Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, COFFEE-RIC

• Decision Date: 21 June 1965
• Docket Number: No. 266,No. 1,COFFEE-RIC,INC,266,1
• Citation: 135 N.W.2d 594,1 Mich.App. 225
• Parties: , a Delaware corporation, and Mildred L. Larck, d/b/a CPA Grill, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, George S. Mclntyre, Director of Michigan Department of Agriculture, and J. Lyle Littlefield, Chief of the Foods and Standards Division of said Department of Agriculture, Defendants-Appellants. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 594

135 N.W.2d 594

1 Mich.App. 225

COFFEE-RICH, INC., a Delaware corporation, and Mildred L Larck, d/b/a CPA Grill, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, George S. Mclntyre Director of Michigan Department of Agriculture, and J. Lyle Littlefield, Chief of the Foods and Standards Division of said Department of Agriculture, Defendants-Appellants.

Cal. No. 266.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

June 21, 1965.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Maurice M. Moule, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Franklin J. Rauner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Detroit, for defendants-appellants.

Dykema, Wheat, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before WATTS, P. J., and GILLIS and QUINN, JJ.

WATTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from the Wayne county circuit court. Plaintiffs-appellees prevailed in that court. Cause was heard by judge without jury.

Plaintiffs-appellees are a Delaware corporation doing business in Michigan and a restaurant owner who served its food product. Defendants-appellants are the Michigan Department of Agriculture and two of its officials. The issues were accurately stated at the trial level in trial court's pretrial statement:

'This is an action for a declaration of rights and to enjoin the enforcement by defendants of Public Act 235 of 1961 as applied to plaintiffs' product 'Coffee-Rich.' The ground of plaintiffs' petition is that the act in question does not apply to plaintiffs' product Coffee-Rich, because the product is not an imitation of cream, half and half or milk, and on the further ground that the statute does not apply to the plaintiffs' product because there is no intentional imitation or copying of cream, half and half or milk.

'The further ground for plaintiffs' petition is that if the statute be held to apply to plaintiffs' product, such application denies plaintiffs the due process of law and equal protection of the laws guaranteed to it by the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Michigan.'

The controlling language of the statute which was applied is found in Act No. 235, P.A. 1961, et seq. (Stat.Ann.Cum.Supp. § 12.619 -).

'(a) 'Imitation cream' means any substance, mixture or compound, excluding all dairy products but containing vegetable or animal fats or oils and other substances or compounds, which is made in imitation of cream, half and half or milk, and is used or mixed with coffee or other beverages, cereal, sauces, soups or other foods.'

The pivotal language, and that upon which the Wayne county circuit court based the decision is 'made in imitation of cream, half and half or milk'. Unless the product is found to be 'made in imitation of cream, half and half or milk' it does not come within the purview of the statute. The lower court found, from the testimony, the pleadings, and the exhibits, from tasting and comparing the product, that Coffee-Rich was an all-vegetable coffee whitener and was not made in imitation of cream, half and half or milk.

This Court, in order to overule that...