Joseph Triner Corporation v. Arundel

Decision Date29 June 1935
Docket Number2839.,No. 2836,2836
PartiesJOSEPH TRINER CORPORATION v. ARUNDEL et al. FRANK McCORMICK, Inc., v. SAME.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Bradford, Cummins & Cummins, of St. Paul, Minn., for Joseph Triner Corporation.

Thomas Gallagher, of Minneapolis, Minn., for Frank McCormick, Inc.

Harry H. Peterson, Atty. Gen., Frederic A. Pike, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Roy C. Frank, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the defendants.

Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and NORDBYE and JOYCE, District Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

Since the suits were brought to enjoin the enforcement of a state statute, the hearing was before a court consisting of three judges, as required by law.

The facts are not in dispute, and we find them to be, in substance, as follows:

Joseph Triner Corporation is and has been a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois. Its business is that of manufacturing and rectifying alcoholic liquors in its manufacturing plant at Chicago, Ill. It has complied with the statutes of the state of Minnesota relative to foreign corporations doing business within that state, and it owns and operates therein its business as a wholesaler of intoxicating liquors to retailers within the state of Minnesota. On February 19, 1934, it was licensed by the defendant David R. Arundel, as Liquor Control Commissioner of the state of Minnesota, to sell its liquors at wholesale in said state. Pursuant to its license, it registered forty brands of liquor with said defendant, and since that time has been engaged in the sale of such brands in Minnesota. It has built up an extensive trade in the various brands so listed. Its gross sales have approximated $90,000, and it has realized a profit of about $1,200 per month. It has spent approximately $10,000 in advertising its products and in establishing a demand therefor. All of the liquors manufactured by it in Illinois and sold by it in Minnesota have contained more than 25 per cent. of alcohol by volume, and were finished products when imported into the state of Minnesota. In addition to complying with the laws of Minnesota with respect to the sale of intoxicating liquors in that state, as such laws existed prior to April 30, 1935, the Joseph Triner Corporation complied with the laws of the United States relative to the manufacture and sale of such liquors. The Legislature of Minnesota enacted chapter 390, Laws of 1935, entitled, "An Act to regulate the Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Containing More Than 25 Per Cent of Alcohol by Volume." Section 1 of that act provides: "No licensed manufacturer or wholesaler shall import any brand or brands of intoxicating liquors containing more than 25 per cent of alcohol by volume ready for sale without further processing unless such brand or brands shall be duly registered in the patent office of the United States."

This act became effective April 30, 1935. The brands of the Joseph Triner Corporation were not registered in the Patent Office. After chapter 390 became effective, the defendant Arundel served notice upon the Joseph Triner Corporation that it could no longer import any of its brands of liquor into the state of Minnesota unless and until said brands were registered in the United States Patent Office. A number of months will have elapsed before such brands can be registered. Some of them are of such a nature as not to be subject to registration.

Frank McCormick, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation, the holder of a manufacturer's license issued to it by the defendant Arundel on January 20, 1935. It is engaged solely as a wholesaler of intoxicating liquors to retail dealers within the state of Minnesota. It has established a valuable business in which it has invested a large sum of money. It has imported large quantities of intoxicating liquor containing more than 25 per cent. of alcohol by volume, and bearing brand names which are not registered in the United States Patent Office, and which liquor, if chapter 390 is valid, can no longer be imported into the state. Prior to the effective date of chapter 390, Frank McCormick, Inc., contracted with foreign manufacturers for the purchase of liquors, the importation of which is now prohibited by that act.

The contentions of the plaintiffs are that chapter 390 violates the commerce clause (section 8 of article 1) and the equal protection clause (section 1 of Amendment article XIV) of the Constitution of the United States.

The contention of the defendants is that chapter 390 represents a proper exercise of its police power by the state and is in no respect violative of the Constitution of the United States. They also contend that, since the adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, neither the commerce clause nor the equal protection clause applies to intoxicating liquor, and that the power to control the manufacture, importation, and use of such liquor was, without any restrictions, conferred upon the states by virtue of the provision of the Twenty-first Amendment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1971
    ...47 F.Supp. 160, 162, reversed 10 Cir., 144 F.2d 824, reversed 324 U.S. 293, 65 S.Ct. 661, 89 L.Ed. 951; Joseph Triner Corporation v. Arundel (D.Minn.1935) 11 F.Supp. 145, 146--147.) The language of the amendment clearly reflects the purpose, since it prohibits the importation or transportin......
  • Granholm v. Heald
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 16, 2005
    ...(SD Cal. 1935) (per curiam), rev'd, 299 U.S. 59 (1936); Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Martin, supra, at 39; Joseph Triner Corp. v. Arundel, 11 F. Supp. 145, 146-147 (Minn. 1935); Friedman, 21 Cornell L. Q., at 511-512; Note, Recent Cases, Twenty-first Amendment—Commerce Clause, 85 U. Pa. L......
  • Dunn v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • June 24, 1938
    ...is a reasonable regulation of the liquor traffic." (Italics supplied.) * * * In Joseph Triner Corporation v. Arundel et al., Frank McCormick, Inc., v. Arundel, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 145; Joseph Triner Corporation v. Mahoney, D.C., 20 F.Supp. 1019; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corporation, 58 S.Ct. 9......
  • Dugan v. Bridges
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • October 6, 1936
    ...act. We have examined such cases decided by lower courts as have been called to our attention. The case of Joseph Triner Corp. v. Arundel (D.C.) 11 F.Supp. 145, a three-judge court, held invalid, as being in violation of the equal protection clause, a statute of Minnesota which prohibited t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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