Frederick John v. People of the State of New York
Decision Date | 16 April 1906 |
Docket Number | No. 210,210 |
Citation | 201 U.S. 633,5 Ann. Cas. 909,50 L.Ed. 896,26 S.Ct. 554 |
Parties | FREDERICK St. JOHN, Plff. in Err. , v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. William Brennan, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Horace McGuire and Julius M. Mayer for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error is a nonproducing wholesale and retail milk dealer in the city of Buffalo, New York. In February, 1903 he exposed for sale and sold a quantity of milk in violation of §§ 20 and 22 of chapter 338 of the laws of New York for the year 1893, and its amendments and supplements, in that the said milk contained more than 88 per cent of water and less than 12 per cent of milk solids, to wit, 89.24 per cent of water and 10.36 per cent of milk solids.
The commissioner of agriculture of the state, in pursuance of said laws, filed a complaint against plaintiff in error in the supreme court of the state, charging him with the violation of the laws, and that it was his second offense. Judgment was prayed for the sum of $200, in pursuance of §37. Plaintiff in error admitted the charge, but alleged in defense that the laws were in contravention of § 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; also of the Constitution of New York.
At the trial he offered to show that the milk from which the sample exhibited in the case was taken was in the same condition when the sample was taken as it was when it left the herd of the producer. The testimony was rejected and plaintiff in error excepted. The court directed the jury to find a verdict against him for $100 and costs, which was done. He excepted to the ruling. Under the procedure in New York the court ordered the exceptions to be heard in the appellate division. In that court the exceptions were overruled, a motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment entered on the verdict. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment, and the record and proceedings were remanded to the supreme court, where judgment was entered in accordance with the remittitur from the court of appeals. This writ of error was then sued out.
The purpose of the law which is assailed is to prevent the sale of adulterated and unwholesome milk. Section 20 de-
Sec. 20. Definitions. . . .
The term 'adulterated milk,' when so used, means:
1. Milk containing more than 88 per centum of water or fluids.
2. Milk containing less than 12 per centum of milk solids.
3. Milk containing less than 3 per centum of fat.
4. Milk drawn from cows within fifteen days before and five days after parturition.
5. Milk drawn from animals fed on distillery waste or any substance in a state of fermentation or putrefaction, or any unhealthy food.
6. Milk drawn from cows kept in a crowed or unhealthy condition.
7. Milk from which any part of the cream has been removed.
8. Milk which has been diluted with water or any other fluid, or to which has been added or into which has been introduced any foreign substance whatever.
All adulterated milk shall be deeemed unclean, unhealthy, impure, and unwholesome.
Sec. 22. Prohibition of the sale of adulterated milk.—No person shall sell or exchange, or offer or expose for sale or exchange, any unclean, impure, unhealthy, adulterated, or unwholesome milk fines what milk shall be deemed adulterated, and it gives a very comprehensive meaning to the word. Section 22 prohibits the sale or offering for sale of such milk, or 'any unclean, impure, unhealthy, or unwholesome milk.' Section 7 makes intention immaterial. Section 37 provides for the forfeiture to the people of the state of New York of not less than $50 for the first violation of the law, and increased sums for second and subsequent violations, and also makes violations of the law misdemeanors. Section 12 is the one which is especially complained of. It was added to the original law in 1898, and is (omitting matter not necessary to quote) as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Lamar Life Ins. Co.
... 131 So. 282 158 Miss. 753 MILLER, STATE TAX COLLECTOR, v. LAMAR LIFE INS. CO. SAME v ... v ... La., 179 U.S. 89; St. John v. New York, 201 ... U.S. 633; Keeney Comptroller, 222 ... 705; Goldsmith v. Inc ... Co., 62 Ga. 379; People v. Fire Ass'n of ... Philadelphia, 92 N.Y. 331, 41 Am ... ...
-
Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins
... ... alike to all of the people of all of the states, including ... the people of the state enacting the ... deprive them of the equal protection of the law. St. John ... v. N. Y., 201 U.S. 633, 50 L.Ed. 896; U. S. v ... Kruikshanks, 92 ... 322, 53 L.Ed. 530; Fire ... Association of Philadelphia v. New York, 119 U.S. 110, ... 30 Law Ed. 342. A foreign corporation has no absolute ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
...188 U.S. 97, 23 S. Ct. 272, 47 L. Ed. 400; Tanner v. Little, 240 U.S. 369, 36 S. Ct. 379, 60 L. Ed. 691; St. John v. N.Y., 201 U.S. 633, 26 S. Ct. 554, 50 L. Ed. 896, 5 Ann. Cas. 909; Atchison, T. & S.F. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96, 19 S. Ct. 609, 43 L. Ed. 909; Patsone v. Penn., 232 U.S. ......
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
... ... the state racing commission, upon the assumed authority of ... , most obvious to the common understanding of the people ... who ratified the instrument, and that the ... 419, 51 L.Ed. 696, 10 Ann.Cas. 525; New York ... Life Ins. Co. v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U.S. 495, 34 ... 369, ... 36 S.Ct. 379, 60 L.Ed. 691; St. John v. N. Y., 201 ... U.S. 633, 26 S.Ct. 554, 50 L.Ed. 896, 5 ... ...