Standard Computing Scale Co v. Farrell, 228
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BRANDEIS |
| Citation | 249 U.S. 571,63 L.Ed. 780,39 S.Ct. 380 |
| Parties | STANDARD COMPUTING SCALE CO., Limited, v. FARRELL, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures |
| Docket Number | No. 228,228 |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1919 |
v.
FARRELL, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures.
Mr. H. C. Smyth, of New York City (Messrs. C. Scofield and Frederick W. Bisgood, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Messrs. Charles D. Newton, of Geneseo, N. Y., and Edward G. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., of Albany, N. Y., for appellee.
Page 572
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
By the statutes of New York a sealer of weights and measures is appointed in every county and every city by the local authorities, with the duty, among other things, to keep safely the standards and to seal and mark such weights as correspond with the standards in his possession. The statutes provide also for a state superintendent of weights and measures with, among other things, a like duty to keep the state standards, and 'where not otherwise provided by law' to 'have a general supervision of the weights, measures and measuring and weighing devices of the state, and in use in the state.' General Business Law of New York (Consol. Laws, c. 20) §§ 11-15; Laws 1909, c. 25, amended by Laws 1910, c. 187. Under a specific appropriation he publishes and distributes 'bulletins of instruction and information to dealers, and weights and measures officials.' Laws 1914, c. 521, p. 2093. In the bulletin for August, 1914, there appeared, among other matter, the following item:
'Specifications.
'Automatic Computing Scales.
'All combination spring and lever computing scales must be equipped with a device which will automatically compensate for changes of temperature at zero balance and throughout the whole range of weight graduations.'
The Standard Company manufactures a combination spring and lever computing scale which was then being used and sold in New York. It is equipped with a compensating device which is not automatic. Because of these 'specifications,' some county and city sealers of weights neglected to seal scales of plaintiff's make and warned scale users to discontinue the use thereof. A state inspector, who was a subordinate of the state superintendent,
Page 573
also marked some of these scales 'slow and faulty.' As a result, the Standard Company's business in New York was injured; sales diminished and collections for scales theretofore sold became difficult. The Standard Company contends that its scales with a mechanical compensating device are at least as trustworthy as those of its competitor with the automatic device; and it presented these views to State Superintendent Farrell, both before the 'specifications' were issued and thereafter. Failing to secure a withdrawal of the 'specifications' it brought, in February, 1915, this suit in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against the state superintendent, setting forth, in substance, the facts above stated and praying that the issuing of the 'specifications,' which it termed a 'rule,' be declared an invalid exercise of the police power of the state, and their enforcement enjoined on the ground that the rule violates the federal Constitution, in that it impairs the obligation of contracts, interferes with interstate commerce, abridges the privileges and immunities of a citizen, deprives the plaintiff of property without due process, and denies to it equal protection of the laws. An answer was filed, and upon full hearing on the evidence the bill was dismissed on the merits. 242 Fed. 87. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decree; but, at appellant's request, the mandate was later withdrawn, and the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because it appeared that the jurisdiction of the District Court had been invoked solely under section 24, par. 14, of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1092 [Comp. St. § 991(14)]), on the ground that the defendant's 'rule' was unconstitutional. Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318, 36 Sup. Ct. 293, 60 L. Ed. 658. Thereupon the case was brought here by direct appeal under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215).
No question is made as to the constitutionality of the statute creating the office of state superintendent and defining his duties. The attack is upon the 'specifications'
Page 574
in the bulletin which plaintiff assumes are a regulation; that is, a law. Its contention is that the so-called 'rule' is not a proper exercise of the police power, and is void, because it is arbitrary and unreasonable,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath, ANTI-FASCIST
...Cal., 333 U.S. 426, 68 S.Ct. 641, 92 L.Ed. 784. Lack of finality also explains the decision in Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780. There the Court was faced by an advisory 'specification' of characteristics desirable in ordinary measuring scale......
-
Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 87 Civ. 2604 (JMW).
...249 (1984). Accord Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 187, 43 S.Ct. 534, 536-37, 67 L.Ed. 937 (1923); Standard Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 576, 39 S.Ct. 380, 382, 63 L.Ed.2d 780 (1919). To hold that a federal statute may preempt various state laws but not identical local laws woul......
-
Lehigh Valley R. Co. of New Jersey v. Martin, No. 4537
...not extend or abridge any power or facility; does not determine any right or obligation. Compare Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 577, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. United States Railroad Labor Board, 261 U.S. 72, 43 S.Ct. 278, 67 L.Ed. 536; Uni......
-
Stolberg v. Caldwell
...of any subordinate instrumentality of the state exercising delegated legislative authority." Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 577, 39 S.Ct. 380, 382, 63 L.Ed. 7 Nor can it be seriously argued that the dual-job restriction challenged in the present case is fatally ......
-
Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath, ANTI-FASCIST
...Cal., 333 U.S. 426, 68 S.Ct. 641, 92 L.Ed. 784. Lack of finality also explains the decision in Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780. There the Court was faced by an advisory 'specification' of characteristics desirable in ordinary measuring scale......
-
Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 87 Civ. 2604 (JMW).
...249 (1984). Accord Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 187, 43 S.Ct. 534, 536-37, 67 L.Ed. 937 (1923); Standard Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 576, 39 S.Ct. 380, 382, 63 L.Ed.2d 780 (1919). To hold that a federal statute may preempt various state laws but not identical local laws woul......
-
Lehigh Valley R. Co. of New Jersey v. Martin, No. 4537
...not extend or abridge any power or facility; does not determine any right or obligation. Compare Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 577, 39 S.Ct. 380, 63 L.Ed. 780; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. United States Railroad Labor Board, 261 U.S. 72, 43 S.Ct. 278, 67 L.Ed. 536; Uni......
-
Stolberg v. Caldwell
...act of any subordinate instrumentality of the state exercising delegated legislative authority." Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U.S. 571, 577, 39 S.Ct. 380, 382, 63 L.Ed. 7 Nor can it be seriously argued that the dual-job restriction challenged in the present case is fatally o......