Federal Trade Commission v. Charles N. Miller Co., 3313.

Decision Date10 June 1938
Docket NumberNo. 3313.,3313.
Citation97 F.2d 563
PartiesFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. CHARLES N. MILLER CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Martin A. Morrison, Asst. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, of Washington, D. C. (W. T. Kelley, Chief Counsel, and Henry C. Lank, P. C. Kolinski, and James W. Nichol, Sp. Attys., Federal Trade Commission, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for Federal Trade Commission.

Joseph B. Jacobs, of Boston, Mass. (Harold W. Knowlton, Harold Singer, and Jacobs & Jacobs, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for respondent.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an application for the enforcement of an order of the Federal Trade Commission of November 14, 1936, modifying its original order of August 4, 1936. The portions of the original order, so far as here material, are the two paragraphs in which the respondent was ordered to cease and desist from.

"(1) Selling and distributing to jobbers and wholesale dealers for resale to retail dealers, or to retail dealers direct, candy so packed and assembled that the sales of such candy to the general public are to be made or are designed to be made by means of a lottery, gaming device, or gift enterprise;

"(2) Supplying to or placing in the hands of wholesale dealers and jobbers or retail dealers packages or assortments of candy which are used or are designed to be used, without alteration or rearrangement of the contents of such packages or assortments, to conduct a lottery, gaming device, or gift enterprise in the sale or distribution of the candy or candy products contained in said assortment to the public;"

In the modified order they read as follows:

"(1) Selling and distributing to jobbers and wholesale dealers for resale to retail dealers, or to retail dealers direct, candy so packed and assembled that sales of such candy to the general public are to be made or may be made by means of a lottery, gaming device, or gift enterprise;

"(2) Supplying to or placing in the hands of wholesale dealers and jobbers or retail dealers packages or assortments of candy which are used or may be used, without alteration or rearrangement of the contents of such packages or assortments, to conduct a lottery, gaming device, or gift enterprise in the sale or distribution of the candy or candy products contained in said assortment to the public;"

The respondent objects to the modified order on the ground that it renders the company subject to being held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Fisher, 52744
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1981
    ...cert. denied, 424 U.S. 943, 96 S.Ct. 1411, 47 L.Ed.2d 349 (interpreted as 'reasonable possibility'); Federal Trade Commission v. Charles N. Miller Co., 97 F.2d 563 (1st Cir. 1938) (construed as 'are designed to'), and contracts; Greyhound Corp. v. Excess Insurance Co., supra (construed as '......
  • Helen Ardelle, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 8842.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 14, 1939
    ...Ziegler Co., 7 Cir., 90 F.2d 1007; Federal Trade Commission v. Barager-Webster Co., 7 Cir., 95 F.2d 1000; Federal Trade Commission v. Charles N. Miller Co., 1 Cir., 97 F.2d 563; Federal Trade Commission v. American Candy Co., 7 Cir., 97 F.2d That petitioners are using this method, and using......
  • People v. Hoehl
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1977
    ...cert. denied, 424 U.S. 943, 96 S.Ct. 1411, 47 L.Ed.2d 349 (interpreted as " reasonable possibility"); Federal Trade Commission v. Charles N. Miller Co., 97 F.2d 563 (1st Cir. 1938) (construed as "are designed to"), and contracts. Greyhound Corp. v. Excess Insurance Co., supra (construed as ......
  • Ostler Candy Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 7, 1939
    ...Commission, 7 Cir., 82 F.2d 647; Federal Trade Commission v. F. A. Martoccio Company, 8 Cir., 87 F.2d 561; Federal Trade Commission v. Charles N. Miller Co., 1 Cir., 97 F.2d 563; Helen Ardelle, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 Cir., 101 F.2d 718; Bunte Bros. v. Federal Trade Commission, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Deceptive and Unfair Practices
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume I
    • February 2, 2016
    ...1001 (7th Cir. 1938) (enforcing order prohibiting facilitating use of chance in sales of candy as unfair); FTC v. Charles N. Miller Co., 97 F.2d 563 (1st Cir. 1938) (narrowing cease and desist order prohibiting use of chance to sell candy); Chic. Silk Co. v. FTC, 90 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1937)......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...Inc., 2004 WL 5149998 (FTC 2004), 119 FTC v. Career Assistance Planning, 1996 WL 929696 (N.D. Ga. 1996), 452 FTC v. Charles N. Miller Co., 97 F.2d 563 (1st Cir. 1938), 105 FTC v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 665 F.3d 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2011), 618 FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374 (1965)......

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