Commodities, 52 M. C. Cc 511, 521 (1951). 3 Determination of Exempted Agric ultural Comniodities ad MCC. Sil, ° be ~d 7 r= ~ | | r | “Frozen Food. Express, a certificated. ngotor carrier, ~ handling some traffic. of the ‘type involved in: ‘the’ Detempi- ‘nation case under ' regulation—but faced. with, competition: from— other. motor carriers operating outside of regula- tion and handling as exempt particular commodities held. by the’ Commission. to be -in-the_non- exempt . category, 4inder_a claim that the Commission’s interpretations were | . not proper—in ‘order to test the legality of the Commis- -. sion’s classifications, brought suit in July of 1954 in the Southern District of -Texas ‘before the three judge Court below to gpjoin the Commission from enforcing its order in the Determination case. These ‘Appellant Railroads, , the. American Trucking Association’ Inc., and others in the transportation industry having an. interest in ited serving fair and ‘equitable | regulatidn intervened in = port of the Commission’s order. The Secretary of. Agri. - eulture and the Department of J ustice also intervened but for the purpése of having the Commission’s~order ssét - aside as it applied to particular processed items. After . hearing argument. and receiving briefs, the three. jpdge Court concluded that the Commission’s: order was} not pe and dismissed the suit. Frozen Food Eu press . United States, 128 F. Supp. 374, 379. (S: D. Te: xas - : 1955). In addition to secking a review a the: Commission's: * order in the Deterinination ease, Frozen Food Express in _the same proceeding asked the three: judge Court’ to en- join and: set aside another order of the Interstate Com- merce Commission which specifically. directed Frozen Food . Express to cease and desist from transporting fresh any frozen dressed poultrv in, interstate commerce until a cyr- tificate was secured. ? : The crinieecititten embraced in the cease and d¢siat order, namely. f resh and frozen dréssed poultry, had/heen _ placed in: the: manufactured cdtetory in the Determination - case. The Court below granted the injunction. Frozen Food Express v. United States, 128° F. Supp. 374, 381 . iS. DL TPexas, 1955), These Appella) Raitionds, the Vinerican ‘Trucking Associations, Inc., terested certifix’ {ted anoter carriers, and the Commission appealed hoth ers ot the three judge Cour, to this Court. Probable irledie ‘tion Was noted with oe to beth orders of the lower Court. The ‘reatter, this Court in se parate opinions uid orders, imepne instance reversed and in the other in- stant affirmed: the Court below, In Frozen Food Express x ited States, BAL USS. 40 (1956), this Court with Mr. Fixstiee Harlan dissenting, .held) that) the, Commission's rdey in the Determination case. was re viewable. and. re- yirne’ that case to the three judge ¢ ‘ourt below for review su-the merits, rea ers In Mast Teras.Lines ve Frozen Food Express, 81 | PS. 49 (1956), this Court in a five. to four decision af- irmed’ the lower ‘ourt’s holding that the Commission had ‘rred in concliding that fresh and frozen dressed poultry vas not an agricultural commedity. Mr. Justice Douglas n stating the views of the majority said at Page 54; ‘At some point processing and manufacturing will merge. But where the commodity retains a con- tinuing substantial identity through the processing stage, We cannot say that it has been ‘manufactured? within the meaning of ¥ 208 (b)(6)." ‘his language has: given(rise to much spetulatfan vithin the transportation industry as to whether this Court as pronouneed a new and different test from that adopted Vy the Commission for determining the point. at which irocessing becbmes mnanufacturing. Certainly in cases be- ‘ore three judge courts following the decision in the Kast Pevas Lines ‘case, there are strong indications that those courts have taken this. language to prescribe a new test, me whieh is more liberal in favor of the exempt status han the Commission’s.¢ The importance of this test will "See Consolidated Truck Service v. Untted States Jy 53 Fk. Supp., 814, 17 (Dust N. J. 1956); Hlome Trattsfer & Storage Co. v. United States, 141 Supp. S599, 62 OW DW ash. 1956), . become evident after the proceedings in the Court below, are examined, - > _ After this Court had one bea the ( “omg sdanny orde e in the De termination case.to be reviewed” on the merits, the case was again Riehl ws argued orally before thé © ourt below,” In both the briefs and the oral arguments; particular attention was given to the so-called ** Continuing Substantial Identity ‘Test’ and its application to the many commodities, the Matus of whieh was before the Court. ~The Court below in an opinion handed down on De- cember 31, 1956, Frozen Food Express v. Unif&d States, 148 F.Supp. 399 (CS. D. Texas, 1956), applying the con- tinuing substantial ‘identity test held the cme com moadities to be exempt (148 KF. Supp. at page 402) ‘°° frozen- whole eges: dried egg hen dried egg volks; clean ricey-riee bean; rice pelsh; pasteur- ized milk ; fresh cut up vegetables in ¢ellophane bags; fresh vegetables washed, cleaned and packaged in ce ‘Hophane hags or boxes; fruits or vegetables (quick frozen) ; shelled peanuts: peanuts shelled ground; killed and picked poultry (although not drawn) ; rolled barley; cottonseed hulls; beans (packaged, dried artifi- cially or packed in small ¢ontainers for Retail trade); dried ‘fruits (dried mee hanically cor artificially) ; “peaches peeled, pitted and placed in cold storage in unsealed containers; strawberries canned in syrmp in unsealed containers and placed in cold. storage? milk, skimmed, vitamin D; «milk, powdered; buttermilk; feathers; frozen milk and eream: cotton linters; ‘chopped hay: seeds,’ deawned or scarified; redried — tobacco: leaves.’ | ated The Court then went on and found th@ following com- ‘modities to be non- exempt saving (148 F.Supp. at page 403) : ; ‘*For the reasons set forth in our opinion Frozen Food Express v. 0. S., 128 FL Supp. 374, at page 379 Lv et seq.. we hold. to be non-exémpt the following: slaughtered ‘eattle; fresh meat; meat. products: We likewise: hold non-exempt, under the. evidence, which deals with commercial creamery products, as ‘manu-’ factured products’ of agricultural -commodities, the following: cottage cheese; cream Cheese; butter? cot. | -.tonseed meal; fruits and vegetables canneds, milk con- densed. Each’ of: these. products has acquiged anew identity, with new. properties, and is devoted to new ‘and different uses than its original principal ingreti- ent. As result of combination with other constituénts, of treatment and processing by varied types of-ina-. chinery and équipment, agmew product has emerged. -If the semanticist urges that a can of peaches or of condehsed milk may not properly be described as a ‘manufactured product’, it may well be that these ‘items illustrate the point at which processing merges with manufacturing.” | The holdings of the Court below that frozen fruits d vegetables are agricultural commodities were in- - enced to-a considerable extent by a decision ‘of a three lge court in Home Transfer & Storage Co. v. United | ates, 141 FL Suppe 599 (CW. DL Wash. 1956) aff. wwith- t opinion; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Home ansfer & Storage Cox, 352 U.S. 884 (1956), which was_ nded down: after the opinion of this Court in Fast vas Lines vy. United States, 351 U.S. 49 (1956). In the instant appeal, ‘these Appellant Railroads i a king this Court to review the holdings of the Court low to the effect that dried egg powder; dried egg yolks; Ik, powdered; buttermilk; and fruits or vegetables uick frozen) are agricultural commodities, within the aning of that term as used in Section 203 (b) (6) > Interstate Commerce Act. Fach of these commodities; » Commission in the Determination case had earlier ld was not an agricultural commodity. The other hold- ings 0° the Court be low, poe One of whether they. are in accord with those of the Commission in the Dete rmina- fton ease, are not disputéed* before this Court’ by these Appellants. . | The notice of appeal instituting this ‘appeal was filed _ with the District Court below on, May 11, 1957. ~~ THE SUBSTANTIALITA OF THE QUESTION. The agric cultural production of this nation.for the y year 1954, furnished gross farm income of almost 34 billion ‘dol- Jars® and was a principal source of trafic for all forms of for-hire carriage. For the Class I Railroads which are parties in this litigation curing this same year this tre- mendous agricultural’ production furnished freight rev- entes in’execess of 1.4 billion ‘dollars, or approximately 17.7 percent of their total freight revenues.” Thus, it an he seen that the transportation of agricultural produc. - tion. whether unprocessed, processed, or manufactured is a commercial undertaking of gigantic size. and of the greatest importance not only to the carriers, bit to the shippers and consignees as well.) And what is most im- portant from the standpoint of the anstant litigation is the growing trend on the part of the consumers to prefer agricultural ifems that lave been extensively processed.’ Since. the consumers are evidencing, a growjng preference for proeessed agricultural items, it follows that the amount of such items that enter the stream, of commerce ix rapidly increasing. So, in this litigation, the: concern ix not only with traffie that is presently valuable to these Appellants, bat also with traffie that. in’ the furure ‘Should he of increasing importance to them: : > Pa Statistics, UL So Teept. of Mericulture," 1955, p. 42¢ ’ * Transport Statistics for 1934—Interstate Commerce Commission, po 41. 7 Agricultural Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1955, pp. 197, 250, 253 t The transportation by railrdad of agricultural’ pro- duction regardless of whether such production is fresh, processed, or manufactured is subject to complete regula- tion, whereas the transportation of this segment of trafhe by the railroads’ competitors is free of all economic: regu- lation unless the agricultural production is **manufac- tured’’. Since the railroads -have had @xeessive dif- fieulty in successfully competing for’ traffic which: the motor carriers can handle outside of regulation, the in- terest of these-Appellants:in this litigation becomes clear. And particularly is this so when it appears that the de- terminations made by the Court below may have the effect of creating: an exempt status for items of commerce which have long been regarded as properly moving over the highways only by regulated éarriers. . APPENDIX ‘‘B.”’ IN. THE Distrier Courr or. tue Uxirep STATES For the Sovruern Disrricy or Texas Houstrox Division — Civil, Action’ No, S285 % = rozen Food E rpres 7. ° mn * $ United States of America pee | lnierstate Commerce’ . Commission FINAL JUDGMENT This action, to enjoin and set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, having come on. for, final hearing on the 13th-day of September 1956, before a duly constituted Three-Judge District Court, convened pur- suant to Sections 2284 and 2521-2525, Title 28, United States Code, consisting of the undersigned judges; and the * Court having considered the pleadings and evidence and the briefs and argument of counsel for the respective par- ties, and being fully advised in the premises; and having on the 3ist day of December, 1956, filed herein its opinion, containing it» findings of faet and_conclusions 6f law; now, in accordance with the said opinion, findings and conclu- sions, it is hereby : OrperRep, ApscpGEep, and Drecreep as follows: (1) The decision and order of the: Interstate Com- merce Commission entered April 13, 1951, in a proceeding locketed by the Commission as No. MC -C-968, Determina-- tion of Exempted qammegs Commodities, is- enjoined, suspended, annulled, ‘ated and set aside insofar as the Commission found and concluded that frozen whole eggs: dried egg ponder; dried egg yolks; clean rice; rice bean; rice polish: gastéurized milk; fresh cut up vegetables in cellophane bags; fresh vegetables, washed, cleaned and packaged in cellophane bags or -boxes; fruits or vegetables | (quick. frozen); shelled peanuts: peanuts shelled ground; killed and picked poultry (although not drawn); rolled: barley; cottonseed hulls; beans (packaged, dried artifi- cially or packed in small containers for retail trade) ; dried fruits (dried mechanically or artificially); peaches peeled, pitted and placed in coll storage in unsealed, containers ; strawberries canned in syrup in unsealed containers and placed in cold storage; milk, skimmed, vitamin D; milk, powdered? buttermilk; feathers; frozen milk and cream; cotton linters; chopped hay seeds, deawned or searified ; and redried tobacco leaves ‘are not agricultural commodi- ties within the meaning of Section 208(b).(6) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 303(b) (6) ]: and. (2) -All other relief sought ‘by the plaintiffs herein, tu- cluding the Secretary of Agriculture as Intervening Plain- tiff, be and the same is hereby denied. This the 14th day of Mareh, 1957. J. C. Hutcheson, - ‘Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circunt. . Ben C. Connally, United States District Judge. T ON. “Sennerly, United States District Iudac --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_0979%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.