Weeks v. United States

Citation62 L.Ed. 513,245 U.S. 618,38 S.Ct. 219
Decision Date04 February 1918
Docket NumberNo. 109,109
PartiesWEEKS v. UNITED STATES
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Walter Jeffreys Carlin, of New York City, for petitioner.

Messrs. Solicitor General Davis and Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for the United States.

Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a prosecution under the Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, upon a charge of shipping an article of food in interstate commerce in circumstances making the shipment a violation of the act. The information contained two counts, both charging that the article was misbranded—one because it bore a false and misleading label, and the other because it was offered for sale as lemon oil when in truth it was an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass. In the District Court there was a conviction upon both counts, and the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction as to the first count and affirmed it as to the second. 224 Fed. 64, 139 C. C. A. 626. The judgment upon the latter is all that is brought here for review.

The defendant was engaged in making and selling various articles of food used by bakers, confectioners and ice cream makers, including the article with which this prosecution is concerned. On the occasion in question he shipped from one state to another a quantity of this article labeled 'Special Lemon. Lemon Terpene and Citral.' The printed record, although not purporting to contain all the evidence, shows that there was testimony tending to prove the following facts, among others: The shipment was made to fill an order solicited and taken by a traveling salesman in the defendant's employ. The salesman had been supplied by the defendant with a sample bottle of the article which was labeled simply 'Special Lemon.' In offering the article for sale and soliciting the order the salesman exhibited the sample and represented that the article was pure lemon oil obtained by a second pressing and that this pressing produced a good, if not the best, oil. In truth the article was not lemon oil, but an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral made from lemon grass. Some of the elements of lemon oil were present in other than the usual proportions and others were entirely wanting.

The testimony respecting the salesman's representations was admitted over the defendant's objection; and later the court denied a request on the part of the defendant that the jury be instructed that this testimony could not be considered, but only the statement appearing on the label when the article was shipped. In that connection the court told the jury that the defendant could not be held responsible criminally by reason of any representations made by the salesman unless it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt that the same were made by the defendant's authority.

The defendant, who is the petitioner here, complains of the admission and consideration of this testimony and insists that under the statute the question whether an article is misbranded turns entirely upon how it is labeled when it is shipped, regardless of any representations made by a salesman, or even the vendor, in offering it for sale.

The statute, in its second section (Comp. St. 1916, § 8718), makes it unlawful to ship or deliver for shipment from one state to another 'any article of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this act.' In its eighth section (section 8724) it declares:

'That the term 'misbranded,' as used herein, shall apply to all drugs, or articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of food, the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading in any particular, and to any food or drug product which is falsely branded as to the state, territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced.

'That for the purposes of this act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded:

'In the case of drugs:

* * *

'In the case of food:

'First. If it be an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Chassanoil v. City of Greenwood
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 6 Mayo 1933
    ... ... be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United ... States. Appellants' business is nothing more or less than ... a necessary part of and an ... Crenshaw ... v. Ark., 227 U.S. 389, 33 S.Ct. 294, 57 L.Ed. 565; ... Weeks v. U.S. 245 U.S. 618, 38 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed ... 513. The sale and delivery of coal f. o. b. cars ... ...
  • Martin v. First Nat. Bank of Hattiesbubg
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 6 Enero 1936
    ... ... 539; Peoples Trust Co. v. Merrill, 99 ... We ... submit that while in states having enabling statutes, it is ... held that husbands and wives can contract with each other for ... v. Forty-three gallons of whiskey, 93 ... U.S. 188, 23 L.Ed. 846 ... The ... United States Supreme Court has consistently held that the ... power to regulate interstate commerce may ... branded foods ( Hipolite Egg Co. v. U.S. 220 U.S. 45, ... 31 S.Ct. 364, 55 L.Ed. 364; Weeks v. U.S. 245 U.S ... 618, 38 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed. 513); of white slave traffic ... ( Hoke v. U.S ... ...
  • Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SECURITIES AND EXCH. COM'N
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 8 Noviembre 1937
    ...are unadulterated and properly labeled (Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Totten, 248 U.S. 1, 39 S.Ct. 3, 63 L.Ed. 97; Weeks v. United States, 245 U.S. 618, 38 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed. 513; McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115, 128, 33 S. Ct. 431, 57 L.Ed. 754, 47 L.R.A.(N.S.) 984, Ann.Cas.1915A, 39). T......
  • Philco Corporation v. Phillips Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 19 Enero 1943
    ...v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115, 128, 33 S.Ct. 431, 57 L.Ed. 754, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 984, Ann.Cas.1915A, 39, and Weeks v. United States, 245 U.S. 618, 622, 38 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed. 513 (labels on goods); Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U.S. 1, 10, 24 L.Ed. 708 (telegraph sy......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Judiciary: Interpreter of the Constitution or Policymaker?
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 09-1987, September 1987
    • Invalid date
    ...525 (1923). 14. 109 U.S. 3 (1883). 15. 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 16. 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 17. 338 U.S. 25 (1949). 18. 367 U.S. 643 (1961). 19. 245 U.S. 618 (1914). 20. 328 U.S. 549 (1946). 21. 369 U.S. 186 (1962). 22. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). 23. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT