A-Loaf Baking Co. v. Pace
Citation | 19 S.W.2d 459 |
Decision Date | 19 June 1929 |
Docket Number | (No. 3287.) |
Parties | A-LOAF BAKING CO. v. PACE, Mayor, et al. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Hutchinson County; Newton P. Willis, Judge.
Action by the A-Loaf Baking Company against Glenn A. Pace, Mayor, and others. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Shannon, Ochsner & Pheiffer, of Amarillo, for appellant.
Ove E. Overson and G. C. Harney, both of Borger, for appellees.
This suit was instituted in the district court of Hutchinson county, Tex by the plaintiff, A-Loaf Baking Company, a Texas corporation, to enjoin the defendants, the city of Borger and its officers, from enforcing or attempting to enforce an ordinance, and especially article 2 thereof, enacted by said city to regulate the manufacture and sale of bread, rolls, cakes and other bakery products within the city of Borger.
Plaintiff, on May 9, 1929, presented its petition to the judge of the district court, in chambers, and obtained against the defendants a temporary injunction which provided for a hearing on May 13, 1929. On that date the defendants all answered, and, after a hearing, the temporary injunction was, by judgment of the court, abated, dissolved, and held for naught, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The ordinance, the validity of which is attacked as a basis for the injunctive relief sought, so far as material to a disposition of this appeal, reads as follows:
Plaintiff attacks the validity of said ordinance, and especially section 2 thereof, because: First, the provisions thereof are unreasonable and unnecessary; second, they are discriminatory, prohibitory, onerous, unjust, and unfair; third, they deny to plaintiff the equal protection of the law; fourth, they are in restraint of trade, and tend to create a monopoly in favor of the bakers residing in the city of Borger; fifth, that the methods prescribed by the ordinance for the inspection of bread have no logical relation to the end to be accomplished; sixth, that it provides a different penalty for its violation than the penalty provided by the statutes of the state of Texas; seventh, that by the provisions of such ordinance, the defendants were preventing plaintiff from selling and distributing bread and other bakery products within the city of Borger, and preventing it from carrying out its lawful contracts and obligations within said city, and destroying its business therein.
The defendants answered jointly, pleading a general demurrer, special exceptions, general denial, and alleged that said ordinance was a valid exercise of the police powers of the city of Borger, duly incorporated as a municipality of the state of Texas; that the individual defendants were only discharging their duty in enforcing and attempting to enforce said ordinance, and that said ordinance was enacted solely and only for the purpose of protecting the health of the citizens of the city of Borger.
Title 12, chapter 2 (arts. 706-719), of the Penal Code 1925 of the state, defines "adulterated" and "misbranded" foods, and prescribes the punishment for any person, firm, or corporation that manufactures, sells, or offers for sale, any food in violation of the provisions of such chapter. Said chapter also provides that bakery buildings for the preparation and production of bakery products and for the storage or display thereof for human consumption shall be clean, properly lighted, drained, and ventilated, and provides in detail how this shall be accomplished. It also provides for the ingredients that shall be placed in bakery products and the different weights permissible for a loaf of bread.
Section 6 of article 1015, Rev. St. 1925, authorizes cities to regulate the weight and quality of the bread to be sold or used within the city.
The charter of the city of Borger empowers the city to inspect bakeries and to regulate and inspect the character and standard of articles of food and drink sold or offered for sale in the city, and to establish all proper and reasonable regulations for the health and sanitation of the city and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant v. Leavell
...... articles of commerce, such as milk, is only that they must be. reasonable to be valid. A-Loaf Baking Co. v. Pace (Tex. Civ. App.) 19 S.W.2d 459; City of Des Moines v. Fowler (Iowa) 255 N.W. ......
-
City of Abilene v. Tennessee Dairies
...connection, see 36 C.J.S., Food, § 9, page 1063; 43 C.J. 363; Grant v. Leavell, 259 Ky. 267, 82 S.W.2d 283, 285; A-Loaf Baking Co. v. Pace, Tex.Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 459, 461; Prescott v. City of Borger, Tex.Civ.App., 158 S.W.2d 578, 582, writ We approve the finding of the court to the effect......