Pacific Meat Co. v. Otagaki

• Decision Date: 27 July 1964
• Docket Number: No. 4331,4331
• Citation: 394 P.2d 618,47 Haw. 652
• Parties: PACIFIC MEAT COMPANY, Limited, a Hawaii Corporation, on its own behalf and on the behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and C. Q. Yee Hop & Co., Ltd., a Hawaii Corporation, on its own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Dr. Kenneth K. OTAGAKI, as Chairman and Director of the Department of Agriculture, and Koshi Tomono, Alexander J. Napier, Stanley I. Unten, John Teves, Ben T. Miyahira, Richard Henderson, Dan Correia, and James P. Ferry, Ex-Officio Member, as Members of the Board of Agriculture of the State of Hawaii.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 618

394 P.2d 618

47 Haw. 652

PACIFIC MEAT COMPANY, Limited, a Hawaii Corporation, on its own behalf and on the behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and C. Q. Yee Hop & Co., Ltd., a Hawaii Corporation, on its own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Dr. Kenneth K. OTAGAKI, as Chairman and Director of the Department of Agriculture, and Koshi Tomono, Alexander J Napier, Stanley I. Unten, John Teves, Ben T. Miyahira Richard Henderson, Dan Correia, and James P. Ferry Ex-Officio Member, as Members of the Board of Agriculture of the State of Hawaii.

No. 4331.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

July 27, 1964.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where a method of testing a penal statute was not in fact available in the criminal court because defendants refused to bring criminal proceedings, though violation of the statute was admitted and the duty of compliance therewith actually controverted, the relief grantable in a proceeding for a declaratory judgment extends to the construction or validity of the statute.

2. Where federal and state regulations operate in the same field, state regulation must give way where its enforcement will impair federal superintendence of the field.

3. Congressional regulation of the production and packing of poultry and poultry products for interstate commerce does not automatically oust state regulation requiring disclosure of geographic origin of poultry and poultry products sold to ultimate consumers where there is neither actual conflict between the two schemes of regulation nor evidence of a congressional design to pre-empt the field.

4. The state is competent, in the exercise of its police power to prevent fraud and deception, to require the disclosure of the geographic origin of poultry and poultry products sold to ultimate consumers.

Bert T. Kobayashi, Atty. Gen., Alana W. Lau, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Robert G. Dodge, Heen, Kai & Dodge, Honolulu, for appellees.

Before TSUKIYAMA, C. J., and CASSIDY, WIRTZ, LEWIS and MIZUHA, JJ.

MIZUHA, Justice.

Act 109, S.L.H.1961, provides that, for the purpose of notifying the consumer as to its geographic origin, no person shall sell or offer to sell uncooked poultry without a label as to its origin. ¹

Plaintiff-appellee, Pacific Meat Co., Ltd., is a wholesaler of food products. Plaintiff-appellee, C. Q. Yee Hop & Co., Ltd., is a retailer of food products. Plaintiffs initially filed a bill in equity to restrain the enforcement of Act 109, S.L.H.1961 on the ground that it was unconstitutional. That action was dismissed on the basis that plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law, i. e., defending a criminal prosecution.

After several months, plaintiffs brought suit for a declaratory judgment. ² After the filing of an answer, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and declared Act 109 unconstitutional and void.

Defendants-appellants contend that Pacific Meat Co., Ltd., is not a proper party to the action, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain this action for a declaratory judgment where the effect is to enjoin the enforcement of a penal statute, and that Act 109, S.L.H.1961 is constitutional.

Following dismissal of the equity action, plaintiffs advised the predecessors of the defendants ³ as members of the Board of Agriculture of the State of Hawaii, that they would not comply with the labeling requirements of the act. C. Q. Yee Hop & Co., Ltd., was served with notice of violation of the act twice, and, in each instance, refused to agree to comply with the requirements of the act in the future. However, when the present suit was brought no criminal charges had been filed against the plaintiff, C. Q. Yee Hop & Co., Ltd. During the proceeding herein it appeared that the predecessors of the defendants refused to bring criminal proceedings.

Pacific Meat Co., Ltd., has not been served with any notice of violation of the act. Pacific Meat Co., Ltd., has never been in violation of the act and has never been threatened with criminal prosecution. The Attorney General, by opinion 61-60, dated 5 June 1961, advised the predecessors of the defendants that the labeling provisions would apply only to sales to an ultimate consumer either at wholesale or at retail. No allegation was made by Pacific Meat Co., Ltd., that it was in the business of consummating sales to an ultimate consumer. But, it did allege that Act 109 imposes a burden on interstate commerce, that it invades a field of regulation pre-empted by the federal government by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, and that the provisions of the said act are in excess of the lawful exercise of the police power of the State of Hawaii. In an affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment, the President of Pacific Meat Co., Ltd., stated:

'That said Pacific Meat Company, Limited, has been informed by its retail store customers that such customers will not purchase any poultry or poultry products imported by Pacific Meat Company, Limited, from the mainland United States unless the labels provided for by Act 109, Session Laws of Hawaii 1961, are affixed to each package or container, or furnished, by Pacific Meat Company, Limited, and that the cost of so providing and affixing said labels imposes an additional cost of operation upon said Pacific Meat Company, Limited.'

On the basis of the pleadings, as supplemented by this affidavit, Pacific Meat Co., Ltd., was a proper party to this action.

The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the complaint in this action for a declaratory judgment. While there are a number of approaches to the matter of declaratory relief as a means of testing the validity of a criminal statute, ⁴ we prefer the Missouri rule stated in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo. 932, 954, 130 S.W.2d 945, 953, 125 A.L.R. 1149, as follows:

'* * * [T]he use of a declaratory judgment rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court, depending on the circumstances; * * * that form of relief is usually unnecessary where a full and adequate remedy is provided by another well-known form of action; * * * the purpose of the declaratory judgment is to serve some practical end in quieting or stabilizing an uncertain or disputed jural relation either as to present or prospective obligations; * * * ordinarily it cannot be utilized as a device to circumvent the general rule that equity will not enjoin the enforcement of a valid criminal statute; neither will it be used to determine in advance the precise rights existing between the public and law violators on particular facts where no special circumstances require it.'

Here the statute is malum prohibitum, it affects a continuing course of business, and a method of testing the statute was not in fact available in the criminal court because the predecessors of the defendants refused to bring criminal proceedings. There was a clear case for declaratory relief if the statute was invalid.

The trial court in its 'Order for Summary Judgment and Judgment' decreed that Act 109, S.L.H.1961 was unconstitutional, without assigning any reasons as to its unconstitutionality.

In support of the judgment of the trial court, plaintiffs first contend that Act 109 is unconstitutional since the federal government has pre-empted the field by the Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq.

Act 109, S.L.H.1961, requiries that a 'sign, handbill, placard or otherwise' be placed on the poultry meatbird, or to the immediate package to inform the customer of the poultry meatbird's geographic origin. This is required on all uncooked poultry meatbird, except New York-dress poultry meatbird, or poultry meatbird 'which is sold to an ultimate consumer at the farm or ranch where the poultry meatbird was grown or to sales subsequent to a sale at retail.'

The legislative history of the act clearly shows the purpose of such labeling requirements.

'The purpose of this bill is to provide for the proper identification of the origin of poultry sold in Hawaii. This is deemed necessary for the protection of the consumer. At the present time, poultry of mainland or foreign origin is sold with identifications that imply local origin. Also, frozen poultry from outside Hawaii is unfrozen and cut into pieces and offered for sale without notice that it was at one time frozen. These practices mislead the purchaser into believing that he is buying fresh poultry when in fact he is not.' 1961 Sen.Journal 999.

In Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248, the United States Supreme Court said:

'* * * The test of whether both federal and state regulations may operate, or the state regulation must give way, is whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing the federal superintendence of the field, not whether they are aimed at similar or different objectives.

'The principle to be derived from our decisions is that federal regulation of a field of commerce should not be deemed preemptive of state regulatory power in the absence of persuasive reasons--either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained. See, e. g., Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, supra [362 U.S. 440, 80 S.Ct. 813, 4 L.Ed.2d 852].'

See also Head v. New Mexico Board, 374 U.S. 424, 83 S.Ct. 1759, 10 L.Ed.2d 983.

The Poultry Products Inspection Act was passed to prevent interstate shipment of poultry and poultry products which are 'unwholesome, adulterated or otherwise unfit for human food.' 21 U.S.C. § 452. See S.Rep. No. 195, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.; H.R.Rep. No. 465, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.; Conf.Rep. No. 1170, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News 1957, p. 1630.

Act 109, on the other hand, is aimed at the protection of consumers of poultry in Hawaii.

'* * * [S]tates have always possessed a...