Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. Gehlar

• Decision Date: 21 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. E-9443.,E-9443.
• Citation: 9 F. Supp. 341
• Parties: PACIFIC STATES BOX & BASKET CO. v. GEHLAR, State Director of Agriculture, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

9 F. Supp. 341

PACIFIC STATES BOX & BASKET CO. v. GEHLAR, State Director of Agriculture, et al.

No. E-9443.

District Court, D. Oregon.

December 21, 1934.

Arthur A. Goldsmith, of Portland, Or., and Hanna & Morton and Byron C. Hanna, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

I. H. Van Winkle, Atty. Gen., and Willis S. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

Before GARRECHT, Circuit Judge, and McNARY and FEE, District Judges.

McNARY, District Judge.

This is a suit to enjoin the defendants from enforcing orders of the department of agriculture of Oregon fixing standard containers for strawberries and raspberries, made in pursuance of sections 18-2902 and 18-2911 of the Oregon Code 1930. The orders provide that the standard containers for such fruits shall be:

"Raspberries

"Crate — 24-pint hallocks, 5 1/8 inches deep, 16 5/8 inches wide, and 23¼ inches long, all inside measurements. Center partition ¾ inches, ends and partition grooved for double deck. Size of hallock, 2×5¼×5¼ inches, outside measurements. Bottom set up ¾ inch, inside depth 1¼ inches.

"Strawberries

"Crate — 24-pint hallocks, 6 3/8 inches deep, 13¾ inches wide, and 19¼ inches long, all inside measurements. Half inch center piece. Size of hallocks 2½×4 3/8 ×4 3/8 inches outside measurements, bottom set up ¾ inch, inside depth 1¾ inches."

Plaintiff alleges that for many years past it has been engaged in the business of manufacturing in the state of California containers for strawberries and raspberries, made of two thin strips of wood crossing each other to form the bottom and bent upwards to form the sides, reinforced with a narrow metal strip to protect the baskets and the contents, and to insure uniformity of cubic measure. When constructed, the containers have an opening to insure ventilation, and a cubic content of one pint. That for the past nine years the plaintiff has sold its containers to dealers in the state of Oregon in large quantities, and they are in common use throughout the United States. That the type of containers mentioned in the orders must be made from spruce grown only in the Northwest, and cannot be manufactured by plaintiff without expensive change in its machinery. That the orders when enforced will prevent plaintiff from selling its containers in Oregon, although they have the same cubic content and provide the same or better protection for fruit than the standard containers. That there is no necessity for the orders based upon considerations of public health, or to prevent fraud or deception or other than legitimate use of the police power. That said orders were made and promulgated arbitrarily, capriciously, and without justification, and are void because they deprive plaintiff of its property without due process of law and without equal protection of the law, and that the orders are void because they interfere with and impose unlawful burdens on interstate commerce and the business of plaintiff, in violation of the Constitution of the United States (Amend. 14).

The matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction and defendant's motion to dismiss the bill of complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief demanded.

In Oregon large quantities of strawberries and raspberries are raised and sold in local and distant markets. Success of this industry is, not only vital to a large number of growers, but has an important bearing on the economic life of the state.

It is a matter of general knowledge that enforced standardization of containers is essential to the economic handling, shipping, and selling of horticultural products, for, among other reasons, it prevents fraud and deception in sales, provides the best method of stowage, and eliminates many sizes that complicate the problems of transportation.

Legislation designed to aid and promote the industry in the manner provided by the Oregon laws falls within the legitimate use of the police power of the state.

The issue tendered as to the necessity of such legislation, based upon considerations of public health or to prevent fraud or deception, was effectively answered by the Legislature in passing laws authorizing and empowering the department of agriculture to fix and promulgate standard containers, and making noncompliance therewith a misdemeanor, and its determination will not be interfered with by this court unless it plainly appears that the constitutional rights of plaintiff have been violated.

Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 33 S. Ct. 182, 184, 57 L. Ed. 364, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 284, involved the validity of an ordinance of the city of Chicago fixing weight standards for loaves of bread. The court said: "This court has frequently affirmed that the local authorities intrusted with the regulation of such matters, and not the courts, are primarily the judges of the necessities of local situations calling for such legislation, and the courts may only interfere with laws or ordinances passed in pursuance of the police power where they are so arbitrary as to be palpably and unmistakably in excess of any reasonable exercise of the authority conferred. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L....