State v. Armour & Co.

Decision Date17 February 1914
Citation145 N.W. 1033,27 N.D. 177
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. ARMOUR & CO.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.

As early as chapter 72, S. L. 1899, North Dakota has each year enacted legislation upon the subject of pure foods and honest weights and measures. The 1907 Act (Laws 1907, c. 195) provides that every package, bottle, or container should bear the true net weight of the product. Chapter 236, S. L. 1911, provides that every article of food or beverage as defined in the statutes of this state shall be sold by weight, measure, or numerical count, and labeled in accordance with the provisions of the laws of this state, that all weights shall be net, excluding the wrapper or container, and that every lot of lard, lard compound, or lard substitute, unless sold in bulk, shall be put up in pails or containers holding 1, 3, or 5 pounds net weight, or some whole multiple of these numbers, and not any fraction thereof. Defendant is a corporation having packing houses in Chicago, Omaha, and other large cities, and maintaining a branch establishment in the city of Fargo, N. D., to which its goods are shipped in car load lots to be distributed therefrom. In October, 1911, the state food commissioner went to this branch establishment in Fargo and asked to purchase three pounds of lard. He was sold a pail containing 2 pounds and 6 ounces. The sale and the resultant arrest were made to test the constitutionality of the 1911 law. The defendant claimed that the law was unconstitutional for seven reasons, the first reason being subdivided into six parts: (1) Plaintiff's contention is that the law is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not justified under the police powers of the state. (a) It is contended that the 1911 law was unnecessary because the 1907 law providing for the display of net weights was ample to protect the consumer against fraud. Held, that the Legislature has primarily the choice of laws regulating weights, and the court will not interfere with this choice. The burden is upon the person attacking the constitutionality of the law to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Constitution has been violated, that in the case at bar the defendant has failed in his proof; there being many reasons for the 1911 enactment. (b) It is contended that the law is unreasonable because it interferes with a custom of the lard industry extending over a period of more than 30 years. Held, that this is no objection to the law. The fact that an abuse has existed for 30 years does not foreclose the state from an attempt to regulate the same. (c) It is contended that the law is unreasonable because it imposes an additional expense upon the packers. Held, upon an examination of the evidence, that this contention is not well founded. The defendant is already supplying a private firm with net weight pails that would comply with the laws of North Dakota. No reason is shown why those pails could not be lithographed with the Armour brand and used in North Dakota. (d) It is further urged that the law is unnecessary and unreasonable because in any event the customers are not prejudiced; that they are paying merely the price of bulk lard, plus the extra expense of the tin pails. Held, upon an examination of the evidence, that the consumer pays more than the mere cost of the container. This cost includes expensive advertising upon the pail itself, and a probable profit to the middlemen upon the cost of the pail, as well as of the lard. (e) It is urged that the law is unreasonable as interfering with the regular custom of all trades; it being contended that butchers and grocers include the weight of the paper bag with the goods sold. Held that, even if true, it furnishes no reason why laws should not be enacted to regulate this abuse. (f) It is contended that the enforcement of this law will drive the packers to use bulk lard only, to the detriment of the commodity. Held that, from the evidence, the packers never furnished over 40 per cent. of the lard to the trade in this state, and this defendant furnishes but between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the lard used, and, even should it withdraw from the state, it would not materially affect the lard industry. The authorities upon the subject of the control of weights and measures by compelling even weights in containers are collected in the opinion.

The law of 1911 does not interfere with the guaranties of the Constitution relative to the right of freedom of contract and the equal protection of the law. Under the police power, the state can interfere with private rights when necessary to protect the public from fraud or the opportunity for fraud. Whatever injury one particular citizen may suffer is compensated to him by the general protection afforded him against other evils by such police power.

Said statute does not constitute the taking of property without due process of law.

The claim of appellant that the lard industry is singled out from all articles of food and subjected to regulation is not supported by the evidence in this case. Every article of food or beverage, as well as ordinary articles of commerce, such as paints, formaldehyde, paris green, etc., are regulated by the same or similar acts. The 1911 law specifically mentions lard, lard compounds, and lard substitutes, and the manner of their regulation in pails; but this is a mere incident of the law. The object of the law is to prevent the opportunity for fraud in the sale of all articles of food.

The claim of the defendant that the law is in violation of the commerce clause of the federal Constitution is not sustained. Congress has control of commerce between the several states, with foreign nations, and among the Indian tribes; while the states have control over intrastate commerce. The pail of land sold to the food commissioner was shipped into the state in a railway car, and was itself contained in a crate containing 20 similar pails. The original package was either the railway car or the crate, and had been broken prior to the sale. Thus the sale was a local or intrastate transaction. The cases upon this phase are collected in the opinion.

It is contended by defendant that the act should be given a reasonable interpretation, thus permitting the sale of gross weight pails, if labeled with the net weight. Held, that the import of the law is plain, and that the construction required by the defendant would result in a repeal of the law by judicial construction, which this court will not do.

It is contended that Congress has assumed control of the field of pure foods and weights, and therefore the laws of North Dakota upon the subject have become ineffectual. Under the fifth paragraph of this opinion it is held that the sale in question was an intrastate transaction entirely within the control of the state, and entirely outside of the control of the United States.

Upon consideration of the whole act it is held that the law is not unreasonable, and it in no manner prejudices the defendant, and is not in conflict with any of the enumerated provisions of the Constitution.

Appeal from the District Court, Cass County; Pollock, Judge.

Armour & Co., a corporation, was convicted of violating Laws 1911, c. 236, regulating the size of pails in which lard shall be sold, and appeals. Affirmed.

Spalding, C. J., and Fisk, J., dissenting.

Watson & Young, of Fargo, and Alfred R. Urion and Abram B. Stratton, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Arthur W. Fowler, of Fargo, and Andrew Miller, Atty. Gen., Alfred Zuger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John Carmody, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward Engerud, of Fargo, of counsel), for the State.

BURKE, J.

As early as chapter 72, Session Laws of 1899, the Legislature of the state of North Dakota enacted laws relative to pure foods and honest weights. This legislation covers almost every article of food, beverages, paris green, paints, formaldehyde, and other articles too numerous to mention. The weight of a bushel of every kind of grain is specified, as well as the size of a gallon, quart, pint, etc., in liquids. The sheriffs of the various counties are given authority to examine and test scales and measures, and confiscate those found to be false. Among other subjects regulated is lard. In 1905 an act was passed (Laws 1905, c. 10) providing that all articles of food should be considered misbranded, if the package, bottle, or container did not bear the true net weight, name of the real manufacturer or jobber, and the true grade or class of the product, the same to be expressed in clear and distinct English words in black type on a white background. In 1907 this act was re-enacted, with a few changes, to read as follows: “If every package, bottle or container does not bear the true net weight, the name of the real manufacturers or jobbers, and the true grade or class of the produce, the same to be expressed on the face of the principal label in clear and distinct English words in black type on a white background, said type to be in size uniform with that used to name the brand or producer,” the same is to be considered misbranded, etc. This article applied to all food products, as well as lard.

Chapter 236, S. L. 1911, reads as follows:

[Sec. 1. Food. Sold by Weight, Measure, or Count.] Every article of food or beverage as defined in the statutes of this state shall be sold by weight, measure or numerical count and as now generally recognized by trade custom, and shall be labeled in accordance with the provisions of the food and beverage laws of this state. Only those products shall be sold by numerical count which can not well be sold by weight or measure. All weights shall be net, excluding the wrapper or container, and shall be stated in terms of pounds, ounces and grains avordupois weight, and all measures shall be in terms of gallons of two hundred thirty-one cubic inches or fractions thereof, as quarts, pints, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Bratberg v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 5872.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 23 Octubre 1931
    ...equal protection of the law or as depriving the seller of their property without due process of law. In the case of State v. Armour, supra, 27 N. D. 177, 145 N. W. 1033, L. R. A. 1916E, 380, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1149, this court held that under the police power the state can interfere with priv......
  • Bratberg v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Company, Inc., a Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 22 Agosto 1931
    ...as denying equal protection of the law or as depriving the seller of their property without due process of law. In the case of State v. Armour & Co. 27 N.D. 177, L.R.A.1916E, 145 N.W. 1033, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1149, this court held, that under the police power the state can interfere with priv......
  • Olson v. Ross
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 11 Abril 1918
    ... 167 N.W. 385 39 N.D. 372 THEODORE OLSON, Petitioner, v. ANDREW ROSS, as Sheriff of Cass County, State of North Dakota, Respondent Supreme Court of North Dakota April 11, 1918 . .          . Application by Theodore Olson for a writ of ... Co., 240 U.S. 342; Hall v. Gieger-Jones Co., . 242 U.S. 539, 61 L.Ed. 480, 37 S.Ct. 217; Trading Stamp. Cases, 240 U.S. 342; Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, . 240 U.S. 510, 60 L.Ed. 771, 36 S.Ct. 440; Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U.S. 394; Price v. Illinois, . 238 U.S. 446, ......
  • Moody v. Hagen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 4 Abril 1917
    ...as those terms are understood and applied. State ex rel. Miller v. Flaherty, 23 N.D. 313, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 132, 136 N.W. 76; State v. Armour & Co. 27 N.D. 177, L.R.A.1916E, 380, 145 N.W. 1033, Ann. Cas. 1916B, State v. Olson, 26 N.D. 304, L.R.A. , , 144 N.W. 661; State v. Alabama Fuel & Iron......
  • 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