Union Dairy Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | 2534. |
| Citation | 250 F. 231 |
| Parties | UNION DAIRY CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
L. W Holder, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
John E Dougherty, of Peoria, Ill., for the United States.
Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff in error contends that it was shipping the milk from a receiving station in Illinois to itself in Missouri, there to be treated, impurities removed, and the milk standardized that while in transit it was not an article of food such as was defined by the Food and Drug Act, and did not become such an article of food until after treatment. Were we to adopt this conclusion, it would do violence to the plain language of section 2 of the act under which prosecution is brought. The first sentence of section 2 reads:
'The introduction into any state or territory or the District of Columbia, from any other state or territory or the District of Columbia, or from any foreign country, or shipment to any foreign country of any article of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this act, is hereby prohibited.'
Section 6 of the act provides:
'The term 'food' as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals whether simple, mixed, or compound.'
Our conclusion is strengthened by another section of the act. Section 9 provides: 'No dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act, when he can establish a guarantee signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufacturer or other party, residing in the United States, from whom he purchased such articles, to the effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, designating it.'
In Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45, 31 Sup.Ct. 364, 55 L.Ed. 364, the court said:
In passing this act, Congress was endeavoring to protect the public by keeping out of commerce certain illicit articles debased by adulteration, and it would be an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. TWO BAGS, ETC.
...the food because of the interstate commerce shipment. United States v. 52 Drums Maple Syrup, 110 F.2d 914. See also Union Dairy Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 250 F. 231, 233. As was declared in United States v. Thirteen Crates of Frozen Eggs, 2 Cir., 215 F. 584, 585, the Food and Drugs Act ......
-
United States v. Allbrook Freezing & Cold Storage
...220 U.S. 45, 31 S.Ct. 364, 55 L.Ed. 364; In re United States, 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 19; Lee v. U. S., 10 Cir., 187 F.2d 1005; Union Dairy Co. v. U. S., 7 Cir., 250 F. 231; U. S. v. 40 Bbls. * * * Coca Cola, 6 Cir., 215 F. 535; U. S. v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 68 S.Ct. 331, 92 L.Ed. 297; U. S. v.......
-
United States v. OF Bayer & Co.
...it may have been rendered injurious to health; * * *." 4 United States v. 52 Drums Maple Syrup, 2 Cir., 110 F.2d 914; Union Dairy Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 250 F. 231; In re United States, 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 19. See also United States v. Two Bags, etc., 6 Cir., 147 F.2d 123, 127; United S......
-
Otis McAllister & Co., Inc. v. United States
...principle in U. S. v. 24 Cans* *Ladled Butter, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 365; U. S. v. 52 Drums Maple Syrup, 2 Cir., 110 F.2d 914; Union Dairy Co. v. U. S., 7 Cir., 250 F. 231; and on the precise point, green coffee, in United States v. O. F. Bayer & Co., 2 Cir., 188 F.2d The second has been decided......