From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawthorne v. United States

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 22, 1940
115 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1940)

Opinion

Nos. 9545, 9546.

November 22, 1940.

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; Wm. H. Atwell, Judge.

Actions by the United States against R.C. Hawthorne and others, and against R.A. Hawthorne and others on bonds given under the Agricultural Adjustment Act for payment of excess taxes on sales of cotton by defendants of whom defendants in the first action filed a counterclaim. From adverse judgments, 31 F. Supp. 827, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

S.L. Lewis, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

Clyde O. Eastus, U.S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., and John S.L. Yost and W. Carroll Hunter, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.


These two cases present similar facts and are controlled by the same legal principles. They will be disposed of in one opinion as was done in the court below. See United States v. Hawthorne, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 827, decided March 11, 1940, to which reference is made for a statement of the questions presented.

Since the decision of the court below in this case, we have upheld the constitutionality of the cotton-marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. Troppy v. La Sara Farmers Gin Co., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 350. We adhere to that ruling and, therefore, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether or not the appellants are estopped to present its defenses predicated upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the aforesaid act.

The act being constitutional for the reasons given in the Troppy case, supra, the appellants had no real defense to these two suits, and the summary judgments were properly entered. American Ins. Co. v. Gentile Bros. Co., 5 Cir., 109 F.2d 732.

Appellants' counterclaim is not one upon which the United States has consented to be sued. We dealt with a similar claim in Cook v. United States, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 463, and on the authority of that case, decided November 15, 1940, we hold that the court below committed no error in dismissing the counterclaim. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Hawthorne v. United States

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 22, 1940
115 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1940)
Case details for

Hawthorne v. United States

Case Details

Full title:HAWTHORNE et al. v. UNITED STATES (two cases)

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Nov 22, 1940

Citations

115 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1940)

Citing Cases

UNITED STATES v. R.L. DIXON BRO

The statute, which has been sustained by the courts, gives the farmer the right to have allocation and quotas…

United States v. Christensen

Here, however, another factor must be considered, namely, that the permission to sell emanated from an…