185 Secretary of Agriculture v. Sunlight Produce Company of Sioux City, Iowa, and Cudahy Packing Company of Chicago, Illinois Complaint. That respondents attempted to injure and destroy the business of a competitor. Disposition.-Proceeding dismissed without hearing (June 15, 1927). 269 Secretary of Agriculture v. Geo. A. Hormel & Company of Austin, Minnesota, and Rath Packing Company of Waterloo, Iowa Complaint. That respondents had agreement, arrangement, and combination to apportion territory for carrying on business of purchasing swine in commerce. Disposition.-Complaint dismissed after hearing upon finding and conclusion that there was no arrangement, agreement, or combination between respondents as alleged (April 28, 1928). 289 Secretary of Agriculture v. Syracuse Rendering Company of Eastwood, New York, and Consolidated Rendering Company of Boston, Massachusetts Complaint. That respondent had engaged in certain practices for purpose or with the effect of manipulating and controlling prices in commerce. Disposition.-Order entered dismissing the proceeding. The order stated that "it now appears to the Secretary of Agriculture that there is no apparent reason for continuing the proceeding" (June 3, 1933). 294 Secretary of Agriculture v. Lee Schless, Inc. Complaint. That respondent made misrepresentations in connection with its billings to certain purchasers. Disposition.-The case was continued indefinitely at the request of the complaining witness, and on December 15, 1930, the complaint was dismissed. 418 Secretary of Agriculture v. Wilmington Provision Co., Inc. Complaint. That respondent made and gave an undue and unreasonable preference or advantage to The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., in that respondent paid, remitted, and refunded to the company an amount of money equal to one percent of the purchase price of certain products sold to the company by remitting such amount to an employee of the company knowing that such amount would be paid over to the company; that the 1 percent brokerage fee had not been paid by respondent to any other purchaser; and that respondent conspired and agreed with The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. to give an undue and unreasonable preference or advantage to the company. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from directly or indirectly remitting or refunding brokerage fees to any buyer of meat and meat food products while respondent is at the same time paying brokerage fees on sales to other buyers without directly or indirectly returning such fees to them (October 25, 1933). 419 Secretary of Agriculture v. Trunz Pork Stores, Inc. Complaint.-Same as Docket No. 418. 420 Secretary of Agriculture v. John J. Felin Co., Inc. Complaint.-Same as Docket No. 418. 440 Secretary of Agriculture v. Armour & Company, Abraham Packing Company, The Cudahy Packing Company, Jacob Dold Packing Company, John Morrell & Company, Memphis Packing Company, Swift & Company, Wilson & Company, Morris & Company, St. Louis Independent Packing Company, George A. Hormel & Company, and Birmingham Packing Company Complaint. That respondents gave to each other, and to other packers and various wholesalers, jobbers, and distributors of meat and meat food products, information relative to prices at which respondents proposed to sell meat and meat food products in commerce; that such exchange of information was for the purpose or with the effect of giving certain persons and localities undue preferences and advantages in commerce; that respondents engaged in a course of business for purpose and with effect of manipulating and controlling prices in commerce and of creating a monopoly in the selling or dealing in certain meats and meat food prod ucts in commerce; and that respondents combined, conspired, agreed, and arranged between themselves to apportion sales of meat and meat food products in commerce. Disposition.-Order entered after hearings requiring respondents, except the St. Louis Independent Packing Co., jointly and severally, to cease and desist from: (1) agreeing with competitors upon prices at which meats and meat food products shall be sold, and furnishing information relative thereto to competitors; (2) giving an undue and unreasonable preference or advantage to a particular person or persons or to a locality or localities in the sale of meats in commerce; and (3) combining, conspiring, agreeing, and arranging among themselves to make or give in commerce any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality, or to engage in a course of conduct for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices in commerce or of restraining commerce. It was further ordered that respondents Armour & Co., Wilson & Co., George A. Hormel & Co., Swift & Co., and Birmingham Packing Co. cease and desist from conspiring, combining, agreeing, and arranging with other persons or between themselves to apportion sales of meat and meat food products in commerce (March 30, 1936). 470 Secretary of Agriculture v. Levy Meat Co. Complaint. That respondent in connection with the selling in interstate commerce of meat, meat products, poultry, and poultry products substituted ungraded and inferior poultry and meat for officially graded poultry and meat, and substituted the word "choice" for the word “good” on meat and meat food products which had been stamped by an authorized meat grader. Disposition. Respondent admitted the facts alleged in the complaint and waived oral hearing. An order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from: (1) representing that any meat, meat food products, poultry, poultry products, or eggs sold or offered for sale by it had been graded and stamped by an official inspector or grader when the same had not been so graded and stamped; (2) substituting meat, meat food products, poultry, poultry products, or eggs that had not been officially graded and stamped for products that had been officially graded and stamped; and (3) making any unauthorized or other unlawful use of, or altering, any official grading stamp of the United States Department of Agriculture (October 4, 1935). 476 Secretary of Agriculture v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. Complaint. That respondent acting with and through an employee permitted the employee to represent himself as an independent broker and through such false representation to procure fees of 1, 2, and 3 percent of the sale price of meats sold by brokers and others through such employee; that respondent received the so-called brokerage fee on meats bought for it by its employee; and that respondent, through the collection of such fees, purchased meat and meat food products at a lower price than the price paid by its competitors to the same packers for like quantities of meat purchased under like circumstances. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from: (1) concealing or attempting to conceal the true relationship existing between it and any officer, employee, or agency under its control when and while such officer, employee, or agency is purchasing or is authorized to purchase meat and meat food products from any packer for it or its account; (2) making or permitting its officer, employee, or any person under its control to make any false or misleading representation that such officer, employee, or person is engaged in the brokerage business when such officer, employee, or person is purchasing meat supplies from meatpackers for it or its account; and (3) collecting from any meatpacker a fee charged for any selling service respondent renders to any meatpacker, or for any office or facility maintained and operated by it, which merely provides a contact or medium through which such meatpacker offers for sale or sells its meat or meat food products to respondent, which fee, charge, or compensation exceeds the actual and reasonable expense incurred by respondent in providing the service or furnishing the office or facility for such purposes (December 29, 1936). An appeal was taken from the Secretary's order to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Secretary moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the practices and activities complained of were no longer being continued and that the parties had stipulated that there was no longer any reason for questioning the validity of the Secretary's order. The appeal was dismissed. On December 28, 1938, the Secretary entered an order revoking his prior order in this case, provided, that if the Secretary shall in the future have reasonable cause to believe that the respondent is engaged in similar practices and shall order a hearing, the testimony taken in P. & S. Docket No. 476 shall be considered as a part of the testimony taken in the future hearing. 477 Secretary of Agriculture v. Wilmington Provision Co., Inc. Complaint.—That respondent made and gave an undue and unreasonable preference and advantage to The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. in that respondent paid, refunded and remitted to the company an amount of money equal to 1, 2, and 3 percent of the purchase price of certain products sold to the company by remitting such amount to an employee of the company knowing that such amount would be paid over to the company; and that respondent, in connection with its sale of meat and meat food products to competitors of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., paid similar brokerage fees knowing that such fees were not remitted to competitors of the company. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from directly or indirectly refunding or remitting brokerage fees to any buyer of meat or meat food products while respondent is at the same time paying brokerage fees on sales to other buyers without directly or indirectly returning such fees to them (April 15, 1938). Upon motion by respondent to set aside the order for the reason, among others, that the factual sitaution upon which the order was based no longer existed, the order was set aside for a period of 60 days. Subsequently, the order was revoked after an investigation by the Department showed that the allegations made by respondent were true (September 7, 1938). 479 Secretary of Agriculture v. Essen Packing Co., Inc. Complaint. That respondent made and gave an undue and unreasonable preference and advantage to The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. in that respondent paid, refunded, and remitted to the company an amount of money equal to 1, 2, and 3 percent of the purchase price of certain products sold to the company by remitting such amount to an employee of the company knowing that such amount would be paid over to the company; and that respondent in connection with its sale of meat and meat food products to competitors of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., paid similar brokerage fees knowing that such fees were not remitted to competitors of the company. Disposition. Prior to hearing, respondent stipulated to the facts in the case and agreed to cease and desist from the practice set forth in the stipulation. Thereupon, the case was postponed indefinitely, subject to being set down for further hearing at a future date in the event of the failure of respondent to comply with the stipulation (1936). 480 Secretary of Agriculture v. Ralph & Paul Adams, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 481 Secretary of Agriculture v. Armarius, Dunn & Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 482 Secretary of Agriculture v. Boston Sausage & Provision Co., Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 483 Secretary of Agriculture v. Albany Packing Co., Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 484 Secretary of Agriculture v. E. Greenebaum Company (Same as Docket No. 479) 485 Secretary of Agriculture v. Hygrade Food Corporation (Same as Docket No. 479) 487 Secretary of Agriculture v. Figge & Hutwalker Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 488 Secretary of Agriculture v. Adolph Gobel, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 489 Secretary of Agriculture v. Standard Provision Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 490 Secretary of Agriculture v. F. G. Vogt & Sons, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 491 Secretary of Agriculture v. Beck Provision Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 492 Secretary of Agriculture v. L. S. Briggs, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 493 Secretary of Agriculture v. Cleveland Provision Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 494 Secretary of Agriculture v. Cudahy Bros. Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 495 Secretary of Agriculture v. N. Auth Provision Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 496 Secretary of Agriculture v. Frank M. Firer, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 497 Secretary of Agriculture v. Jacob Forst Packing Co., Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 499 Secretary of Agriculture v. Albert F. Goetze, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 500 Secretary of Agriculture v. Knauss Bros., Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 503 Secretary of Agriculture v. Augustus Saugy, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 504 Secretary of Agriculture v. Stahl-Mayer, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 505 Secretary of Agriculture v. Liberty Provision Co., Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 506 Secretary of Agriculture v. Merkel, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 507 Secretary of Agriculture v. Miller & Hart, Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 508 Secretary of Agriculture v. Taylor Provision Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 509 Secretary of Agriculture v. The Henry Mahs Co., Inc. (Same as Docket No. 479) 510 Secretary of Agriculture v. Joseph Phillips Co. (Same as Docket No. 479) 518 Secretary of Agriculture v. Fort Worth Poultry & Egg Co. Complaint. That respondent sold poultry at prices lower than were justified by the prevailing market prices for similar kinds of poultry, and reduced prices of poultry to a point lower than was justified by the prevailing market; and that such acts were done for the purpose or with the effect of injuring competitors and of driving them out of business. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the evidence did not show any violation of the act with sufficient certainty to warrant the issuance of a cease-and-desist order. The order stated that the president of the respondent company testified that, irrespective of whether the acts complained of had over occurred, in the future there would be no violation of the act on the part of respondent (May 22, 1936). 549 Secretary of Agriculture v. C. Swanston & Son. Complaint. That respondent failed to accept and pay for livestock purchased for and on its behalf. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from refusing to accept livestock and to pay drafts drawn on it by buyers who have been authorized to purchase livestock for respondent and to draw drafts on respondent for payment of such livestock (November 11, 1936). 580 Secretary of Agriculture v. Armour & Co. and Swift & Co. Complaint. Following the issuance of the complaint an order granting severance was entered and charges as to each respondent were considered separately. The complaint against Swift & Co. alleged that respondent had agreed and arranged with certain steamship agencies or companies that such companies would purchase meat, dairy, and poultry products only from respondent and would accept no bids from other vendors of such products without the consent of respondent; that as a part of such agreement respondent gave assurance of increased freight traffic to the steamship lines; that respondent falsely represented to the retail customers of various members of the New York Association of Meat, Poultry, and Game Purveyors, Inc., that members of the association had attempted to prevent respondent from selling meat, meat food products, dairy products, poultry and poultry products to the retail customers of the members of the association; that respondent sold to certain persons and concerns, under substantially similar circumstances and on or about the same dates, products of the same kind and quality at the same prices that it charged other purchasers for larger quantities of products of the same kind and quality and at lower prices than it charged other purchasers for like or larger quantities of products of the same kind and quality; that respondent gave price discounts to certain purchasers while at the same time respondent did not give any discount to other purchasers who bought respondent's products under similar circumstances and conditions; that respondent extended long periods of credit to numerous purchasers while, at the same time and under similar circumstances, it extended shorter periods of credit to other purchasers; and that respondent, in the sale of its products wrapped and packed in containers, required same purchasers to pay for the containers and wrappers at the same price charged for the product, whereas it did not require other purchasers to pay for the containers and wrappers. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent Swift & Co. to cease and desist from: (1) denying to any purchaser any discount which, at or about the same time, it granted to any other purchaser of packer products of like kind, quality, and quantity under similar circumstances; (2) requiring one purchaser of its wrapped and packaged packer products to pay for them on the basis of their weight at the time they were wrapped and packed by respondent and allowing another purchaser to pay for such products on the basis of the actual weight thereof at the time of their physical delivery to the purchasers; and (3) denying to any buyer of packer products the same terms of credit that are extended to any other buyer of substantially the same credit rating purchasing packer products of like kind, quality, and quantity under substantially the same circumstances (June 1, 1938). This order was set aside on July 15, 1939, by the Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. (Swift & Co. v. Wallace, 105 F. 2d 848). The complaint against Armour & Co. involved, primarily, an alleged agreement between Armour & Co. and a certain steamship operating agency. This complaint was dismissed without hearing following the setting aside of the Secretary's order against Swift & Co. (Docket No. 508-A). 581 Secretary of Agriculture v. Scala Packing Company, Inc. Complaint. That respondent refused to pay the full purchase price for hogs purchased on order. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from refusing to pay the agreed purchase price for livestock purchased on respondent's order (January 7, 1937). 603 Secretary of Agriculture v. Empire Veal & Mutton Company, Inc., and Tobin & Shannon Complaint. That respondent Empire Veal & Mutton Co., Inc., agreed to purchase a carload of lambs from a shipper; that it thereafter, without legal cause, refused to accept said lambs, but later purchased a part of the shipment from a registered market agency at a posted stockyard; that respondent Tobin & Shannon, a market agency, failed to render a correct account of sale to the shipper; and that respondents conspired and agreed to engage in such unfair and deceptive practices. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent Empire Veal & Mutton Co., Inc., to cease and desist from (1) agreeing to purchase livestock and thereafter refusing to consummate the sale without legal cause therefor; and (2) conspiring and agreeing to engage in the unfair and deceptive practice of concealing from a shipper the facts pertaining to a sale. The order also required the respondent market agency to cease and desist from the practices alleged (April 23, 1937). 708 Secretary of Agriculture v. Leo Schloss, Inc. Complaint. That respondent purchased lambs at a certain agreed price, but that in making payment respondent deducted and withheld a certain amount to cover an alleged shrinkage after butchering. Disposition.-Order entered after hearing requiring respondent to cease and desist from failing and refusing to pay the agreed price for livestock purchased by it (October 20, 1937). |