Bradley v. United States, 3393.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Citation264 F. 79
Decision Date18 March 1920
PartiesBRADLEY v. UNITED STATES.
Docket Number3393.

264 F. 79

BRADLEY
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 3393.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 18, 1920


Frank J. Looney, J. M. Foster, and W. A. Wilkinson, all of Shreveport, La., for appellant.

Joseph Moore, U.S. Atty., of Shreveport, La. [264 F. 80]

Before WALKER, Circuit Judge, and GRUBB and CALL, District Judges.

CALL, District Judge.

Libel was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against 275 cases of mineral water, praying for confiscation and condemnation of same for having been shipped in interstate commerce in violation of the Food and Drugs Act (Comp. St. Secs. 8717-8728).

The libel, after alleging the shipment of the cases of mineral water in interstate commerce and the presence of the same within the jurisdiction of the court, alleges that the same were misbranded in the following respects:

'That the following statements regarding the therapeutic or curative effects thereof, appearing on the label aforesaid to wit: 'Robinson Springs Water. Springs at Pocahontas Miss. Recommended in the treatment of Bright's Disease Diabetes, Dropsy, Cystitis, Gout, Rheumatism, Indigestion, Kidney and Bladder troubles. Directions: * * * Robinson Springs and Sanitarium Co., Pocahontas, Miss.'-- were false and fraudulent, in that the same were applied to said articles knowingly and in a reckless and wanton disregard of their truth or falsity, so as to represent falsely and fraudulently to the purchaser thereof, and create in the minds of purchasers thereof, the impression and belief that it was in whole or in part composed of or contained ingredients or medical agents, effective, among other things, as a remedy for Bright's disease, diabetes, dropsy, cystitis, gout, rheumatism, indigestion, kidney and bladder troubles, when in truth and in fact said article was not in whole or in part composed of and did not contain ingredients, nor a combination of ingredients, capable of producing the therapeutic effects claimed on the labels, and therefore not effective as a treatment for said above-mentioned ailments.'

C. L. Bradley put in a claim to the water seized by the marshal, and excepted to the libel:

(1) That the label does not disclose that the waters contained in the bottles are misbranded, because the label does not claim that the waters contain any ingredients or substance for the cure of any human ailment.

(2) The label described in the libel does not pretend that the waters contain medical agents effective as a remedy for human disease.

(3) That the labels set out in the libel do not amount in law to a misbranding.

An answer was also filed admitting the shipment in interstate commerce, and the labels as set out in the libel, and were intended for sale as a mineral water recommended to be freely used in the treatment of certain diseases, and that the same were in the jurisdiction of the court, but denies that they were misbranded, or that the brand was false or fraudulent. The answer then proceeds to allege that before putting the waters upon sale he had the same thoroughly tested, and was advised by reputable physicians that the use of said waters was beneficial in the treatment of certain kidney troubles mentioned in the label; that the water was sold under a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Food for human consumption: Food labeling— Dietary supplements; effect on structure or function of body; types of statements, definition,
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 06, 2000
    • January 6, 2000
    ...158 F.2d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 1947); United States v. John J. Fulton Co., 33 F.2d 506, 507 (9th Cir. 1929); Bradley v. United States, 264 F. 79, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1920); United States v. Kasz Enterprises, Inc., 855 F. Supp. 534, 539, 543-44 (D.R.I. 1994), modified on other grounds, 862 F. Supp.......
  • US v. Kasz Enterprises, Inc., Civ. A. No. 93-0455 P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • June 15, 1994
    ...367, 370 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 976, 77 S.Ct. 1058, 1 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1957) (peppermint tea leaves); Bradley v. United States, 264 F. 79, 81-82 (5th Cir.1920) (mineral water); Nutrilab, Inc. v. Schweiker, 547 F.Supp. 880, 883 (N.D.Ill.1982) (kidney bean flour), aff'd, 713 F.2d 335......
  • Rutherford v. United States, No. CIV-75-0218-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • December 5, 1977
    ...their intended use when distributed in interstate commerce falls within the definition of § 321(g)(1). See e. g. Bradley v. United States, 264 F. 79 (5th Cir. 1920) (mineral water); United States v. "Vitasafe Formula M," 226 F.Supp. 266, 278 (D.N.J.1964) remanded on other grounds, 345 F.2d ......
  • United States v. 7 Jugs, etc., of Dr. Salsbury's Rakos, Civil Actions No. 125-127.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • January 31, 1944
    ...was for the jury to say in light of the ordinary meaning of the language used. Bradley v. 53 F. Supp. 760 United States, 5 Cir., 1920, 264 F. 79; Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1920, 267 F. 795; United States v. John J. Fulton Co., 9 Cir., 1929, 33 F.2d Claimant assigns as error the action ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • US v. Kasz Enterprises, Inc., Civ. A. No. 93-0455 P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • June 15, 1994
    ...367, 370 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 976, 77 S.Ct. 1058, 1 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1957) (peppermint tea leaves); Bradley v. United States, 264 F. 79, 81-82 (5th Cir.1920) (mineral water); Nutrilab, Inc. v. Schweiker, 547 F.Supp. 880, 883 (N.D.Ill.1982) (kidney bean flour), aff'd, 713 F.2d 335......
  • Rutherford v. United States, No. CIV-75-0218-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • December 5, 1977
    ...their intended use when distributed in interstate commerce falls within the definition of § 321(g)(1). See e. g. Bradley v. United States, 264 F. 79 (5th Cir. 1920) (mineral water); United States v. "Vitasafe Formula M," 226 F.Supp. 266, 278 (D.N.J.1964) remanded on other grounds, 345 F.2d ......
  • United States v. 7 Jugs, etc., of Dr. Salsbury's Rakos, Civil Actions No. 125-127.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • January 31, 1944
    ...was for the jury to say in light of the ordinary meaning of the language used. Bradley v. 53 F. Supp. 760 United States, 5 Cir., 1920, 264 F. 79; Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1920, 267 F. 795; United States v. John J. Fulton Co., 9 Cir., 1929, 33 F.2d Claimant assigns as error the action ......
  • United States v. Article... Consist. of 216 Carton. Bot., No. 367
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 8, 1969
    ...Cir. 1965) (honey held to be a drug because of claims that it was "a panacea for various diseases and ailments"); Bradley v. United States, 264 F. 79, 82 (5 Cir. 1920) (mineral water a drug where claims "that it possesses certain elements or ingredients which are curative, or at least allev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT