United States v. 62 CASES, ETC., Civ. No. 1464.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1949 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 1464. |
| Citation | 87 F. Supp. 735 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 62 CASES, MORE OR LESS, CONTAINING SIX JARS OF JAM (PURE FOOD MFG. CO., claimant). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Everett M. Grantham, United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Albert H. Clancy, Assistant United States Attorney, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for the United States.
Wilson & Whitehouse, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Ireland & Ireland, and Benjamin F. Stapleton, Denver, Colorado, for claimant Pure Food Mfg. Co.
The facts in this case are not in serious dispute. Practically all the findings made are based upon the agreements of counsel.
Briefly, it may be stated that the article of food in question is an imitation jam. Jam is an article of food for which definitions and standards have been established.
The question involved is mainly one of law. The government asserts that an article of food for which definitions and standards have been established cannot lawfully be imitated and sold as an imitation of such article of food, even though such imitation is properly labeled as an imitation. The contentions of the government are based upon Section 343(g), Title 21 United States Code Annotated. This interpretation of subsection (g) completely ignores subsection (c). The statute reads in part as follows:
It will be observed that subsection (c) contains no exception of an article of food for which definitions and standards have been established. It plainly and clearly states an article to be misbranded "if it is an imitation of another food". The product in question is an imitation of another food. It does not pretend to be anything else. Subsection (c) continues, "unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word `imitation' and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated." Again, the article involved meets this as well as every other requirement of this subsection. The language is unequivocal, without exceptions, and is not obscured in doubt or ambiguity, unless there is read into it language and meaning not now therein contained.
Any person reading subsection (c) and even in connection with subsection (g) would reasonably come to the conclusion that if the imitation of another food has a label bearing, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word "imitation" and immediately thereafter the name of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 30 CASES, ETC.
...1949, deleted from its original opinion the portion upon which claimant relies. Claimant also cites U. S. v. 62 Cases, More or Less, Containing Six Jars of Jam, D.C.N.M., 87 F.Supp. 735, which involved the same misbranding charge as is here involved. This case was reversed on appeal on June......
-
62 Cases, More or Less, Each Containing Six Jars of Jam v. United States 8212 1951
...an imitation fruit preserve and complied in all respects with subsection (c) of § 403 of the Act, it could not be deemed 'misbranded.' D.C., 87 F.Supp. 735. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed this judgment. 183 F.2d 1014. It held that since the produc......
-
Dean Foods Co. v. WISCONSIN DEPT. OF AGR.
...food it imitated was an article of food for which the Administrator had duly prescribed a definition and standard. United States v. 62 Cases, etc., 87 F.Supp. 735 (D.N.M.1949). With one panel member dissenting, the court of appeals reversed. 183 F.2d 1014 (10th Cir. 1950). It emphasized the......
-
Kriss v. White
... ... 734 ... KRISS et al ... WHITE et al ... Civ. No. 3527 ... United States District Court N. D ... does not enlarge to any extent the class of cases of which the district courts were given ... ...