Swift & Co. v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 06 June 1951
• Parties: SWIFT & COMPANY et al. v. PETERSON, Director, Department of Agriculture.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 216

233 P.2d 216

192 Or. 97

SWIFT & COMPANY et al. v. PETERSON, Director, Department of Agriculture.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

June 6, 1951.

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1951.

Catharine Carson Barsch, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Blaine Hallock, of Baker (George Neuner, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellant.

Manley B. Strayer, of Portland (Hart, Spencer, McCulloch, Rockwood & Davies, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

Before BRAND, Chief Justice, and HAY, ROSSMAN, LUSK, LATOURETTE and WARNER, Justices.

WARNER, Justice.

This is a suit for a declaratory judgment construing Chapter 193, Oregon Laws 1949, which provides for the identification of livestock and the prevention of livestock theft. A copy of the relevant sections of the Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949, is appended to this opinion.

The plaintiffs, Swift & Company and Armour and Company, are engaged in the packing house business, the former maintaining a plant in North Portland, Oregon, and the latter in Portland, Oregon. Both purchase large numbers of livestock at the stockyards of Portland Union Stockyards Company and elsewhere for processing meat and meat products, which they distribute throughout the states of Oregon and Washington and in other localities beyond the boundaries of this state.

The defendant, Ervin L. Peterson, is the director of the Department of Agriculture of the state of Oregon, and by § 5 charged with the duty of administering the Act of 1949.

Portland Union Stockyards is an Oregon corporation operating public stockyards at North Portland, Oregon. These stockyards are posted as such and subject to the jurisdiction of the secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture under the provisions of the Federal Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, 7 U.S.C.A. § 181 et seq.

As disclosed by the findings of fact, livestock from within and without the state of Oregon are received and handled in large numbers at the Portland Union Stockyards. Upon entering such stockyards, all livestock of shipments originating in Oregon not accompanied by an Oregon brand inspection certificate are inspected by Oregon brand inspectors for the purpose of verifying ownership thereof.

Livestock shipments originating in foreign countries and states other than Oregon are also received in large numbers at the Portland Union Stockyards. The evidence shows that in many instances such livestock from out of the state are accompanied by brand inspection certificates issued by the officials of the country or state in which said shipments originate. Livestock shipped from the state of Washington are received at the Portland stockyards accompanied by a transportation certificate issued under the laws of that state. In such instances such Washington livestock are inspected upon their arrival at the stockyards in this state by a brand inspector of that state and a Washington state brand inspection certificate is issued covering them.

A large volume of the livestock received at the Portland Union Stockyards from outside the state of Oregon arrives by common carrier and is accompanied by carrier's way bills showing the country or state of origin. In addition, the Portland Union Stockyards Company keeps records concerning all livestock received at such stockyards, showing which state is the point of origin, and the purported ownership of all stock so received from outside the state of Oregon.

Both plaintiffs purchase large numbers of livestock shipped in from areas outside of Oregon, and thereafter transport the same to their respective premises for processing. In the plant operated by Armour and Company the livestock are usually shipped by common carrier directly to its plant. The principal sources of the our-of-state livestock, in the order of importance, are Idaho; Washington; Alberta, Canada; California; Montana and Colorado. All of these sources have brand inspection laws requiring brand inspection before the stock may be shipped from such states or countries.

Defendant has ruled and advised the plaintiffs that if they sell or slaughter or permit the sale or slaughter of any livestock in or through their respective establishments prior to having said livestock inspected by a brand inspector of this state, they will be in violation of § 18 of the Act. To support this contention, defendant construes the Act of 1949 as applicable to all livestock sold or slaughtered by plaintiffs irrespective of the point from whence the livestock were shipped 'except as otherwise provided by Chapter 9, Title 7, U.S.C.A., as amended.' Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921.

This situation moved the plaintiffs to seek a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Act of 1949 did not require a brand inspection of livestock shipped from points outside of the state of Oregon for sale and slaughter in this state, and, in the event the court held that such livestock originating outside of the state of Oregon were to be brand inspected as required by the defendant, then for a further declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and void.

After trial the court entered a decree, the salient and challenged provision of which is as follows: 'It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the brand inspection requirements of Chapter 193, Oregon Laws 1949 apply only to livestock originating within the State of Oregon. Livestock brought into Oregon from other states and foreign countries for immediate slaughter and such livestock purchased for immediate slaughter at Portland Union Stockyards or elsewhere while in interstate commerce are not subject to the brand inspection requirements of Chapter 193, Oregon Laws 1949 and an inspection of such livestock by an Oregon brand inspector is not authorized or required by said Act.' It is from this decree that the defendant appeals.

This action is properly brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act of this state. Section 6-602, O.C.L.A., authorizes the determination of the rights or status of interested parties when they are affected by a 'constitution, statute * * *.' Although the defendant mildly suggests the contrary, the record discloses, to our satisfaction, the presence of a justiciable controversy and that the court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. Webb v. Clatsop School Dist. No. 3, 188 Or. 324, 215 P.2d 368; Oregon Creamery Mfgs. Ass'n v. White, 159 Or. 99, 78 P.2d 572.

The essence of the controversy between the parties, as we see it, is: Does the Act of 1949 contemplate brand inspection for livestock coming into Oregon from other states or countries? If an answer is in the negative, then there will be no necessity for an answer to the constitutional questions raised.

In 2 Lewis' Sutherland, Statutory Construction (2d ed.) 927, § 498, it is said: '* * * Whenever an act can be so construed and applied as to avoid conflict with the constitution, and give it the force of law, this will be done. Where one construction will make a statute void for conflict with the constitution, and another would render it valid, the latter will be adopted though the former at first view is otherwise the more natural interpretation of the language. Every intendment should be made to favor the constitutionality of a statute. The legislature is presumed to act in view of the constitution and not to intend a violation of its provisions or the enactment of an invalid law.'

See State of Oregon v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or. 438, 449, 123 P. 40, Ann.Cas.1914B, 179. Also see State v. Anthony, 179 Or. 282, 300, 169 P.2d 587; Fullerton v. Lamm, 177 Or. 655, 670, 163 P.2d 941, 165 P.2d 63; Major Creek Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 99 Or. 172, 183, 195 P. 177; Yu Cong Eng. v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500, 518, 70 L.Ed. 1059, 46 S.Ct. 619. If there is any doubt respecting its constitutionality, the statute will be upheld unless it is clearly repugnant to some provisions of the Constitution. 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, 782, § 128; City of Portland v. Stevens, 180 Or. 514, 527, 178 P.2d 175; Herbring v. Lee, 126 Or. 588, 596, 269 P. 236, 60 A.L.R. 1165.

The cardinal rule for the construction of a statute is to ascertain from the language thereof the intent of the lawmakers as to what purpose was of the served, or what object was designed to be attained. Leonard v. Ekwall, 124 Or. 351, 359, 264 P. 463; Fox v. Galloway, 174 Or. 339, 346, 148 P.2d 922. We accomplish this with such aid as may be found in the rules of interpretations and legitimate extrinsic sources, always keeping in mind that the legislative intent to enact a valid and constitutional law will be assumed. Fullerton v. Lamm, supra, 177 Or. at page 670, 163 P.2d at page 947. When the legislative intent has been ascertained, it should be given effect, even though, in doing so, the literal meaning of the words used is not followed. Allen v. Multnomah County, 179 Or. 548, 554, 173 P.2d 475; Wood v. State ex rel. Lee, 133 Tex. 110, 126 S.W.2d 4, 121 A.L.R. 931, 935. In arriving at the legislative intention, it is proper for the court to take into consideration the policy and purposes of the Act, and to consider in that connection whether or not such a policy and purposes will be attained by a literal interpretation of the language used. Banfield v. Schulderman, 137 Or. 167, 178, 296 P. 1066, 298 P. 905, 89 A.L.R. 504; Allen v. Multnomah County, supra, 179 Or. at 554, 173 P.2d 475. It is the express intent of the legislature which we seek, and to do this we must look to the entire statute. Sunshine Dairy v. Peterson, 183 Or. 305, 317, 193 P.2d 543; State ex rel. Peterson v. Woodruff, 179 Or. 640, 173 P.2d 961. In so doing we may include the title in our consideration. City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or. 365, 386, 203 P.2d 640; State ex rel. Bylander v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 386, 22 P.2d 883.

It is from a combination and application of all these rules that such intent is derived. Fox v. Galloway, supra, 174 Or. at page 346, 148 P.2d 922; Sunshine Dairy v. Peterson, s...