United States of America v. Lexington Mill Elevator Company
| Decision Date | 24 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 548,548 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. LEXINGTON MILL & ELEVATOR COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Attorney General McReynolds and Mr. Francis G. Caffey for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 400 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edward P. Smith, Bruce S. Elliott, Edward L. Scarritt, C. J. Smyth, and W. C. Scarritt for respondent.
Mr. Henry P. Blair in behalf of
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 401-404 intentionally omitted] Mr. Ralph S. Rounds as amicus curia.
The petitioner, the United States of America, proceeding under § 10 of the food and drugs act (34 Stat. at L. 768, chap. 3915, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1354), by libel filed in the district court of the United States for the western district of Missouri, sought to seize and condemn 625 sacks of flour in the possession of one Terry, which had been shipped from Lexington, Nebraska, to Castle, Missouri, and which remained in original, unbroken packages. The judgment of the district court, upon verdict in favor of the government, was reversed by the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit (121 C. C. A. 23, 202 Fed. 615), and this writ of certiorari is to review the judgment of that court.
The amended libel charged that the flour had been treated by the 'Alsop Process,' so called, by which nitrogen peroxide gas, generated by electricity, was mixed with atmospheric air, and the mixture then brought in contact with the flour, and that it was thereby adulterated under the fourth and fifth subdivisions of § 7 of the act; namely, (1) in that the flour had been mixed, colored, and stained in a manner whereby damage and inferiority were coneealed and the flour given the appearance of a better grade of flour than it really was, and (2) in that the flour had been caused to contain added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredients, to-wit, nitrites or nitrite reacting material, nitrogen peroxide, nitrous acid, nitric acid, and other poisonous and deleterious substances which might render the flour injurious to health. The libel also charged that the flour was adulterated under the first subdivision of § 7, and was misbranded; but the government does not urge these features of the case here. The verdict was broad enough to cover the charge under the first subdivision of § 7, but in the view we take of the case as to the instruction of the court under subdivision 5 need not be noticed.
The Lexington Mill & Elevator Company, the respondent herein, appeared, claiming the flour, and answered the libel, admitting that the flour had been treated by the Alsop Process, but denying that it had been adulterated, and attacking the constitutionality of the act
A special verdict to the effect that the flour was adulterated was returned and judgment of condemnation entered. The case was taken to the circuit court of appeals upon writ of error. The respondent contended that, among other errors, the instructions of the trial court as to adulteration were erroneous and that the act was unconstitutional. The circuit court of appeals held that the testimony was insufficient to show that by the bleaching process the flour was so colored as to ceonceal inferiority, and was thereby adulterated, within the provisions of subdivision 4. That court also held—and this holding gives rise to the principal controversy here—that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the addition of a poisonous substance, in any quantity, would adulterate the article, for the reason that 'the possibility of injury to health due to the added ingredient, and in the quantity in which it is added, is plainly made an essential element of the prohibition.' It did not pass upon the constitutionality of the act, in view of its rulings on the act's construction.
The case requires a construction of the food and drugs act. Parts of the statute pertinent to this case are:
'In the case of food:
Without reciting the testimony in detail it is enough to say that for the government it tended to show that the added poisonous substances introduced into the flour by the Alsop Process, in the proportion of 1.8 parts per million, calculated as nitrogen, may be injurious to the health of those who use the flour in bread and other forms of food. On the other hand, the testimony for the respondent tended to show that the process does not add to the flour any poisonous or deleterious ingredients which can in any manner render it injurious to the health of a consumer. On these conflicting proofs the trial court was required to submit the case to the jury. That court—after stating the claims of the parties, the government insisting that the flour was adulerated and should be condemned if it contained any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient of a kind or character which was capable of rendering such article injurious to health; the respondent contending that the flour should not be condemned unless the added substances were present in such quantity that the flour would be thereby rendered injurious to health—gave certain instructions to the jury. Part of the charge, excepted to by the respondent reads:
On the other hand, the respondent insisted that the law is, and requested the court to charge the jury:
'That the burden is upon the prosecution to prove the truth of the charge in the libel, that by the treatment of the flour in question by the said Alsop Process it has been caused to contain added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredients, to wit, nitrites or nitrite reacting material, which may render said flour injurious to health.
'And in this connection you are further instructed that it is incumbent upon the government to prove that any such added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredients, if any, contained in said flour, are of such a character and contained in the flour seized in such quantities, conditions, and amounts as may render said flour injurious to health; and unless you find that all of such facts are so proven you cannot find against the claimant, or condemn the flour in question under that charge in the libel; and if you fail to so find, your verdict upon that count or charge in the libel must be in favor of the claimant or defendant.
* * * * *
'The law does not prohibit the adding of nitrites or nitrite reacting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 1,200 CANS, PASTEURIZED WHOLE EGGS, ETC.
... 339 F. Supp. 131 ... UNITED STATES of America ... An article of food consisting of: 1,200 CANS, article ... United States v. Lexington Mill and Elevator Co., 232 U.S. 399, 34 S.Ct. 337, 58 L.Ed ... ...
-
State v. Burris
... ... The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "[n]o person ... is accepted in nearly every state in America and has been found to extend to violations of ... ...
-
U.S. v. Mitcheltree
... Page 1329 ... 940 F.2d 1329 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... JoAnn ... F.2d 908 (10th Cir.1972), the defendant company and its chief chemist were convicted of ... 768). See also United States v. Lexington Mill Co., 232 U.S. 399, 409, 34 S.Ct. 337, 340, ... ...
-
Pine Street Trading Corp. v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
... ... CHESAPEAKE OPERATING COMPANY ... No. 119 ... Court of Appeals of ... Lawrence, an inspector for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ... In United States v. Lexington Mill Co., 232 U.S. 399, 411, 34 S.Ct. 337, 340, ... 418; Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co., 119 U.S. 388, 7 S.Ct. 254, 30 L.Ed. 447 ... ...
-
THE "CATCH-22" OF RULE 23(B) (2): PAST PURCHASER'S STANDING TO PURSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
...442-43 (first citing United States v. Schider, 246 U.S. 519, 522 (1918); then citing United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co.. 232 U.S. 399, 409 (1914); and then citing United States v. Antikamnia Chem. Co., 231 U.S. 654, 665 (134) See Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Pub. L.......
-
§2.2 Adulteration and Misbranding Under 1906 Act
...is to be sought primarily in the language used . . ."[56] Glaser, Kohn & Co. v. U.S., 224 F. 84.[57] U.S. v. Lexington Mill Co., 232 U.S. 399; See also, Ninety-five Barrels, Etc., Vinegar v. U.S., 289 F. 181; ". . . a description of the purpose of the statute would be inadequate which faile......
-
§2.4 Technology, Market Segmentation, and Food Law: 1938-1958
...evidence as may be offered of the actual reactions of numbers of ordinary people in similar circumstance"; c.f. U.S. v. Lexington Mill, 232 U.S. 399 (1914). [238] Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. L. at 1041(g)(3) (1938).[239] Culver v. Nelson, 54 N.W.2d 7 (1952), but see The P......
-
§2.3 Act of 1938
...Id.[164] Id.[165] See, U.S. v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911).[166] See note 161.[167] Id.[168] See, U.S. v. Lexington Mill Elevator Co., 232 U.S. 399 (1914).[169] Id. at note 161 at 3.[170] Compare with American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94 (1902); see also, U.S. v. 9......