From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zanelli v. Federal Maritime Commission

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 12, 1975
524 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir. 1975)

Opinion

No. 75-1550.

December 12, 1975.

Charles E. Orr, Houston, Tex., for petitioner.

Edward G. Gruis, Federal Maritime Commission, Douglas N. Jones, Francis C. Hurney, Secretary, Robert J. Wiggers, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Maritime Commission (Texas Case).

Before GODBOLD, DYER and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.


We agree with the decision and order of the Federal Maritime Commission, that appellant, who is licensed as an independent ocean freight forwarder, cannot hold such a license if he acts as shipper, agent for a consignee, seller, financier, or has obtained a beneficial interest in the goods shipped. See 46 U.S.C. § 801, 841b; 46 C.F.R. 510.21(1); and prior decisions of the Commission cited in the ALJ's decision. Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. FMC, 497 F.2d 1053 (C.A.8, 1974), is not to the contrary, and indeed appellant does not contend that it is. It involved a forwarder's relationship to ITC, an interlocking company that performed services for shippers but acquired no beneficial interest in shipments.

14 Shipping Regulatory Reports, (Pike Fisher) 1256, adopting the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, a resume of which is reported at p. 835 of the same volume.

The decision and order of the Commission are affirmed.


Summaries of

Zanelli v. Federal Maritime Commission

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 12, 1975
524 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir. 1975)
Case details for

Zanelli v. Federal Maritime Commission

Case Details

Full title:HUGO ZANELLI D/B/A HUGO ZANELLI COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. THE FEDERAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 12, 1975

Citations

524 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir. 1975)

Citing Cases

W. India Industries v. Vance Sons Amc-Jeep

Such finding is clearly erroneous as by statute a licensed freight forwarder is precluded from acting in such…

Timken Co. v. U.S.

The Court in Cliquot's Champagne, however, never addressed the issue of "imputed knowledge," rather it…