Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Southern United Ice Co. v. Hendrix

153 F.2d 689

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1946-02-09
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In this civil action, filed by appellee, Ralph Hendrix, for himself and for the use and benefit of three co-employees of the appellant company, the District Court awarded judgment in favor of each of the four employees for minimum wage and overtime compensation due them, respectively, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., a like sum to each as liquidated damages, and also a reasonable fee to the attorneys for appellees. The judgment was entered upon findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence. From these findings it appears that the employment of each of these employees was necessary in the manufacture of ice, a substantial quantity of which was manufactured for sale and delivery to interstate carriers and shippers; and that a substantial-portion of the time and labor of each of the four employees was devoted to that purpose. The District Court concluded that the employees of a manufacturer of ice, substantial portions of which are sold and delivered within the State of Tennessee to railroads and packing companies for use in refrigeration of interstate shipments of perishable products, are engaged in the production, transportation, or delivery of ice intended for servicing interstate facilities, and in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Southern United Ice Co. v. Hendrix. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
SOUTHERN UNITED ICE CO. v. HENDRIX,153 F.2d 689(6th Cir. 1946)
SOUTHERN UNITED ICE CO. v. HENDRIX et al.
No. 10066.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
February 9, 1946.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee; Marion Speed Boyd, Judge.

Action by Ralph Hendrix, for himself and for the use and benefit of three co-employees, against Southern United Ice Company to recover minimum wages and overtime compensation allegedly due under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,29 U.S.C.A. § 201et seq., liquidated damages and attorney's fees. From a judgment in favor of each of the four employees, defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.
Henry J. Livingston, of Memphis, Tenn., and Charles L. Henry and William K. Meadow, both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

John H. Franklin, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this civil action, filed by appellee, Ralph Hendrix, for himself and for the use and benefit of three co-employees of the appellant company, the District Court awarded judgment in favor of each of the four employees for minimum wage and overtime compensation due them, respectively, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,29 U.S.C.A. § 201et seq., a like sum to each as liquidated damages, and also a reasonable fee to the attorneys for appellees. The judgment was entered upon findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence.

From these findings it appears that the employment of each of these employees was necessary in the manufacture of ice, a substantial quantity of which was manufactured for sale and delivery to interstate carriers and shippers; and that a substantial portion of the time and labor of each of the four employees was devoted to that purpose. The District Court concluded that the employees of a manufacturer of ice, substantial portions of which are sold and delivered within the State of Tennessee to railroads and packing companies for use in refrigeration of interstate shipments of perishable products, are engaged in the production, transportation, or delivery of ice intended for servicing interstate facilities, and in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In our opinion, this conclusion was properly drawn in accordance with the opinion of this court in Chapman v. Home Ice Co. of Memphis,136 F.2d 353; and is likewise supported by the rationalization of the Supreme Court in numerous cases, including its most recent pronouncements on January 28, 1946, in Roland Electrical Company v. L. Metcalf Walling, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor,66 S.Ct. 413.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.Page 695