Grocers Dairy Co. v. McIntyre

• Citation: 138 N.W.2d 767,377 Mich. 71
• Decision Date: 05 January 1966
• Docket Number: No. 16,16
• Parties: GROCERS DAIRY COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. S. McINTYRE, Director, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee. *
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 767

138 N.W.2d 767

377 Mich. 71

GROCERS DAIRY COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. S. McINTYRE, Director, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee. ^* No. 16.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 5, 1966.

Warner, Norcross & Judd, Grand Rapids (J. M. Neath, Jr., Grand Rapids, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Maurice M. Moule Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, for defendant-appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except ADAMS, J.

KAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

In October, 1963, plaintiff brought this action for a declaratory judgment to have P.A.1929, No. 169, section 1(q), as amended, which prohibited plaintiff from selling fluid milk in one-gallon containers, declared unconstitutional. Plaintiff's contention was that such prohibition (1) exceeded the purpose and title of the act, and (2) was an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable prohibition contrary to the Constitutions of the State of Michigan and the United States.

Defendant answered the complaint and alleged that the standards established by the Legislature in P.A.1961, No. 234, for the distribution of fluid milk, are within the police powers of the State and bear a reasonable relation to the public health and welfare. Defendant prayed that P.A.1929, No. 169, section 1(q), as amended by P.A.1961, No. 234,* be held constitutional.

Section 1(q) of P.A.1929, No. 169, as amended, limits the size of bottles used for the sale of milk to the following capacities only: 1/2 gallon; 1 quart; 1 pint; 10 ounces; and 1/2 pint. It provides that each bottle shall be plainly marked as to its capacity and shall contain the amount marked on the bottle.

P.A.1929, No. 169, as amended, prohibits the sale of milk in containers larger than 1/2 gallon but less than three gallons. Another section of the act allows the sale of milk in quantities of three or more gallons.

The trial court in a lengthy opinion held that the act as amended, and particularly section 1(q), was constitutional under both the Federal and State Constitutions and permanetly enjoined plaintiff from selling and distributing milk or cream in containers having a capacity other than those prescribed in said Act 169, as amended.

Plaintiff appeals raising the following questions:

(1) Is the prohibition of one-gallon containers void as contrary to Article 5, § 21 of the Michigan Constitution of 1908, which provides, 'No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title'?

(2) Is the absolute prohibition of the sale of milk in one-gallon containers contrary to the constitutional guarantees of due process of law under the State and Federal Constitutions?

The trial judge in his opinion relied on the principle 'that certain standards are necessary in the sale and distribution of milk products,' and the fact that 'counsel for the plaintiff in their brief state that they agree that there should be regulation of the materials from which milk containers are constructed in order to insure safe and healthful handling of this product.' The trial court further observed that both parties agreed 'that every package of milk should contain the quantity of milk that it purports to contain and that the Legislature may require the use of containers of standard and commonly used sizes or volumes in order to prevent both deliberate and inadvertent deception of the consumer.' The trial judge concluded he could not substitute his judgment for that of the Legislature, saying the court did not have the power to add the word 'gallon' to the provisions of section 1(q) setting forth the usable standards of measurements.

However, as appellant insists, the issue is not the wisdom or judgment displayed by the Legislature, but, rather, the reasonableness of the statutory regulation. The correct principles were expressed by this Court in Carolene Products Co. v Thomson, 276 Mich. 172, 178, 267 N.W. 608, 610:

'The Constitution guarantees to citizens the general right to engage in any business which does not harm the public. * * * The constitutional right to engage in business is subject to the sovereign police power of the state to preserve public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and prevent fraud. In the exercise of the police power, there must be not only a public welfare to be conserved or public wrong to be corrected, but there must be also a reasonable relation between the remedy adopted and the public purpose.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The test of legitimacy of the exercise of the police power is 'the existence of a real and substantial relationship between the exercise of those powers in a particular manner in a given case and public health, safety, morals or the general welfare.' Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroit v. Village of Orchard Lake, 333 Mich. 389, 392, 53 N.W.2d 308, 309.

The power of the Legislature to regulate the production and sale of milk is not in dispute, but the police power of regulation does not include the absolute prohibition of trade in useful and harmless articles of commerce. The principles involved are well settled. The Constitution guarantees to citizens the general right to engage in any business which does not harm the public. This constitutional right to engage in business is subject to the sovereign police power of the State to preserve public health, safety, morals and public welfare.

The primary determination of public need and character of remedy in the exercise of the police power is in the Legislature, and its statutes must be sustained unless the remedy is palpably unreasonable and arbitrary so as needlessly to invade property or personal rights as protected by the Constitution. Carolene Products Co. v. Thomson, supra.

The presumption of the constitutionality of a statute favors validity and, if the relation between the statute and the public welfare is debatable, the legislative judgment must be accepted. Kelly v. Judge of Recorder's Court of Detroit, 239 Mich. 204, 214 N.W. 316, 53 A.L.R. 273.

'Generally, it is for the legislature to determine what laws and regulations are needed to protect the public health and secure the public comfort and safety. If it passes an act ostensibly for the public health, and thereby destroys or takes away the property of the citizen or interferes with his...