This is an intra-family dispute over a tobacco allotment arising from the sale of a portion of a parent farm. The District Director of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, in an attempt to obtain compliance with his interpretation of the agency regulations, exerted sufficient influence to cause the County Committee to reverse its original ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The District Director continued his influence during the appeal before the Review Committee. After a full hearing and careful analysis, the District Judge remanded the matter for a de novo hearing before the County Committee.

We affirm.

dissenting.

None but the callous could fail to perceive equity in the result achieved by the trial judge. However, rescue from the plight of the apparently deceived plaintiffs should have been achieved by a more appropriate action, such as a suit in state court. I dissent solely because I think the opinion converts the County and Review Committees into quasi-judicial bodies, contrary to the regulations, 7 C.F.R. (4) § 719.8(b), and without the power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, record testimony, or make a record suitable for review.