United States v. " CAL'S TUPELO BLOSSOM US FANCY PURE HONEY"
| Decision Date | 22 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 15845.,15845. |
| Citation | 344 F.2d 288 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Libelant-Appellee, v. Articles of drug in the following locations and consisting of: Detroit, 1454 Broadway — 250 JARS and/or tins variously labeled in part: "CAL'S TUPELO BLOSSOM U.S. FANCY PURE HONEY" . . . Cal T. Albritton, Tallahassee, Fla. Net Wt. 1 Lb. . . . etc., and Detroit Vital Foods, Inc., Claimant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Solomon Friend, New York City, for appellant, Bass & Friend, New York City, on the brief.
Paul D. Borman, Detroit, Mich., for appellee, Herbert J. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Milton J. Trumbauer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on the brief, William W. Goodrich, Asst. Gen. Counsel for Food and Drugs, Joanne S. Sisk, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, WEINMAN, District Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
The United States brought a libel proceeding for the condemnation, under Section 304(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended, Title 21, U.S.C.A. § 334(a) of a quantity of allegedly misbranded honey, sold by claimant-appellant at one of its stores located in Detroit, Michigan.
Upon stipulated facts, and after argument, the District Court entered an order of condemnation for misbranding of the honey, from which claimant appeals.
It appears that the honey which was condemned was displayed on shelves in appellant's retail store, on top of which were placed copies of a booklet, "About Honey," which were sold to any customer desiring to purchase them. On the store premises, when the honey was seized, were seventy-one copies of a newspaper-type mailing piece, containing an article "Eat Honey and Increase Your Vitality." The booklet and the newspaper leaflet were shown to a drug inspector, acting as a prospective customer, in response to his request for information about honey. The information contained in the foregoing publicity material was also mailed to prospective customers in order to promote the sale of the honey.
Appellant contends that the booklet, "About Honey," by an independent author, which was on sale in the Book Department of its retail store, and the newspaper leaflets located in a back room of the store, did not constitute misbranding; and that the inferences from the evidence relied upon by the District Court were negated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Vital Health Products, Ltd.
...under health claims. See e.g., United States v. 250 Jars, etc., of U.S. Fancy Pure Honey, 218 F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Mich.1963), aff'd 344 F.2d 288 (6th Cir.1965); United States v. 46 Cartons, etc., 113 F.Supp. 336 5 In other words, the quantum of approval for a new drug is the same whether or no......
-
U.S. v. Hanafy
...time immemorial," as a result of which the court concluded the honey "was intended to be used in the capacity of a drug"), aff'd, 344 F.2d 288 (6th Cir.1965); United States v. 8 Cartons, Containing "Plantation `The Original,' etc., Molasses," 103 F.Supp. 626, 627 (W.D.N.Y.1951) (a book, "Lo......
-
US v. Kasz Enterprises, Inc.
...lifts" and "surgery" was a drug); United States v. 250 Jars ... U.S. Fancy Pure Honey, 218 F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Mich.1963), aff'd, 344 F.2d 288 (6th Cir.1965) (finding product claimed effective for "increasing your vitality," was intended to affect a function of the body and was therefore a The......
-
U.S. v. LeBeau
...under health claims. See e.g., United States v. 250 Jars, etc., of U.S. Fancy Pure Honey, 218 F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Mich.), aff'd 344 F.2d 288 (6th Cir.1963); United States v. 46 Cartons, etc., 113 F.Supp. 336 (D.C.N.J.1953).5 In other words, the quantum of approval for a new drug is the same wh......