Goodwin v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 3983.,3983. |
| Citation | 2 F.2d 200 |
| Parties | GOODWIN et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
T. V. Maxedon, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellants.
Robert A. Kramer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Before DENISON and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges, and SATER, District Judge.
The Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the amendments of 1912 (Comp. St. § 8724) do not confer, and do not purport to confer, admiralty jurisdiction upon the United States District Courts, in proceedings to condemn property seized under the provisions of that act and amendments thereto. The provision that a libel shall be filed and the proceedings shall conform as near as may be to the proceedings in admiralty, relate only to procedure and not to jurisdiction. Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. U. S., 226 U. S. 172, 33 S. Ct. 50, 57 L. Ed. 174, and cases there cited.
This prosecution was based solely on the amendment of 1912 to section 8. The libel quoted from the label a long list of ailments for which the water was said to be beneficial, with "healing powers" and a "reliable remedy." It then denied that the water "is capable of producing the therapeutic effects claimed in the statements upon and in said cartons as hereinbefore set forth." This does not fail to state a case under the statute, and did not make the libel subject to demurrer or motion to quash. It would be sustained by proof of the false and fraudulent character of any one of the various claims recited. If defendant needed a better specification of the particulars upon which the government would rely, if it did not rely upon all the statements, a motion for a bill of particulars would doubtless have been granted, or an amendment of the libel permitted.
The record in this case does not present the question whether mineral spring water as it comes from the earth is or is not a drug, for the reason that the Crab Orchard concentrated mineral water is not transported and marketed in its original condition. While it appears that the constituent drug elements are not completely extracted therefrom, and transported and sold without the admixture of other elements, nevertheless the processes of separation are carried to such an extent that the water can no longer be used as a beverage, but only in small quantities or doses, as a medicine. For this reason Crab Orchard concentrated mineral water cannot be classified as "food," but, on the contrary,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles of the Ritz Dist. Corp. v. Federal Trade Com'n
...denied 317 U.S. 679, 63 S.Ct. 158, 87 L.Ed. 544; Neff v. Federal Trade Commission, 4 Cir., 117 F.2d 495, 496, 497; Goodwin v. United States, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 200, 201; Dr. W. B. Caldwell, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 111 F.2d 889, 891. Further, petitioner was not privileged, und......
-
Mitchell v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
...117 A.L.R. 760;Swinger v. Firman Equipment Co., 7 Cir., 94 F.2d 269;Grand Trunk W. R. Co. v. Heatlie, 6 Cir., 48 F.2d 759;Goodwin v. United States, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 200. In passing upon the proposition as to whether or not the lower court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed ver......
-
United States v. Nutrition Service, Inc.
...as a beverage but as a commercial water in small quantities, there is justification for classifying it as a drug. Goodwin v. United States (C.A. 6, 1924), 2 F.2d 200. The fact that the defendants have and are maintaining that Mucorhicin was and is a food and that they even registered with t......
-
Irwin v. Federal Trade Commission
...W. B. Caldwell, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, supra; Justin Haynes & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, supra; Cf. Goodwin v. United States, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 200, 201. As pointed out in Neff v. Federal Trade Commission, supra 117 F.2d "The actual question now presented is whether the testi......
-
§2.2 Adulteration and Misbranding Under 1906 Act
...label. The definition of "drug" as used in the statute was above dictionary or pharmacopoeia definitions; see also, Goodwin et al. v. U.S., 2 F.2d 200 (1924), separation of mineral water being performed to such extent that it can only be consumed in small quantities as a drug is a "drug."[6......
-
Table of Cases
...Country Dev. v. Cnty. of EL Dorado, 2:20-cv-01712-MCE-CKD, §12.3.2 Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), §12.1 Goodwin et al. v. U.S., 2 F.2d 200 (1924), §2.2 H Hager v. M&K Constr., 246 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2021), §12.3.2 Hall-Baker Grain Co., v. U.S., 198 F. 614, §2.2 Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S.......