Houston v. St Louis Independent Packing Co
| Citation | 249 U.S. 479,39 S.Ct. 332,63 L.Ed. 717 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 264,264 |
| Parties | HOUSTON et al. v. ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING CO |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellants.
Mr. Alexander F. Reichmann, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
The Secretary of Agriculture, assuming to exercise authority under the Meat Inspection Act, approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 669, 676, 678, c. 3913), promulgated a regulation, effective April 1, 1913, in part as follows, viz.:
'Washington, D. C., Feb. 28, 1913.
'For the purpose of preventing the use in interstate or foreign commerce of meat or meat food products under any false or deceptive name, under the authority conferred on the Secretary of Agriculture by the provisions of the act of Congress, approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 674), regulation 18 is hereby amended by the addition of sections 15 and 16, to read as hereinafter set out.
'James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture.
Immediately after the effective date of this regulation the appellee, an extensive manufacturer of sausage correctly interpreting it as prohibiting the marking, stamping or labeling as 'sausage' any compound of chopped or minced meats containing cereal in excess of 2 per cent. and water or ice in excess of 3 per cent. (except as otherwise provided), filed the bill in this case in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, averring that 'sausage' made by it with cereal and water in excess of the requirements of the regulation was wholesome and fit for human food and that the effect of the order would be to exclude its product from interstate commerce, to its great and irreparable damage. The prayer was that the defendants, the Secretary of Agriculture and the officers subordinate to him, be enjoined from refusing to mark as 'Inspected and passed' all 'sausage' manufactured by the petitioner found to be sound, healthful, and wholesome, and which contained no dyes, chemicals, preservatives or ingredients which would render such 'sausage' unsound, unwholesome or unfit for human food; that they be required by mandatory injunction to mark such 'sausage' as 'Inspected and passed,' and that the regulation be declared to be unauthorized by law, null and void.
The District Court denied the application, on the bill, for an injunction (St. Louis Independent Packing Co. v. Houston, 204 Fed. 120), but on appeal that holding was reversed and the case was remanded by the Circuit Court of Appeals (St. Louis Independent Packing Co. v. Houston, 215 Fed. 553, 132 C. C. A. 65).
The Secretary of Agriculture then answered admitting that it was the purpose of the Department to refuse, and that it had refused, to mark as 'Inspected and passed' as 'sausage' the product of the appellee unless manufactured in compliance with the regulations complained of, and, as warrant therefor, he quoted in his answer from the act of Congress the following:
'No such meat or meat food products shall be sold or offered for sale by any person, firm, or corporation in interstate or foreign commerce under any false or deceptive name; but established trade-name or names which are usual to such products and which are not false and deceptive and which shall be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture are permitted, and that said Secretary of Agriculture shall, from time to time make such rules and regulations as are necessary for the effecient execution of the provisions of this act, and all inspections and examinations made under this act shall be such and made in such manner as described in the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture not inconsistent with the provisions of this act.'
Answering the allegation of the bill that the appellee's trade in 'sausage' would be ruined by the enforcement of the regulation, the Secretary of Agriculture averred that the appellee manufactured and sold large quantities of sausage which did not contain any cereal or added water, and added:
'That the manufacture and sale of a product as sausage which product contains added cereal and water in quantities as described in plaintiff's bill, or in any quantities in excess of the amount designated in said regulation, effective April 1, 1913, is false and deceptive; that the ordinary consumer of sausage manufactured by the plaintiff has no knowledge or information that sausage contains cereal and added water, that such information is not conveyed to persons who purchase plaintiff's sausage at retail by any method of marking or branding now or heretofore in use by plaintiff, and that it is impracticable and impossible in the ordinary course of manufacture and distribution of sausage to mark or brand the same so that the purchaser at retail or the consumer will be informed as to the amount of cereal and water added thereto.'
An elaborate trial on the merits resulted in the dismissal of the bill by the District Court (231 Fed. 779), but this judgment was reversed by a divided Circuit Court of Appeals (242 Fed. 337, 155 C. C. A. 113) and the case was remanded with directions to award the appellee injunctions substantially as prayed for. The case is here for review on appeal.
The claim made by the government in the lower courts that the compound of meats, cereal and water, which the appellee claimed the right to sell as 'sausage' was unwholesome is abandoned in this court and the only question argued and submitted is whether it was within the power of the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit the use of the word 'sausage' as false and deceptive, within the meaning of the act, when applied to the appellee's product.
The foregoing statement shows that the question for decision in this court is: Whether, in promulgating the regulation assailed, the Secretary of Agriculture acted arbitrarily and in excess of the authority given him by the act of Congress, to make, from time to time, such rules and regulations as are necessary for the efficient enforcement of the act, or whether he acted in good faith and upon substantial grounds in deciding that the sale of appellee's product as 'sausage' resulted in deception of purchasers and consumers, so that his determination of such question of fact was within the power conferred upon him as the head of an executive department of the government and is not subject to review by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co.
... ... Run Coal Co. v. B. & O. R, R. Co., 258 U.S. 377; ... St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Blumberg, 325 Ill. 387; ... Southern Pacific Co. v. City ... v ... U.S. 288 U.S. 294; Huston v. St. Louis Independent ... Packing Co., 249 U.S. 479; Federal Trade Commission v ... Pac ... ...
-
United States Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub Co v. Burleson
...the opinion that it is wrong. Smith v. Hitchcock, 226 U. S. 53, 60, 33 Sup. Ct. 6, 57 L. Ed. 119; Houston v. St. Louis, etc., Packing Co., 249 U. S. 479, 484, 39 Sup. Ct. 332, 63 L. Ed. 717, and cases In the answer of the Postmaster General there were quoted more than 50 excerpts from edito......
-
Switchmen Union of North America v. National Mediation Board
... ... v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 24 S.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894; Houston v. St. Louis Inde- ... Page 304 ... pendent Packing Co., 249 U.S ... ...
-
National Pork Producers Council v. Bergland
...that few consumers read all of the information on labels and many cannot read labels at all. Houston v. St. Louis Independent Pkg. Co., 249 U.S. 479, 487, 39 S.Ct. 332, 335, 63 L.Ed. 717 (1919). See also Federation of Homemakers v. Butz, 151 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 295, 466 F.2d 462, 466 (D.C.Cir......
-
THE APA AS A SUPER-STATUTE: DEEP COMPROMISE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NOTICE-AND-COMMENT RULEMAKING.
...v. Comm'r, 320 U.S. 489, 500-03 (1943); United States v. Reynolds, 250 U.S. 104, 109 (1919); Houston v. St. Louis Indep. Packing Co., 249 U.S. 479, 479-80, 484-86 (1919) (relying on Bales to defer to an agency interpretation rendered seven years after the statute was enacted); Boston & ......