State v. W. W. Robinson Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12320. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. W. W. ROBINSON CO. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith Judge.
W. W Robinson Company was prosecuted for violation of the statute relating to the sale of concentrated food stuffs. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the information, the State appeals. Affirmed.
John F Murphy, of Seattle, W. V. Tanner, Atty. Gen., and Scott Z Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Donworth & Todd, of Seattle, for respondent.
This is a prosecution based on an information charging the respondent with a violation of the provisions of chapter 201 of the Laws of 1909 . The trial court sustained a demurrer to the information upon the ground that the act was void as being in contravention of section 12, art. 1, of the state Constitution, and upon other grounds. The state has appealed from an order of dismissal.
Section 1 of the act above referred to is as follows:
'The term 'concentrated commercial feeding stuffs' as used in this act shall include linseed meals, cocoanut meals, gluten feeds, gluten meals, germ feeds, dairy feeds, starch feeds, sugar foods, dried brewers or distillers grains, malt sprouts, feeds made from ground cereals or byproducts therefrom, including wheat bran, wheat middlings, and wheat shorts, slaughterhouse waste products when sold as feeds, mixed feeds and mixed meals made from seeds or grains, and all materials of similar nature used for food for domestic animals, condimental feeds, stock feeds, and all patented proprietary or trade stock and poultry feeds for which nutritive value is claimed; but it shall not include hay or straw, whole seeds, or unmixed meals made from the entire grains of wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn or other cereals, nor wheat flours or other flours.'
Section 2 requires every manufacturer or dealer before offering such feed for sale to file with the director of the state agricultural experiment station, at Pullman, Wash., a sworn certificate setting forth, among other things, the ingredients of which the feed is composed and the percentage of certain of its constituents.
Section 3 requires every person offering such feed for sale to affix to every package a tag or label with certain information printed thereon and to affix a stamp purchased from the director of the experiment station, showing that the feed has been registered and the inspection tax paid.
Section 4 requires the director of the experiment station to register the feed and to furnish stamps or labels showing the registration, with the provision that stamps must be bought in lots of $5 each for each veriety of feed.
Section 5 requires each manufacturer or dealer to file an annual statement of the number of pounds of each brand of feed sold or caused to be offered for sale in the state for the preceding year.
Section 6 provides the fees to be paid and the annual report of the director of the experiment station.
Section 7 prohibits the sale of nonlabeled or inferior grades of feed which has not been registered and which does not contain the tag and an analysis of the feed, and fixes a penalty for a sale in violation of the act.
Section 8 provides for samples to be taken from all packages offered for sale.
Section 9 provides a penalty for interfering with the director of the experiment station in making inspections and obtaining samples of feed offered for sale.
Section 10 provides that the director of the experiment station may prescribe and enforce such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry the act into effect.
Section 11 authorizes the Attorney General, or the prosecuting attorneys of the several counties, to prosecute violators of the act.
Section 12 is a repeal of laws in conflict.
Section 13 provides as follows:
'The provisions of this act shall not apply to cereal or flouring mills selling mill bran, shorts, or middlings made in the regular process of manufacturing cereal or flour.'
Section 12 of article 1 of the Constitution provides as follows:
'No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation, other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.'
It will be noticed that section 1 of the act hereinabove quoted defines 'concentrated commercial feeding stuffs' to include mixed feeds and mixed meals made from seeds or grains, and all materials of similar nature used for food for domestic animals. That section also provides that the definition 'shall not include hay or straw, whole seeds, or unmixed meals made from the entire grains of wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn or other cereals nor wheat flours or other flours.' The act prohibits the sale of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs by any person, company, corporation, or agent who shall not comply with the provisions of the act. Section 13 expressly exempts cereal and flouring mills selling mill bran, shorts, or middlings made in the regular process of manufacturing cereal or flour from the provisions of the act. It is apparent, we think, that this is an unreasonable and unjust discrimination. Cereal and flouring mills are authorized to sell mixed feeding stuffs without complying with the terms of the act, while all other persons and corporations selling the same thing are required to comply with the terms of the act, which imposes onerous conditions.
In Re Camp, 38 Wash. 393, 80 P. 547, we held that an ordinance requiring a license for the peddling of fruits, vegetables, etc., but exempting farmers disposing of produce grown by themselves, was unconstitutional because it permitted growers of fruits and vegetables to sell while prohibiting others from doing the same thing. In that case we quoted from State ex rel. Luria v. Wagener, 69 Minn. 206, 72 N.W. 67, 38 L. R. A. 677, 65 Am. St. Rep. 565, saying:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Inland Empire Refineries, Inc.
... ... of 1939, is void. Quaker City Cab Co. v ... Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 389, 48 S.Ct. 553, 72 L.Ed. 927; ... Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U.S. 146, 50 S.Ct. 310, ... 74 L.Ed. 775; State v. W. W. Robinson Co., 84 Wash ... 246, 146 P. 628; State v. Hart, 125 Wash. 520, 217 ... P. 45; State ex rel. Bacich v. Huse, 187 Wash. 75, ... 59 P.2d 1101; Chalker v. Birmingham & Northwestern ... Railway Co., 249 U.S. 522, [3 Wn.2d 661] 39 S.Ct. 366, ... 63 L.Ed. 748; Hale ... ...
-
Adams v. Hinkle, 34132
...71, 237 P. 5; Kaufman v. West, 133 Wash. 192, 233 P. 321; Sherman Clay & Co. v. Brown, 131 Wash. 679, 231 P. 166; State v. W. W. Robinson Co., 84 Wash. 246, 146 P. 628; Seattle v. Dencker, 58 Wash. 501, 108 P. 1086, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 446; Bacon v. Locke, 42 Wash. 215, 83 P. 721; In re Camp, 3......
-
Schroeder v. Steven Weighall, M.D., & Columbia Basin Imaging, P.C.
...any room or house bought on the premises where such goods have been in use’ ” (quoting Seattle Ordinance 45727)); State v. W.W. Robinson Co., 84 Wash. 246, 146 P. 628 (1915) (invalidating statute that exempted cereal and flouring mills from act imposing onerous conditions on other similarly......
-
Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle
...art. I, § 12 to employment agencies); Dencker, 58 Wash. 501, 108 P. 1086 (applying art. I, § 12 to retail sales); State v. W.W. Robinson Co., 84 Wash. 246, 146 P. 628 (1915) (applying art. I, § 12 to cereal and flour mills). These cases stand for the general proposition that a person has a ......
-
Independence for Washington State's Privileges and Immunities Clause
...but exempting producers of goods violated article 1, section 12 because it granted a special privilege); see also State v. Robinson Co., 84 Wash. 246, 250, 146 P. 628, 629 (1915) (holding that law regulating sales of feed stuffs, and excepting flour mills, violated article I, section 12 bec......