Fieldcrest Dairies v. City of Chicago, 316.

• Decision Date: 18 October 1940
• Docket Number: No. 316.,316.
• Citation: Fieldcrest Dairies v. City of Chicago, 35 F.Supp. 451 (N.D. Ill. 1940)
• Parties: FIELDCREST DAIRIES, Inc., v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

35 F. Supp. 451

FIELDCREST DAIRIES, Inc., v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.

No. 316.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

October 18, 1940.

Gariepy & Gariepy, of Chicago, Ill. (Frederick A. Gariepy and Victor P. Frank, both of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Barnet Hodes, Corp. Counsel of City of Chicago, and Walter V. Schaefer and Charles P. Horan, Asst. Corp. Counsel, all of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

WOODWARD, District Judge.

The argument of the exceptions to the master's report has taken a wide range. But this lawsuit, like many other lawsuits, resolves itself into very simple elements.

The great preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that the milk containers of the plaintiff — referred to as single service containers — contain no new or unusual health hazard. The evidence shows that they are safe and sanitary containers in which milk may be delivered. The uncontradicted evidence shows also that containers and receptacles less meritorious in structure and design from those of plaintiff are in daily use in the City of Chicago for the sale of milk, chocolate milk, ice cream, and other liquids by drug stores, hotels, restaurants and soda fountains. Paper containers are also in common use for cheese, cottage cheese, butter, meat, fruit, foods, drinks and other edibles. The dispensing of such articles — including milk and milk products — in paper containers is not, as shown by the evidence, deemed to create any hazard to the public health. Moreover, in the cities and villages where similar containers have been used over a substantial period, no epidemic, disease or any public health hazard has been created or suspected as being traced to the use of paper containers. In fact, so far as the evidence shows, no individual instance of serious disease or minor ailment has been traced to the use of paper containers. The results of practical experience are more persuasive than the opposing theories of experts.

The court finds that the single service containers of the plaintiff, offered and admitted in evidence in this case, conform with the sanitary and health requirements of the city ordinances of the City of Chicago.

The Chicago city ordinance provides that milk and milk products, when sold in quantities of less than one gallon, shall be delivered in "standard milk bottles."

The court has no difficulty in holding that plaintiff's single service container offered and admitted in evidence in this case is a "milk bottle" within the meaning of the ordinance. The definition of the word "bottle" given by practically all lexicographers, as well as the meaning of the word as used in common speech, shows that the word has no limited and restricted meaning. It is a word of broad and extensive connotation. Webster's New International Dictionary states, among other things, that the word "bottle is now so loosely used that its limit of application is not well-defined."

There is no requirement either in common speech, or by the dictionary definitions, that a bottle should be made of glass. Historically, in ancient times and in our times in certain parts of Southern Europe, as we are told by the Encyclopedia Brittanica, bottles made of skins were and are now used for containing and transporting liquids. While, in modern times, bottles have usually been made of glass, yet of the material out of which bottles have been made may be mentioned, besides glass and skins, hard stone, wood, ivory, bone, porcelain, glazed pottery and common earthenware. In fact, a bottle is not characterized by the material out of which it is made. Whether made of skins or glass or other hard substance a bottle must have certain characteristics. It must be an open mouthed vessel; it must have a neck with an aperture which may be closed with a plug, string or a stopper; and it must be capable of containing liquids. The master has described plaintiff's single service container as follows: "Plaintiff's container is a prismatic box about 6½ inches high and 4½ inches wide, with a gable top, made of paper and paraffined on the...