State v. Crescent Creamery Co.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1901
• Docket Number: Nos. 12,534 - (8).,s. 12,534 - (8).
• Citation: 83 Minn. 284
• Parties: STATE v. CRESCENT CREAMERY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 284

83 Minn. 284

STATE v. CRESCENT CREAMERY COMPANY.¹

Nos. 12,534 - (8).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 24, 1901.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of St. Paul, Orr, J. Affirmed.

Durment & Moore and F. W. Zollman, for appellant.

T. R. Kane, County Attorney, and O. H. O'Neill, Assistant County Attorney, for the State.

START, C. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the municipal court of the city of St. Paul convicting the defendant of the offense of selling cream containing less than twenty per centum of fat, contrary to the provisions of G. S. 1894, § 7002. The record contains no settled case or bill of exceptions, but the judgment recites upon its face that before sentence the defendant's counsel moved that the defendant be discharged on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional; hence the facts charged did not constitute a public offense.

Some technical objections are here made to the complaint, but, so far as appears from the record, they were not made in the court below, and the sole question for our decision is the constitutionality of the statute. It is in these words:

"No person shall sell or offer for sale any cream taken from impure or diseased milk, or cream that contains less than twenty per centum of fat. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars."

The defendant claims that this statute, in so far as it prohibits the sale of cream solely because it contains less than twenty per centum of fat, is unconstitutional, because it is unreasonable and not a proper exercise of the police power, is based upon an arbitrary classification, and is special legislation, and is an unlawful restraint of trade, and illegally restricts the citizen's right to contract and to pursue a lawful calling, and deprives him of his liberty and property without due process of law.

The section of the statute in question is a part of the general statutes of the state, which were enacted to prevent deception in the sale of dairy products, and its obvious purpose is to fix a standard for cream, and forbid the sale of any cream, as such, which is below the prescribed standard, whereby unsuspecting purchasers may be defrauded. It must be, and is, construed so as to effectuate such purpose. We accordingly hold that the statute in question forbids, and only forbids, the sale of cream, as such, which is below the prescribed standard. So construed, the statute is a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and is valid. Its constitutionality rests upon the same principles as does the validity of statutes prohibiting the sale of...