Arbuckle v. Blackburn
| Citation | 113 F. 616 |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1902 |
| Docket Number | 973. |
| Parties | ARBUCKLE et al. v. BLACKBURN, Dairy and Food Com'r of Ohio. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
John D Witt Warner and Clarence Brown, for appellants.
Walter F. Brown and E. B. Dillon, for appellee.
This case was brought by Arbuckle Bros. to restrain Joseph E Blackburn, dairy and food commissioner of Ohio from prosecuting the vendors of Ariosa, an article sold by the complainants to many dealers in Ohio, because of alleged violation of pure-food laws of the state. The substance of the bill and an amendment thereof is as follows:
The general assembly of the state of Ohio passed in the year 1884 an act entitled 'An act to provide against the adulteration of food and drugs' (81 Ohio Laws, p. 67) the substance of which is recited. For more than thirty years the complainants and their predecessors had been engaged, and still are engaged, in the manufacture and sale throughout the United States, including the state of Ohio, of a certain compound or mixture known as 'Ariosa,' composed of roasted coffee, compounded and mixed with eggs and sugar, packed in sealed packages, ready for use by the consumer. In order to preserve said product from deterioration, and to retain the original strength and aroma in the coffee, the complainant Arbuckle more than 30 years ago invented, and thereafter patented, adopted, and used, and complainants still use, a certain process whereby the compound or mixture known as 'Ariosa' was, and still is, mixed and compounded, and the separate beans thereof coated, and to a large extent hermetically sealed, after roasting, with a compound of sugar and eggs, at first in composition with a quantity of Irish moss, also a wholesome article of food, and for 20 years without such Irish moss. That said letters patent were issued in the year 1868, and, after the expiration of the said patent, trade therein was greatly increased, and still continues to increase, by reason of the increased sale and reputation of said Ariosa. That the good will of said business of making and vending said Ariosa has become, and now is, wholly dependent upon the reputation and sale of Ariosa, and the good will aforesaid. That for many years the complainants, at great expense, widely advertised the use of the aforesaid process, that the purchasers might be informed of the good qualities of coffee so mixed, compounded, and coated. That for many years prior to 1894 every package of Ariosa was labeled in conspicuous type in the words and figures following:
Coffee .......................................................... 99278
Eggs .......................................................... 00361
Sugar .......................................................... 00361
'Four pounds roasted coffee go as far as five pounds green, as coffee loses 20 per cent. in roasting.'
That being advised of the character of the preparation known as 'Ariosa,' and as a result of experience in the use thereof, great numbers of people have preferred and do prefer the use of Ariosa to other brands, mixtures, or compounds of coffee so treated, and the same is sold and purchased in large quantities throughout the United States, and has been so sold and purchased for more than 30 years last past. That the extent and profit of the complainants' business depends upon the good will thereof, and the confidence of consumers that, so long as the same is manufactured and sold by the complainants, it shall be identical in quality and composition with that which, under the same brand and appearance, consumers have theretofore purchased. Certain inferior compounds and mixtures are described and sold in competition with the said Ariosa; said compounds and mixtures being so treated as to conceal defects, or misrepresent the real condition thereof, so as to retain water which would otherwise be eliminated from the coffee in process of roasting, so treated as to increase the weight of roasted coffee, while decreasing its worth for use; mixed and compounded with unhealthful ingredients; none of which processes or methods are used by the complainants, but the process adopted by them is for the purpose of retaining of any injurious or noxious gases or flavors; settling the same when prepared for use. There is nothing in said process which conceals damage or inferiority in coffee, or makes it appear better or of greater value than it really is. On the contrary, the coffee used in said compound or mixture is of a good quality and undamaged. The articles of food used in the coating thereof are in themselves pure, wholesome, and healthful. Said coating is colorless and transparent. Said process was adopted and used, and still is used, at great expense, for the benefit of the consumer. Complainants have on hand at various points throughout the United States large stocks of the compound and mixture known as 'Ariosa,'-- in Ohio, about 1,000,000 pounds, more or less, of the value of $100,000; in the United States, 10,000,000 pounds, more or less, of the value of about $1,000,000. Complainants have a large number of agents in Ohio and elsewhere engaged in the sale of Ariosa, and a great number of dealers, to wit, more than 10,000, in Ohio, have in their possession large quantities of Ariosa for sale, and will continue to sell the same in preference to other brands of coffee not similarly prepared, to the profit of complainants, and the increase of their aforesaid business, and of the good will thereof.
The respondent herein, Joseph E. Blackburn, dairy and food commissioner as aforesaid, without authority of law, and falsely and erroneously construing the provisions of said statutes above set forth, notwithstanding the fact that the process used in the manufacture of the said compound or mixture know as 'Ariosa' is not in violation of the said statute, and that the said statute is not applicable to the premises, and that there is no law of the state of Ohio warranting his acts, and notwithstanding the healthful character of said Ariosa, and that the same is composed of healthful ingredients, each package plainly marked as aforesaid, personally and through his agents has heretofore, and does now, and will, unless restrained by the order of the court, continue to, widely advertise throughout the state that said process used in the manufacture of Ariosa is within the prohibition of, and in violation of, the aforesaid statute. Said Blackburn falsely claims and pretends that the sixth clause of said statute wholly forbids the glazing of the coffee used in the manufacture of Ariosa. Yet in fact said process does not conceal damage or inferiority, or make said coffee appear to be better or of greater value than it really is. That said coating is for the uses and purposes above set forth, and it is not used to affect or change the appearance of said coffee; any change in the appearance thereof due to said glazing being incidental and immaterial in the use thereof, and not such as to assimilate said coffee in appearance to other or better grades. Respondent has menaced and threatened with prosecution, and still menaces and threatens to prosecute, dealers in and vendors of Ariosa in the state of Ohio, for a violation of the aforesaid statute, and will, unless restrained by the order of the court, institute a large number of prosecutions upon the wrongful and erroneous charge that the treatment of said Ariosa by the process aforesaid is a violation of the statute aforesaid, and that the same is an adulterated food product, within the said statute. That by reason of the official capacity of the respondent, and the fact that he claims to act under said statute intended to prevent the adulteration of food products, said respondent's statements and threats of prosecution have led and do lead and will hereafter continue to lead dealers in and consumers of said Ariosa throughout the United States, and more particularly in Ohio, to doubt the healthful character and proper preparation of the same, and will deter wholesale and retail dealers and consumers from purchasing, vending, or using the same, greatly decreasing the repute and sale thereof, to the great and irreparable damage of complainants.
That on or about the 5th day of February, 1901, said respondent issued a certain circular to dealers and vendors of Ariosa within the state of Ohio, of which the following is a copy:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.
... ... the judges of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for ... the Sixth Circuit, delivered the opinion of that court in ... Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 F. 616, 51 C.C.A. 122, 65 ... L.R.A. 864, where he said: ... 'Upon ... this branch of the case the question is: May a ... ...
-
Wellston Kennel Club v. Castlen
... ... therewith. There may be serious question whether such ... allegations alone are sufficient to invoke equity ... jurisdiction ( Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 F. 616, ... 625, App. dism. 191 U.S. 405; Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co ... v. McElligott, 259 F. 525; Shuman v. Gilbert, ... ...
-
Slaughter v. Moore
...1 Tex. 764. The foregoing cases directly involve the rights of the State. See also, Union Trust Co. v. Stearns, 119 F. 790; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 F. 616; R. Comr's. v. P. & A. R. R. Co., 24 Fla. 417; Loder v. Baker, Arnold & Co., 39 N. J. L. 49. Where the suit is against an individual ......
-
Hebe Co. v. Calvert
...State v. Capital City Dairy Co., 62 Ohio St. 350, 57 N.E. 62, 57 L.R.A. 181; State v. Hutchinson, 56 Ohio St. 82, 46 N.E. 71; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 F. 616. C.C.A. 122, 65 L.R.A. 864 (C.C.A. 6). The construction thus given to such statutes by the state's highest judicial tribunal must b......