United States v. John J. Felin & Company/Opinion of the Court

This is a claim for just compensation, based on the Fifth Amendment, by a slaughterer whose meat products the Government requisitioned for war purposes. The Court of Claims awarded damages above the maximum prices fixed by the Office of Price Administration for such products and measured by what that court deemed the replacement cost of the requisitioned property. 67 F.Supp. 1017, 107 Ct.Cl. 155. The implications of this ruling reach far, and so we brought the case here. 330 U.S. 814, 67 S.Ct. 864.

While the immediate facts of this controversy are few and undisputed, they can be understood only in connection with the recognized facts in the meat industry. Of these we must take judicial notice inasmuch as we must translate the idiom of the industry into vernacular English. Also, of course, we must consider the facts in the context of the rather intricate system of meat price regulation by O.P.A.

The respondent was engaged in the business of packing pork products in Philadelphia. It bought hogs in Chicago, St. Louis, and Indianapolis and transported them to Philadelphia where they were slaughtered and converted into various pork cuts and products. It sold these products to retail dealers in Philadelphia, and it had also supplied pork products to Government agencies.

On January 30, 1942, the President approved the Emergency Price Control Act. 56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C.App. § 901 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. Accordingly, the Price Administrator, by a series of regulations, established maximum prices for dressed hogs and wholesale pork cuts. Revised Maximum Price Regulation No. 148, issued on October 22, 1942, governed the pork cuts here involved. 7 Fed.Reg. 8609, 8948, 9005; 8 Fed.Reg. 544.

To meet the food needs entailed by the war, the President under the authority of the Second War Powers Act, 56 Stat. 176, 50 U.S.C. Supp. V, § 633, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 633, created the Food Distribution Administration, with the Secretary of Agriculture as its head. E.O. 9280, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 601 note, 7 Fed.Reg. 10179. This Administration was given authority to assign food priorities, to 'allocate' food to governmental agencies and for private account, and to assist in carrying out the program of the Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, 55 Stat. 31, 22 U.S.C.A. § 411 et seq. To carry out the task thus delegated by the President, the Food Distribution Administration issued to each packer operating under federal inspection a priority order calling for delivery of a proportionate part of the total quantity needed at the particular time. A packer's quota was based on the ratio of meat produced in his plant to the total production in all federally inspected plants.

In conformity with this system, the respondent, on February 2, 1943, was requested to deliver 225,000 pounds of lard and pork products to the Federal Surplus Commodity Corporation for delivery under the Lend-Lease program. The respondent was advised that this order was to be filled in preference to any other order or contract of lower priority, and at the applicable O.P.A. ceiling prices. Insisting that it could no longer afford to sell to the Government at ceiling prices, respondent refused to make delivery.

On March 1, 1943, the Food Distribution Administration, exercising powers not questioned, issued an order requisitioning the lard and pork products in controversy. On March 3, 1943, the property was duly seized in respondent' Philadelphia packing house. On March 24, 1943, respondent filed its claim with the Administration for 'just compensation' for taking this property. Its total claim was $55,525, of which $16,250 was for lard and $39,275 for pork cuts. On May 7, 1943, the Administration, by way of preliminary determination of the just compensation for the requisitioned property, fixed the value of the lard at $15,543.78 and the pork cuts at $25,112.50. These amounts were based on the O.P.A. ceiling prices applicable to these products. On May 22, 1943, the preliminary award was made final. Respondent accepted in full payment the award as to the lard; it refused to accept the determination as to the pork cuts and, in accordance with the statutory procedure in the case of rejection of such an award, was paid half of it. On June 24, 1943, respondent instituted this action in the Court of Claims to recover the additional amount which when added to the $12,556,25, the half of the Government's valuation for those cuts, would constitute 'just compensation' for what the Government had taken.

The Court of Claims referred the proceeding to a commissioner, who took evidence and reported to the court. Upon the basis of his report and the underlying evidence, the Court of Claims found as a fact that the replacement cost of the requisitioned pork cuts at the time and place of the taking was $30,293, and concluded, as a matter of law, that such replacement cost and not the maximum ceiling price was the proper measure of damages for the taking. We heard argument at the last Term, and after due consideration deemed it appropriate to order reargument at this Term.

At the outset it is important to make clear what it is we are called upon to decide. The conventional criterion for determining what is 'just compensation' for private property taken for public use is what it would bring in the free, open market. E.g., Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255, 54 S.Ct. 704, 708, 78 L.Ed. 1236; Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. United States, 265 U.S. 106, 123, 49 S.Ct. 471, 474, 68 L.Ed. 934; L. Vogelstein & Co. v. United States, 262 U.S. 337, 340, 43 S.Ct. 564, 565, 67 L.Ed. 1012. But there must be a market to make the criterion available. Here there was a market in which the respondent could have sold the pork cuts, but it was not a free and open market; it was controlled in its vital feature, selling price, by the O.P.A. It is this fact that creates the problem of the case, assuming that the case is not dogmatically disposed of by holding that inasmuch as the maximum price is the only price which respondent could legally have got for its goods it is just compensation. We are not passing on the abstract question whether a lawfully established maximum price is the proper measure of 'just compensation' whenever property is taken for public use. We are adjudicating only the precise issues that emerge from this case.

The Second War Powers Act, 1942, under which respondent's property was authorized to be taken, restricted compensation for the taking to that which the Fifth Amendment enjoins. 56 Stat. 176, 181, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 721. In enforcing this constitutional requirement 'the question is, What has the owner lost? not, What has the taker gained?' Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 195, 30 S.Ct. 459, 460, 54 L.Ed. 725; McGovern v. New York, 229 U.S. 363, 33 S.Ct. 876, 57 L.Ed. 1228, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 391. Respondent's sole claim is for the pecuniary equivalent of the property taken. This is not a situation where consequential damages, in any appropriate sense of the term, are urged as a necessary part of just compensation. Respondent does not claim such damages on the theory that, in order to protect its good will, it had to supply its regular customers and that this compelled replacement of the requisitioned pork products by the purchase, slaughter, and processing of live hogs. Cf. United States v. General Motors Corporation, 323 U.S. 373, 382, 65 S.Ct. 357, 361, 89 L.Ed. 311, 156 A.L.R. 390; United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372, 377, 378, 66 S.Ct 596, 599, 600, 90 L.Ed. 729; United States ex rel. and for Use of Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266, 281, 282, 63 S.Ct. 1047, 1055, 1056, 87 L.Ed. 1390. Respondent claims that replacement cost is the proper measure of the value of the property when requisitioned. This action was brought to recover damages which the respondent would suffer, so it maintains, if it accepted the Government's offer of the applicable ceiling prices in satisfaction of 'just compensation.' The burden therefore rests on the respondent to prove the damages it would suffer by not receiving more than the ceiling prices. Marion & R.V.R. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 280, 285, 46 S.Ct. 253, 255, 70 L.Ed. 585.

The Court of Claims found that the principal item in the cost of processing respondent's products was what it had to pay for live hogs; that, inasmuch as live hogs were not then covered by price regulation, the Chicago market quotations governed price in the packing industry; that the Chicago average live hog price was $15.59 during March 1943; and that, on the basis of this price, the replacement cost for the requisitioned property was $30,293. We are of opinion that in reaching this conclusion the court below failed to take into account decisive factors for the proper disposition of the action brought by the respondent.

We are dealing with a claim for damages arising out of a transaction pertaining to a particular industry, and the transaction cannot be torn from the context of that industry. It is practically a postulate of the slaughtering industry that replacement cost does not afford a relevant basis for determining the true value of the industry's products. 'Manufacturing operations in the meat packing industry do not consist of assembling raw materials for the purpose of obtaining one finished product, but rather of separating or breaking down raw materials (cattle, etc.) into many parts, one of which (dressed carcass) is the major product, and the other parts of which are further processed into numerous by-products.' Kingan & Co. v. Bowles, Em.App., 144 F.2d 253, 254. In consequence, cost in the industry generally is like a fagot that cannot be broken up into simple, isolated pieces. See Greer, Packinghouse Accounting (Prepared by the Committee on Accounting of the Institute of American Meat Packers), passim. 'The accounting procedure in the hog business is even more complicated than that of the cattle, calf, or sheep business, because the operations involve a greater breaking up of the dressed carcass and more numerous processes extending over considerable periods of time.' Id. at 33-34. The problem is one of 'joint cost' in a business which 'produces no single major product,' id. at 213, with the result that no accountant has thus far 'been able to devise a method yielding by-product or joint-cost figures which does note mbody a dominance of arbitrariness and guesswork.' Hamilton, Cost as a Standard for Price, 4 Law and Contemp.Prob. 321, 328; cf. Greenbaum, The Basis of Property Shall Be the Cost of Such Property: How is Cost Defined?, 3 Tax L.Rev. 351, 356-359.

If, as suggested in argument, a hog were nothing but an articulated pork chop, and the processing of edible and inedible by-products were not characteristic of the industry, the price of a live hog might well represent the collective cost of the derivative pork cuts. The pork chop, however, is but one of the many edible hog products. According to an estimate about the time of the requisitioning of these pork cuts, there were more than 200 pork items (exclusive of sausage products) in the market. See Supplementary Statement of Considerations for Revised Regulation No. 148, Pike and Fisher, 3 OPA Food Desk Book 46,151. 'Most pork products,' the Administrator found, 'are consumed in a cured or processed state. Fresh pork products, such as pork chops and fresh ham, represent not over 20 per cent of the vast quantity of pork which moves by rail. The remaining 80 per cent reaches the consumer in a wide variety of processed forms, including dry, dry cured, sweet pickled, smoked, cooked, baked and canned.' Id. at 46,141. It deserves noting that the requisitioned products in controversy included cured regular hams, cured clear bellies, cured picnics, and salted fatbacks.

The petitioner was also engaged in by-product processing, for the Government took from him 100,000 pounds of refined pure lard. For the value of the lard the respondent accepted the administrative award. Admittedly, part of the cost of the live hog must be charged to by-products. However, any method of apportioning the total cost to the by-products is highly speculative.

Since so much speculative approximation and guesswork entered into the determination of cost, selling price, and profit, the industry, naturally enough, was in almost continuous controversy with the Price Administrator about them. The respondent was party to these controversies. On July 17, 1942, it filed a protest against Maximum Price Regulation No. 148 which was consolidated with the protest of 115 other pork slaughterers against this regulation. On the basis of calculations as to the cut-out value or replacement cost of various pork cuts, the slaughterers contended that the regulation did not allow them sufficient operating margin over the cost of live hogs. In rejecting the protest, on April 23, 1943, the Administrator made this ruling: 'The interdependence of all phases of the operations of packing establishments makes precise evaluation of the relationship between prices on dressed and processed meats and live hog prices impossible except in terms of the over-all financial position of the industry.' In the Matter of Rapides Packing Co., Pike and Fisher, 1 OPA Opinions and Decisions 243. The respondent, on March 8, 1943, had also protested, again on the basis of the cost of live hogs, against the revision of the regulation. This protest was consolidated with those of 15 other pork slaughterers and, substantially on the ground taken in the Rapides Packing Co. case, this second protest was likewise rejected by the Administrator. In the Matter of Greenwood Packing Plant, Pike and Fisher, 1 OPA Opinions and Decisions 296, 299.

Review by the Emergency Court of Appeals was not sought, although the first denial of respondent's claim for the replacement cost of pork cuts, based on live hog prices, came shortly after the Government's requisitioning of the products as to which he now makes the same contention. It is noteworthy that the pork price margins were almost the only meat price margins which were not challenged before the Emergency Court of Appeals in what has been called 'the battle of the meat regulations.' See Hyman and Nathanson, Judicial Review of Price Control: The Battle of the Meat Regulations, 42 Ill.L.Rev. 584.

The considerations which underlay the Administrator's meat price determinations are most pertinent to the solution of our immediate problem. The result of his analysis was that the profit and loss data on a slaughterer's entire operations were the only dependable figures from which the fairness of meat prices could be deduced. The Administrator pointed out that the industry, on the basis of its accounting figures, had historically lost money on its meat sales. Since, however, by taking the by-product sales into full account its operations as a whole were highly profitable, these meat sale losses were 'more in the nature of bookkeeping losses which failed to take fully into account the integrated nature of the industry.' These views were approvingly quoted by the Emergency Court of Appeals in Armour & Co. v. Bowles, Em.App., 148 F.2d 529, 535.

In both of the consolidated proceedings to which the respondent was a party, the Administrator x plicitly requested to be furnished with the industry's profit and loss data. In the earlier proceeding, no proof of loss was filed by any of the protestants. In the Matter of Rapides Packing Co. supra. In the second proceeding the Administrator made this finding:

'The three Protestants who submitted further evidence did not even thus sustain their claims of individual hardship. One of them showed a net profit of $60,492.44 for the five months period ending March 27, 1942; another a net profit of $6,838.00 for the three months period ending April 1, 1943, and the third failed to submit a profit and loss statement and balance sheet although specifically requested to do so.' In the Matter of Greenwood Packing Plant, supra, at 297.

Not merely does the industry generally seem to have prospered under price control, but so did the respondent despite the fact that throughout the period in controversy it continued to buy live hogs at prevailing prices and to sell pork products derived from them at the authorized ceiling prices, even when this meant selling its pork products below the price that the Court of Claims found to be their replacement cost value.

Most pertinent, therefore, are the pronouncements of the packing industry made before these matters became embroiled in price-fixing litigation. 'The cost of a dressed hog carcass, or of a lot of dressed hog carcasses, may be determined quite satisfactorily; but when a carcass is cut up into its various merchantable parts, all record of cost is lost, as it is impossible to determine the cost of any of these cuts.' Greer, Packinghouse Accounting (Prepared by the Committee on Accounting of the Institute of American Meat Packers), p. 246, and also pp. 43, 58, 61, 62. Since the 'results for the hog business as a whole can be found only by adding the profits or losses for all merchandising departments,' id. at 218, the only accurate formula for costs in hog slaughtering is a profit and loss statement for the entire operations. Id. at 43, 44.

It is as old as the common law that an allegation purporting to be one of fact but contradicted by common knowledge is not confessed by a demurrer. Of course, findings of fact are binding on this Court, but if this Court had to treat as the starting point for the determination of constitutional issues a spurious finding of 'fact' contradicted by an adjudicated finding between the very parties to the instant controversy, constitutional adjudication would become a verbal game.

There are facts and facts, even in Court of Claims' litigation. It is the function of the Court of Claims to make findings. But when a judgment based on such findings is here brought in question it is the function of this Court to ascertain the meaning of the findings in order to determine their legal significance. The judgment of the court below that 'replacement cost' is the proper measure of just compensation and the mode by which it reached the amount of that cost are inescapably enmeshed in considerations that are clearly familiar issues of law and particularly of constitutional law. Where the conclusion is a 'composite of fact and law,' Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 223 U.S. 655, 668, 32 S.Ct. 389, 390, 56 L.Ed. 594, this Court may certainly hold that as a matter of law the findings are erroneous. See, e.g., Washington ex rel. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U.S. 510, 528, 32 S.Ct. 535, 539, 56 L.Ed. 863. Even when this Court reviews State court judgments involving constitutional issues it 'must review independently the legal issues and those factual matters with which they are commingled.' See Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 636, 68 S.Ct. 269, 270 (and the authorities therein cited.) Similarly, findings concurred in by two courts do not control the decision here where 'facts and their constitutional significance are too closely connected' and 'the standards and the ultimate conclusion involve questions of law inseparable from the particular facts to which they are applied.' United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 403, 61 S.Ct. 291, 297, 85 L.Ed. 243. Even where the parties to the litigation have stipulated as to the 'facts,' this Court will disregard the stipulation, accepted and applied by the courts below, if the stipulation obviously forecloses real questions of law. See, e.g., Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R. Co., 243 U.S. 281, 37 S.Ct. 287, 61 L.Ed. 722.

The prior proceedings between the same parties, as to which we would be blind not to take judicial notice, as well as the unquesto ned facts pertaining to the meat industry are relevant to interpret the findings of the Court of Claims. We have concluded that here 'replacement cost' is a spurious, i.e., non-legal, basis for determining just compensation. It is as though the Court of Claims had based its opinion on a balance sheet and we had to interpret the balance sheet into actualities. And so we hold that, as a matter of law, the court below erred in utilizing replacement cost as the basis for determining what constituted just compensation.

When due regard is given to the findings of the Court of Claims, they fail to establish that the compensation proffered by the Government for the requisitioned pork cuts, based on the maximum ceiling prices, falls short of 'just compensation.' We are therefore not called upon to consider whether as a matter of constitutional law prices fixed by the Government for the sale of commodities are the measure of 'just compensation' for commodities seized by the Government. As the conflict of opinion here indicates, that is a debatable issue which, since we can, we must avoid adjudicating. See Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 s.Ct. 152, 154, 89 L.Ed. 101.

The burden of proving its case was upon the respondent. The nature of this burden was to prove, in light of the governing facts of the industry, that the administrative award for the taking of respondent's property was less than just compensation, based as it was on prices which the Administrator had established for those products and which had been left undisturbed by the process devised by Congress for assuring the fairness of these prices. By evidence merely of bookkeeping losses, respondent did not carry its burden of proving actual damage. Just compensation is a practical conception, a matter of fact and not of fiction. Respondent introduced no evidence, and the Court of Claims made no findings, to establish a loss based on its total operations during the period relevant to the slaughtering of the hogs from which the requisitioned products were processed. On the basis of such figures it would be necessary to determine by reasonable allocations the portion of the loss properly attributable to the goods seized by the Government. In the proceedings below the respondent neither alleged such a loss nor submitted proof in support of it. Since it has not maintained its burden of proving that the ceiling price award entails damages, the judgment of the Court of Claims cannot stand.

The judgment is reversed with directions to the Court of Claims to enter a judgment for the respondent in an amount not exceeding $12,556.25, with interest on the amount of $25,112.50 from March 3, 1943, the date of the requisition, to May 22, 1943, the date of the final award made by the Director of the Food Distribution Administration.

Mr. Justice REED, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice MURPHY join, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the disposition of this case made by Justice FRANKFURTER'S opinion. However, I cannot concur in the reasoning by which that result is reached. That opinion holds that the respondent is not entitled to recover as 'just compensation' anything in addition to the ceiling price unless it can 'establish a loss based on its total operations during the period relevant to the slaughtering of the hogs from which the requisitioned products were processed' and 'determine by reasonable allocations the portion of the loss properly attributable to the goods seized by the Government.' Why a loss on total operations must be established in order to show the loss on the hog products requisitioned by the Government is not clear to me. It is the market value of any product that is the basis for 'just compensation.' If there is no real market value, cost may be an element in the determination of value. Under the circumstances of this case, any other value than the ceiling price is illusory. Consequently I believe that whenever perishable property is taken for public use under controlled-market conditions, the constitutionally established maximum price is the only proper standard of 'just compensation.'

Five members of this Court express their agreement that replacement cost, if relevant, has been properly found by the Court of Claims. If replacement cost, determined by any accounting system, is a factor, the evidence on which the Court of Claims based its findings of that cost is not before us, and therefore those findings cannot be properly regarded as unsatisfactory. Even if we assume that the evidence offered did not properly allocate costs, the Government raised no such issue by its petition for certiorari or in its brief. The record does show a finding of replacement cost based upon some evidence. In the absence of that evidence from the record, it must be assumed that it would support the findings. If we assume that replacement cost is relevant, to say that a manufacturer who proves that cost by the results of his own system of cost accounting may not retain his award because a more accurate accounting system exists, though not offered in evidence, disregards the salutary rule that litigants in civil matters must be allowed to frame their issues and prove their cases in trial courts as each desires. This principle includes the introduction of such relevant evidence as each wishes to introduce Often proof of value or damages is difficult. Courts then reach conclusions from the relevant evidence presented. Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co., 311 U.S. 544, 61 S.Ct. 379, 85 L.Ed. 336; Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251, 66 S.Ct. 574, 90 L.Ed. 652. Findings are properly made on the basis of the relevant evidence heard and are not subject to attack because other available evidence might have been produced. The suggestion of Justice FRANKFURTER'S opinion as to a better method for determining replacement cost is futile, since it furnishes a rule, rejected by the majority of this Court, for the Court of Claims to use in determining just compensation. The approval of the method for determining replacement cost used by the Court of Claims by a majority of this Court logically requires a decision on whether or not the ceiling price represents 'just compensation.'

It may be assumed that the respondent cannot replace the requisitioned hog products at the ceiling price. If respondent was impelled to replace the requisitioned products in its stock, its reasons for so doing lay in the realm of business judgment. There was no legal compulsion. It acted to keep its line of goods complete, to serve its customers and to preserve its good will. Any additional cost to the respondent caused by replacing the products was a consequential damage for which compensation is not given in federal condemnation proceedings. United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372, 378, 66 S.Ct. 596, 599, 90 L.Ed. 729. See United States v. General Motors Corporation, 323 U.S. 373, 382, 65 S.Ct. 357, 361, 89 L.Ed. 311.

It has been long established that in a free market the market price is the proper criterion for determining 'just compensation.' Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255, 54 S.Ct. 704, 708, 78 L.Ed. 1236; Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. United States, 265 U.S. 106, 123, 44 S.Ct. 471, 474, 68 L.Ed. 934. In L. Vogelstein & Co. v. United States, 262 U.S. 337, 43 S.Ct. 564, 67 L.Ed. 1012, this Court held that the prevailing price in a controlled market was 'just compensation.' The Vogelstein Company was a wholesaler of refined copper. Between September 28, 1917, and February 1, 1918, the United States requisitioned from the Company 12,542,857 pounds of copper for which it paid 23.5¢ per pound. But this method of determining replacement cost supply and demand on a free and open market; it was a price fixed by an agreement made by the War Industries Board with copper producers and approved by the President on September 21, 1917. Vogelstein Company, although not a producer, had apparently cooperated with the producers in the establishment and maintenance of the 23.5¢ price. The Company argued that it was entitled to 26.8¢ per pound-the average cost to it of the copper requisitioned by the United States. This Court concluded that paying the fixed 23.5¢ was correct. 'The market price was paid. The market value of the copper taken at the time it was taken measures the owner's compensation.' 262 U.S. at page 340, 43 S.Ct. at page 565. 67 L.Ed. 1012. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the company's petition was affirmed. This acceptance of the fixed price as the market value closely approaches the situation now presented.

It would be anomalous to hold that Congress can constitutionally require persons in the position of the respondent to sell their perishable property to the general public at a fixed price or not to sell to anyone and later to hold that the Government must pay a higher price than the general public where it requisitions the perishable property because of a replacement cost, greater than the fixed price. It is true that the United States by exercising its power of requisitioning compelled the respondent to sell to it; but the compulsion to sell to the general public at ceiling prices was hardly less severe. The choice was between sales at the fixed price or, at the best, economic hibernation and, at the worst, economic extinction. The two situations are so parallel that the constitutionally established maximum price may, under the circumstances here, be properly taken as the measure of 'just compensation.' That lawfully fixed market price determines what the perishable article can be sold for or its market value in any real sense. It gives to the condemnee any profit for increased value in his hands and takes nothing from him that he could lawfully obtain since consequential damages for loss of good will cannot be obtained. Such maximum price is 'just compensation.'

If the Government fixed prices with the predominant purpose of acquiring property affected by its order, a different situation would be presented. Here we have price regulation of meat products on a national scale with judicial review of those regulations. The Government sought for itself no unique opportunity to purchase.

The respondent, as Justice Frankfurter's opinion points out filed several protests against the Maximum Price Regulations controlling the ceiling prices of hog products. These protests were rejected by the Administrator and review by the Emergency Court of Appeals was not sought. It was during the course of these proceedings that evidence of the profit and loss of the industry and of the replacement cost of pork products could properly be introduced. However, once the maximum price had been set and had not been set aside by direct attack, that price became the only relevant measure of just compensation. Whether normally admissible or not, the replacement cost of perishable articles then subject to price control, bought to maintain the good will of a business, cannot be an element in the determination of value to fix just compensation. Therefore, evidence of replacement cost in condemnation proceedings such as that before the Court today is irrelevant and should not be admitted.