KARNES CITY LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC., AND EDGAR SHERRILL, JR. AND G. J. TIPS, d/b/a SHERRILL AND TIPS CATTLE Co. P&S Docket No. 3524. Registration and bond-Selling LEHR, V. L. P&S Docket No. 3536. Bond-Checks-Drafts- LINSMEIER, LEONARD, AND CHARLES F. LINSMEIER d/b/a 925 953 LOGAN COUNTY LIVE STOCK COMPANY v. ED WAREHAM, JR. 958 MARKET AGENCIES AT UNION STOCK YARDS, CHICAGO ILLINOIS. P&S Docket No. 402. Modification of rates and charges MARKET AGENCIES AT UNION STOCK YARDS, DENVER, COLO- RADO. P&S Docket No. 435. Continuation of rates and MARKET AGENCIES OPERATING AT THE SALT LAKE UNION STOCK YARDS. P&S Docket No. 547. Continuation of rates MILLER, A. P&S Docket No. 3373. Insolvency-Checks- PECATONICA LIVESTOCK EXCHANGE, INC. P&S Docket No. 935 938 AGRICULTURE DECISIONS-Continued Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930-Continued Page ATLANTIC COUNTY MARKET GROWERS', INC. v. M. COSTANZI 1024 B. G. ANDERSON CO. INC. v. MAX J. BADLER AND JOSEPH BLUE GOOSE GROWERS, INC. v. WM. ROSENSTEIN & SONS Co. BLUE RIBBON SALES COMPANY v. NARCISE PRODUCE, INC. CAL FRUIT V. ROCKY PRODUCE. PACA Docket No. 9606. COONEY & KORSHAK, INC. v. THE PIONEER FRUIT & COM- 959 AGRICULTURE DECISIONS-Continued Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930-Continued FRED G. HILVERT CO., INC. v. CALIFORNIA PRODUCE EXCHANGE, INC. PACA Docket No. 9554. Express warranty-Breach of-Seedstems-Lettuce-Damages-Resale value GONZALES PACKING Co. v. MAGIC VALLEY PRODUCE COMPANY, a partnership, and MAGIC VALLEY PRODUCE COMPANY, a corporation. PACA Docket GROWERS EXCHANGE, INC. v. NEIMAN BROS. PACA Docket Page H. SHOOM & Co., LTD. v. GIANNINI FRUIT SALES, INC. PACA HOMESTEAD TOMATO CO-OP v. ROSEANN'S WHOLESALE PRODUCE. PACA Docket No. 9545. Acceptance-Freezing injury- Late inspection-Damages not established HOMESTEAD TOMATO CO-OP v. ROSEANN'S WHOLESALE PRODUCE. INDIANAPOLIS FRUIT COMPANY, INC. v. KOEHLER'S WHOLESALE JOHN INGLIS FROZEN FOODS COMPANY v. GISINGER SOUTH- WESTERN FOOD DISTRIBUTORS, INC. A/T/A SOUTHWESTERN LACONADO PRODUCE, INC. v. NEM-AR-CO DISTRIBUTING, INC. LAKE OF THE WOODS FOUNDATION SEED POTATO GROWERS Co-op., INC. v. CONSOLIDATED POTATO SERVICE. PACA Docket No. 9624. Rejection not established-Failure to prove extent of damage-Failure to follow procedures-Accept- LOWELL J. SCHY COMPANY v. HAPPY VALLEY DISTRIBUTING 1022 AGRICULTURE DECISIONS-Continued Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930-Continued -- Page MANDELL, SPECTOR, RUDOLPH Co. PACA Dockets No. 8998 MILTON R. FELDMAN CO., INC. v. J. HELLMAN PRODUCE, INC. R. F. TAPLETT FRUIT & COLD STORAGE Co. v. THE AUSTER 994 RALPH & CONO COMUNALE v. LOUIS TRAVERSO. PACA Docket 1024 S. B. DAVIS COMPANY v. STANDARD FRUIT & PRODUCE COM- 1023 TRACK SIDE PRODUCE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. PACA Docket No. 9811. Failure to account truly and correctly-Failure to TROPICANA IMPORTING COMPANY, INC. v. W. R. REYNOLDS W. O. ODOM PRODUCE Co. v. M. COSTANZI COMPANY. PACA 1023 WAVERLY GROWERS COOPERATIVE v. E. C. MITCHELL. PACA Docket No. 9547. Acceptance-Failure to establish novation BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (No. 9963) In re DECKER'S DAIRY, INC. AMA Docket No. M 2-12. Decided July 16, 1965. Hearing reopened-New evidence In the public interest and for the proper administration of the order, respondent's petition to reopen the hearing for the purpose of introducing alleged newly-discovered facts into evidence is granted. Decision by Thomas J. Flavin Judicial Officer ORDER REOPENING HEARING In this proceeding under 8c (15) (A) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933), as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and subsequent amendments (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the respondent filed a petition to reopen the hearing following the close of the hearing and the issuance of a recommended decision in favor of respondent by the hearing examiner. The petitioner, a handler under Order No. 2, complains of billings by the market administrator in connection with skim milk disposed of in the marketing area. The petitioner filed a reply opposing the granting of the petition to reopen. The petition states that respondent has discovered new evidence to indicate that the skim milk involved was regulated under a Federal milk marketing order other than Order No. 2, that this information was not known or available to the respondent until recently, that provisions of Order No. 2 became applicable other than those litigated up to now, that new issues have come into the case that have not been heard or argued and that, therefore, the newly-discovered evidence should be in the record. It seems to us that for the proper administration of the order and in the public interest respondent should have an oppor |