Court Opinion

ID: 9637958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:27:51.327517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:56.511720
License: Public Domain

MAJOR, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
In my opinion, the dams, river improvements and viaducts are not goods produced for commerce within the meaning of the Act. I am of the view, however, that the repair and servicing of defendant’s tools and equipment in its Chicago plant constituted the production of goods for commerce, as that term is defined by Sec. 3(j) of the Act, 79 .U.S.C.A. § 203(j). Such being the case, plaintiff performed a service essential to such production and was entitled to recover. I would reverse solely on this ground.