$ 120.00 per day in the operation of its business since November 1, 1946.
8. That Plaintiff's milk processing plant and equipment represents an investment of approximately $ 50,000.00 since the month of December, 1945; it has twelve men on its payroll and twelve milk haulers under contract.
9. That Plaintiff has been and will be irreparably injured and damaged by that part of the sugar rationing and allocation program set forth in Amendment 24 to Third Revised Ration Order No. 3.
Conclusions of Law.
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this cause.
2. That the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944 is applicable to the Sugar Rationing Program, the authority for which Program is established in the Second War Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 631 et seq.
3. That the amount of the quota bases allocated in the Third Revised Ration Order No. 3, Amendment 24, are made dependent upon the existence of a concern in the bulk sweetened condensed milk processing industry or the functioning of a concern in that industry at a given time.
4. That the Office of Temporary Controls (formerly the Office of Price Administration) has not made any special provision for small plants in its formulae for allocating sugar to bulk sweetened condensed milk processors (as small plants are defined in the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944).
5. That the method adopted in Amendment 24 to Third Revised Ration Order No. 3 making the quota base dependent upon the existence of a concern or the functioning of a concern in a given field of activity at a given time is in direct contravention of the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act and is invalid.
6. That the Secretary of Agriculture has primary authority, delegated to him by the President of the United States, under authority vested in him by the Second War Powers Act, over the allocation of sugar; that the Office of Price Administration (now the Office of Temporary Controls) has authority over the rationing of sugar to civilians, both consumer and industrial users, on such allocation of an over-all supply as is made to it by the Secretary of Agriculture.
7. That the quota provisions and formulae set up in Amendment 24 to Third Revised Ration Order No. 3 are prohibited by the Provisions of the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act and are invalid and directly contrary to the Statute.
8. That the Plaintiff Corporation is a small plant as defined in the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944.
9. That the Plaintiff is entitled to an allocation or ration of sugar in the same comparative amount as any other bulk sweetened condensed milk producers regardless of when Plaintiff or said other producers entered business or how long Plaintiff or other producers have been in the business of producing bulk sweetened condensed milk.
10. That the Plaintiff should be granted injunctive relief.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.