Marion Savage v. William Jones
Decision Date | 07 June 1912 |
Docket Number | No. 68,68 |
Citation | 225 U.S. 501,32 S.Ct. 715,56 L.Ed. 1182 |
Parties | MARION W. SAVAGE, Appt., v. WILLIAM J. JONES, Jr., State Chemist of the State of Indiana |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 501-503 intentionally omitted] This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court, sustaining a demurrer to the bill for want of equity. The suit was brought by Marion W. Savage, a citizen of Minnesota, to restrain the defendant, the state chemist of Indiana, from taking proceedings to enforce an act of the general assembly of that state (Acts 1907, chapter 206) as applied to the sales of the complainant's product, a preparation for domestic animals known as 'International Stock Food.' The act is set forth in the margin.1
1 Acts 1907, Chapter 206, Page 354, Indiana.
An Act to Provide for the Inspection and Analysis of, and to Regulate the Sale of, Concentrated Commercial Feeding Stuff in the State of Indiana; to Prohibit the Sale of Fraudulent or Adulterated Concentrated Commercial Feeding Stuffs; to Define the Term 'Concentrated Commercial Feeding Stuffs;' to Provide for Guaranties of the Ingredients of Concentrated Commercial Feeding Stuffs; for the Affixing of Labels and Stamps to the Packages Thereof, as Evidence of the Guaranty and Inspection Thereof; to Provide for the Collection of an Inspection Fee from the The bill alleges that the complainant has for many years been engaged in Minnesota in the manufacture of medic- inal preparations, one of which is called 'International Stock Food,' and is sold in every state in the Union as well as in many foreign countries; that he has invested large amounts of money in building up a lucrative trade in Indiana among the retail druggists, many hundreds of whom were 'buying, carrying in stock, and retailing to the public' the complainant's preparations; that the complainant's gross annual sales in Indiana amount to many thousands of dollars; that the 'International Stock Food' possesses effective curative properties for various diseases of domestic animals, and is composed of medicinal roots, herbs, seeds, and barks, combined by a secret formula of great value; and that the disclosure to his competitors of the proportion of the ingredients and the manner of combination would seriously injure his business; that the commercial designation 'International Stock Food' is not used by the complainant as descriptive of feed of any kind, and is not so understood by retail druggists and purchasers, but is well known to the public as a trade name of a medicine for domestic animals, protected under trade- marks in the United States; that on investigations made by the United States Internal Revenue Department it was determined that the preparation was not feeding stuff nor a condimental stock food, but was a proprietary or patent medicine within the meaning of the revenue laws of 1863 and 1898; and that subsequent to the enactment by Congress of the food and drugs act of 1906 [ ], the administrative officers of the United States government duly determined that it was a medicine, and not a food, within the meaning of that act.
The bill then avers the passage of the act above mentioned by the legislature of Indiana, and sets forth the provisions of §§ 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11. It is alleged that the defendant, the state chemist of Indiana, is asserting that the complainant's manufacture is one of the concentrated commercial feeding stuffs covered by the act, and that it is the duty of the complainant to comply with its provisions with reference to its sale in Indiana, 'and has stated and declared to your orator, and now threatens, that unless your orator has attached in a conspicuous place on the outside of each package of your orator's said medicinal preparation offered for sale within the state of Indiana, a printed statement, clear and truthful, certifying, among other things, the name of the manufacturer and shipper, the place of manufacture, the place of business, and chemical analysis, stating the percentage of crude protein, crude fat, and crude fiber contained in said preparation, and have all its constituents determined by the methods adopted by the session of official agricultural chemists, and shall also state upon said package the names of each ingredient of which said preparation is composed, he will cause the arrest and prosecution of every person dealing or trading in the medicinal preparation of your orator within the state of Indiana.' That the defendant has sent, or caused to be sent, broadcast throughout the state of Indiana to dealers and others who are customers, directly or indirectly, of complainant, many thousand circular letters warning them against the sale of said preparation, and threatening that prosecution will be instituted against all persons engaged in the sale thereof, unless and until the complainant shall have complied with the provisions of said act.
It is also alleged that the sales made by the complainant 'in the state of Indiana are made at the city of Minneapolis, state of Minnesota, to be delivered free on board of cars at Minneapolis, Minnesota, and delivered to purchasers and consumers within the state of Indiana in the original unbroken packages, freight being paid thereon by the consumers and purchasers.' That unless restrained the defendant will continue to annoy and intimidate the numerous persons engaged in selling the preparation in Indiana, by threats of criminal prosecution, and will report to the various prosecuting attorneys of the state the sales that may come to his notice, and instigate prosecutions of the sellers as violators of the statute, thereby obstructing the complainant in the conduct of his business in the state of Indiana, and interfering with his property rights, to his irreparable injury, for which there is no adequate legal remedy. That many hundreds of persons engaged in selling the preparation have already discontinued their purchases and sales because of the fear of criminal prosecution induced by the defendant's threats, and that large numbers of those who are still handling it will be induced by such threats to discontinue its sale.
The bill further avers that the complainant's preparation is not in any sense either concentrated commercial feeding stuff, or condimental stock feed, or a patnet proprietary stock feed within the proper construction of the act of Indiana, and is not advertised as possessing nutritive properties or used except as medicine; that the complainant does not 'claim that said medicinal preparation con- tains any crude protein or crude fat;' that it does not contain, nor is it claimed on behalf of the defendant that it contains, any ingredient that is deleterious or injurious to animal life or health; that it is prescribed and administered in small doses as medicine, and 'that the only nutritive substance or ingredients . . . are employed as diluents in so small an amount as to produce no feeding effect whatever, but for the sole purpose of rendering medicinal bitter roots, herbs, barks, and seeds more acceptable to the animal stomach;' that directions for use accompany each package, and in every case there is a statement plainly showing that the preparation is to be used to cure disease, and not in place of or as a substitute for any grain or feed. That nevertheless, the defendant, who, in his official capacity, is charged by law with the enforcement of the statute, has construed it to apply to complainant's product.
That under § 3 of the statute of Indiana the state chemist is to register the facts set forth in the certificate required by § 1 as a permanent record, and to furnish stamps or labels, showing such registration, to manufacturers or agents desiring to sell the concentrated commercial feeding stuff so registered in amounts not less than the value of $5 or multiples of $5 for any one such product; that by § 5 the state chemist is to receive $1 for each one hundred stamps, and that the proceeds thus derived are to be paid into the treasury of the Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station, to be expended in carrying out the provisions of the statute and for any other expenses of such station, as authorized by law.
That the statute, and particularly §§ 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9, are repugnant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that they require manufacturers of proprietary stock feed and condimental feeds, arbitrarily, without compensation, and without due proc- ess of law, whether such preparation contain any poisonous or deleterious element or ingredient, to disclose the formulae by which they are compounded, and the ingredients and proportions thereof, which embody valuable trade secrets; and that if the act is enforced against the complainant he will be deprived of his property contrary to the said Amendment.
That the statute also violates § 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States as an unreasonable interference with interstate commerce in which the complainant is engaged.
That further, the statute is invalid under § 19 of article 4 of the Constitution of the state of Indiana in that the title does not express the requirement that manufacturers or dealers shall disclose the formulae by which their products are manufactured, or the ingredients or proportions.
That for many years the complainant's preparation has been offered for sale in packages of different sizes, holding respectively 24 ounces, 3 pounds, 6 pounds, and 25 pounds; that under the terms of the statute the complainant would be required to pay the same amount of tax for a package of 24 ounces that other commodities and manufacturers thereof pay for a package of 100 pounds; and that this discrimination is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
That the enforcement of the requirement as to the affixing of stamps and payment therefor is a tax upon the complainant's property and business, and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom
...Mot. at 30—"their ‘natural effect[s]’ and obviously ‘frustrate[s]’ their operation." Id. at 29–30 (quoting Savage v. Jones , 225 U.S. 501, 533, 32 S.Ct. 715, 56 L.Ed. 1182 (1912) ) (alteration in original).i. Federal Immigration Law GEO does not appear to argue that it is impossible to comp......
-
In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation.
...of Congress within the sphere of its delegated power. Crosby, 530 U.S. at 373, 120 S.Ct. 2288 (citing Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 533, 32 S.Ct. 715, 56 L.Ed. 1182 (1912)). Applying this standard, the court cannot conclude that the state investigations will inevitably conflict with federa......
-
Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
...authority, is not to be held unconstitutional because it incidentally affects interstate commerce. Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 525, 32 S. Ct. 715, 56 L. Ed. 1182. The exercise by the states of the power to regulate moving picture exhibitions has been sustained by the Supreme Court in a ......
-
Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins
...56 L.Ed. 175; Austin v. Tennessee. Speaking on the subject the court said: Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 120, 32 L.Ed. 345; Salvage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 56 L.Ed. 1182; Stockfood Company v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540, 56 1182; Railroad Company v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 328, 52 L.Ed. 230; Express Company......
-
Federal Preemption of State Attempts To Ban FDA-Approved Abortion Drugs After Dobbs
...requiring that the state’s power “must yield to the regulation of Congress.” Zogenix II, 2014 WL 4273251, at *2 (quoting Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 533 (1912)). “to ‘protect the public health’ by ensuring that ‘drugs are safe and effective’”; to require that “[t]he FDA must approve new ......
-
Logical Contradiction Doctrine: Buckman for Textualists
...jurisprudence that reach back over a century The first decision to describe implied preemption in these terms was the Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912), Pure Food Act case from 1912, quoted in the slide A state statute requiring disclosure of the ingredients composing certain federally-r......
-
NPP, DCC, And FDA-Regulated Medical Products
...regulated by the FDCA or its predecessor, the Pure Food Act, are McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115 (1913), and Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912). They look a lot like they are analyzing preemption, the DCC, or the plain old CC. Yet, neither mentions preemption, the Supremacy Clause, t......
-
Product Liability - Frank P. Brannen Jr. and Jacob E. Daly
...120. Palmer, supra note 118. 121. Id. 122. Pub. L. No. 59-384, 34 Stat. 768 (1906) (repealed 1938). 123. Id. 124. Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 532 (1912). 125. Pub. L. No. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938) (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. ch. 9 (2006)). 126. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 ......
-
Vivian Luo, a Preference for States? the Woes of Preempting State Preference Statutes
...the state legislation would be incidental only."). 122 Id. at 611. See also Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137, 148 (1902); Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 533 (1912). 123 Gade v. Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992). 124 Erwin Chemerinsky, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND PO......
-
Shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreements: 2B or Not 2B?
...of the Copyright Act). (22.) 17 U.S.C. [sections] 301 (1994). (23.) Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941) (quoting Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501,533 (24.) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 229 (1964) ("When state law touches upon the area of [patent or copyright s......