Standard Computing Scale Co v. Farrell
| Decision Date | 05 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 228,228 |
| Citation | 249 U.S. 571,63 L.Ed. 780,39 S.Ct. 380 |
| Parties | STANDARD COMPUTING SCALE CO., Limited, v. FARRELL, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. H. C. Smyth, of New York City (Messrs. C. Scofield and Frederick W. Bisgood, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Messrs. Charles D. Newton, of Geneseo, N. Y., and Edward G. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., of Albany, N. Y., for appellee.
By the statutes of New York a sealer of weights and measures is appointed in every county and every city by the local authorities, with the duty, among other things, to keep safely the standards and to seal and mark such weights as correspond with the standards in his possession. The statutes provide also for a state superintendent of weights and measures with, among other things, a like duty to keep the state standards, and 'where not otherwise provided by law' to 'have a general supervision of the weights, measures and measuring and weighing devices of the state, and in use in the state.' General Business Law of New York (Consol. Laws, c. 20) §§ 11-15; Laws 1909, c. 25, amended by Laws 1910, c. 187. Under a specific appropriation he publishes and distributes 'bulletins of instruction and information to dealers, and weights and measures officials.' Laws 1914, c. 521, p. 2093. In the bulletin for August, 1914, there appeared, among other matter, the following item:
'Specifications.
'Automatic Computing Scales.
'All combination spring and lever computing scales must be equipped with a device which will automatically compensate for changes of temperature at zero balance and throughout the whole range of weight graduations.'
The Standard Company manufactures a combination spring and lever computing scale which was then being used and sold in New York. It is equipped with a compensating device which is not automatic. Because of these 'specifications,' some county and city sealers of weights neglected to seal scales of plaintiff's make and warned scale users to discontinue the use thereof. A state inspector, who was a subordinate of the state superintendent also marked some of these scales 'slow and faulty.' As a result, the Standard Company's business in New York was injured; sales diminished and collections for scales theretofore sold became difficult. The Standard Company contends that its scales with a mechanical compensating device are at least as trustworthy as those of its competitor with the automatic device; and it presented these views to State Superintendent Farrell, both before the 'specifications' were issued and thereafter. Failing to secure a withdrawal of the 'specifications' it brought, in February, 1915, this suit in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against the state superintendent, setting forth, in substance, the facts above stated and praying that the issuing of the 'specifications,' which it termed a 'rule,' be declared an invalid exercise of the police power of the state, and their enforcement enjoined on the ground that the rule violates the federal Constitution, in that it impairs the obligation of contracts, interferes with interstate commerce, abridges the privileges and immunities of a citizen, deprives the plaintiff of property without due process, and denies to it equal protection of the laws. An answer was filed, and upon full hearing on the evidence the bill was dismissed on the merits. 242 Fed. 87. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decree; but, at appellant's request, the mandate was later withdrawn, and the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because it appeared that the jurisdiction of the District Court had been invoked solely under section 24, par. 14, of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1092 [Comp. St. § 991(14)]), on the ground that the defendant's 'rule' was unconstitutional. Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318, 36 Sup. Ct. 293, 60 L. Ed. 658. Thereupon the case was brought here by direct appeal under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215).
No question is made as to the constitutionality of the statute creating the office of state superintendent and defining his duties. The attack is upon the 'specifications' in the bulletin which plaintiff assumes are a regulation; that is, a law. Its contention is that the so-called 'rule' is not a proper exercise of the police power, and is void, because it is arbitrary and unreasonable, because it unjustifiably discriminates against plaintiff's product, and because it interferes with interstate commerce. The claim that it impairs the obligation of contracts is not now insisted upon.
The 'specifications' were not published as a regulation purporting to prescribe a course of action to be enforced by the power of the state. They embody, as the evidence shows, the result of prolonged investigation and extensive experimentation, and formulate the conclusion reached by the state superintendent that every known automatic computing scale without an automatic compensating device is likely to mislead the customer who purchases at retail. In other words, the vice in this kind of scales was found by him to be generic, and, as the objection was not one due to a defect of an individual machine, it was deemed useless to make individual tests. The 'specifications' are a law only in the sense that every truth of general application may be spoken of as a law. If they may be termed a rule, it is only in the sense that they furnish a guide for the action of those interested; that is, the function of the 'specifications' is educational, and at most advisory.
The item was one appropriate for a bulletin 'of instruction and information to dealers and weights and measures officials.' That such was its purpose is shown also by the other items contained in the same issue of the bulletin. In the pages preceding the 'specifications' here in question was one item giving elementary information as to how prosecutions for violation of the General Business Law may be conducted, and two recent opinions of the Attorney General of New York addressed to the state superintendent. The first concerned the power of local magistrates to punish for violation of that law; the other the right to mark containers in terms of the metric system. Following the 'specifications' in question are two more opinions of the Attorney-General and the opinion of a Municipal Court. The last item of the bulletin is entitled 'Specifications—Measuring Pumps,' and conveys useful information concerning automatic measuring devices. The information given in the 'specifications'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...delegated legislative authority, like an ordinance of a municipality or an order of a commission.' Standard Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U. S. 571, 577, 39 S. Ct. 380, 382 (63 L. Ed. 780). The jurisdictional provision we are considering is designed to be in aid of such protection. It proceeds ......
-
Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath
...Village, Cal., 333 U.S. 426, 68 S.Ct. 641, 92 L.Ed. 784. Lack of finality also explains the decision in Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780. There the Court was faced by an advisory 'specification' of characteristics desirable in ordinary measur......
-
Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co.
... ... 517; see also R. R. Co. v ... Minn., 134 U.S. 418; Standard Company v ... Farrell, 249 U.S. 571; Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, ... the scale attempted by the defendant company. The project of ... the company seems ... ...
-
Bantam Books, Inc v. Sullivan, 118
...that the scheme of informal censorship here constitutes state action is in no way inconsistent with Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780. In that case it was held that a bulletin of specifications issued by the State Superintendent of Weights and......