Difference between revisions of "Producers Warehouse Company"
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Also known as [[California Cooperative Canneries]], mentioned in 1918 congressional testimony about the control Armour had over the raisin (and wider canning?) industry. Producers Warehouse was primarily selling to Armour, and Armour reserved the right to buy the cannery if they tried to sell. | Also known as [[California Cooperative Canneries]], mentioned in 1918 congressional testimony about the control Armour had over the raisin (and wider canning?) industry. Producers Warehouse was primarily selling to Armour, and Armour reserved the right to buy the cannery if they tried to sell. | ||
| − | [http://books.google.com/books?id=J5IpAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA933&ots=FxLUDUAnOM&dq=Producers%20warehouse%20company%20san%20jose&pg=PA929#v=onepage&q=Producers%20warehouse%20company%20san%20jose&f=false | + | [http://books.google.com/books?id=J5IpAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA933&ots=FxLUDUAnOM&dq=Producers%20warehouse%20company%20san%20jose&pg=PA929#v=onepage&q=Producers%20warehouse%20company%20san%20jose&f=false List of big packing companies handling unrelated lines]. |
| − | + | ||
| + | The case went to the Surpreme Court, alleging that the packer consent decree between Swift, Armour, and the US interfered with [[California Cooperative Canneries]] selling to them. (U.S. v. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES 279 U.S. 553 (1929) UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE CANNERIES. No. 375. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 16, 1929. Decided May 20, 1929.) | ||
Mercury News article is happy about the initial lawsuit, claiming that [[California Cooperative Canneries]] was actually a "blind" for Armour - they wouldn't have been able to buy fruit under their actual name, so they needed the side company to do it. | Mercury News article is happy about the initial lawsuit, claiming that [[California Cooperative Canneries]] was actually a "blind" for Armour - they wouldn't have been able to buy fruit under their actual name, so they needed the side company to do it. | ||
Revision as of 04:54, 12 August 2013
| Main Location |
San Jose |
|---|
Locations
| Location | Years | Address | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| San Jose | 1918 | Jackson and Tenth |
Details
Announced building plant covering Jackson, Taylor, 9th, 10th in 1918.
Also known as California Cooperative Canneries, mentioned in 1918 congressional testimony about the control Armour had over the raisin (and wider canning?) industry. Producers Warehouse was primarily selling to Armour, and Armour reserved the right to buy the cannery if they tried to sell.
List of big packing companies handling unrelated lines.
The case went to the Surpreme Court, alleging that the packer consent decree between Swift, Armour, and the US interfered with California Cooperative Canneries selling to them. (U.S. v. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES 279 U.S. 553 (1929) UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE CANNERIES. No. 375. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 16, 1929. Decided May 20, 1929.)
Mercury News article is happy about the initial lawsuit, claiming that California Cooperative Canneries was actually a "blind" for Armour - they wouldn't have been able to buy fruit under their actual name, so they needed the side company to do it.
"Armour interests" sold to Tri-Valley Packers in late 1930's.
Vernon Campbell general manager in 1918.
See also California Fruit News where they remark on the organization - new cooperative, related to California Growers Association of Los Angeles, and "generally accepted reports" say that some of the products will end up canned for Armour's labels.
Tomatoes, fruits, vegetables, cherries.