v2035-1007

M,%,QKmt0mt9tAm9U,

Ml ta rwifiin I

No. 8386

In the

United States 7

Circuit Court of Appeals

FoK THE Ninth Circuit.

HUGH DAVID EDWARDS, individually and

doing business as Edwards Fruit Company,

Appellant,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee.

APPEAL. FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES, IN

AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

CENTRAL. DIVISION

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE

Peirson M. Hall

United States Attorney

1. Carroll Hunter

Attorney

1. 1. Department of Aariculh^e^

Wendell Berge P L, EJ

John S. L. Yost

Special Assistants to the Attorney General

Martin G. White JAW 13 1937

Solicitor, U. S. Department of Agriculture

Joseph G, Blandi * i g? i ? w

Attorney,U.S. Department of Agriculture PAUL P. Vi (hjⁱ-.^l-i,

GLEfsK

Attorneys for Appellee.

iMUi.-4.endent-Rtiview, Law Primers, 222 So. Spring St., Los Angeles. TU 1373

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2035

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2035

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2035#page/n1006/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

commerce, section, secretary, power, provisions, interstate, oranges, marketing, commodity, prices, regulation, commodities, period, federal, producers

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

interstate commerce, foreign commerce, purchasing power, section 8c, applicable provisions, federal commerce, declared policy, base period, presiding officer, crop adjustment, commerce clause, allotment plan, agricultural commodity, commerce power, basic agricultural

Document Status: UGLY