Summary

Portrait of Fred M. Vinson Fred M. Vinson Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Company v…

Dealing with these two branches of the definition in order it is clear, first, that the occupation in which the company's employees are engaged is not farming. The company owns no farms and raises no crops. Irrigation, strictly defined-that is the actual watering of the soil-may no doubt be called farming. And the work of the farmers in seeing to it that the water released from the company's ditches is properly distributed to the growing plants undoubtedly is included in farming as being part of the process of cultivating and tilling the soil.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Fred M. Vinson Fred M. Vinson Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Company v…

Wheat is ground at the mill. In this way functions which are necessary to the total economic process of supplying an agricultural product, become, in the process of economic development and specialization, separate and independent productive functions operated in conjunction with the agricultural function but no longer a part of it. Thus, the question as to whether a particular type of activity is agricultural is not determined by the necessity of the activity to agriculture nor by the physical similarity of the activity to that done by farmers in other situations.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Fred M. Vinson Fred M. Vinson Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Company v…

The question is whether the activity in the particular case is carried on as part of the agricultural function or is separately organized as an independent productive activity. The farmhand who cares for the farmer's mules or prepares his fertilizer is engaged in agriculture. But the maintenance man in a power plant [8] and the packer in a fertilizer factory [9] are not employed in agriculture, even if their activity is necessary to farmers and replaces work previously done by farmers.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature