United States v. Barrels More or Less Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, NINETY-FIVE
| Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | NINETY-FIVE,No. 559,559 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BARRELS (MORE OR LESS) ALLEGED APPLE CIDER VINEGAR |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mr. James A. Fowler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the United States.
Messrs. Lawrence C. Spieth, John G. White, and Austin V. Cannon, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondents.
This case arises under Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768. (Comp. St. § 8717 et seq.). The United States filed information in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, for the condemnation of 95 barrels of vinegar. Every barrel seized was labeled:
'Douglas Packing Company Excelsior Brand Apple Cider Vinegar Made from Selected Apples Reduced to 4 Percentum Rochester, N. Y.'
The information alleged that the vinegar was adulterated, in violation of section 7 of the act. It also alleged that the vinegar was made from dried or evaporated apples, and was misbranded in violation of section 8, in that the statements on the label were false and misleading, and in that it was an imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, namely, apple cider vinegar.
The Douglas Packing Company appeared as claimant, and by its answer admitted that the vinegar was labeled as alleged, and that evaporated apples had been used in its manufacture. It averred that nevertheless it was pure cider vinegar and denied adulteration and misbranding. A jury was waived, and the case was submitted on the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts. The court found that the charge of adulteration was not sustained, but held that the vinegar was misbranded. Claimant appealed, and the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment. 289 Fed. 181. Certiorari was allowed. 263 U. S. 695, 44 Sup. Ct. 37, 68 L. Ed. .
The question for decision is whether the vinegar was misbranded.
The substance of the agreed statement of facts may be set forth briefly. Claimant is engaged in the manufacture of food products from evaporated and unevaporated apples. During the apple season, from about September 25 to December 15, it makes apple cider and apple cider vinegar from fresh or unevaporated apples. During the balance of the year, it makes products which it designates as 'apple cider' and 'apple cider vinegar' from evaporated apples. The most approved process for dehydrating apples is used, and, in applying it, small quantities of sulphur fumes are employed to prevent rot, fermentation, and consequent discoloration. The principal result of dehydration is the removal of about 80 per cent. of the water. Whether, and to what extent, any other constituents of the apple are removed is not beyond controversy; in the present state of chemical science, no accepted test or method of analysis is provided for the making of such determination. Only mature fruit, free from rot and ferment, can be used economically and advantageously.
In manufacturing, claimant places in a receptacle a quantity of evaporated apples to which an amount of pure water substantially equivalent to that removed in the evaporating process has been added. A heavy weight is placed on top of the apples and a stream of water is introduced at the top of the receptacle through a pipe and is applied until the liquid, released through a vent at the bottom, has carried off in solution such of the constituents of the evaporated apples as are soluble in cold water and useful in the manufacture of vinegar. Such liquid, which is substantially equivalent in quantity to that which would have been obtained had unevaporated apples been used, carries a small and entirely harmless quantity of sulphur dioxide, which is removed during the process of fining and filtration by the addition of barium carbonate or some other proper chemical agent. The liquid is then subjected to alcoholic and subsequent acetic fermentation in the same manner as that followed by the manufacturer of apple cider vinegar made from the liquid content of unevaporated apples. Claimant employs the same receptacles, equipment and process of manufacturing for evaporated as for unevaporated apples, except that, in the case of evaporated apples, pure water is added as above described, and in the process of fining and filtration an additional chemical is used to precipitate any sulphur compounds present and resulting from dehydration.
The resulting liquid, upon chemical analysis, gives results similar to those obtained from an analysis of apple cider made from unevaporated apples, except that it contains a trace of barium incident to the process of manufacture. Vinegar so made is similar in taste and in composition to the vinegar made from unevaporated apples, except that the vinegar made from evaporated apples contains a trace of barium incident to the process of manufacture. There is no claim by libelant that this trace of barium renders it deleterious or injurious to health. It was conceded that the vinegar involved in these proceedings was vinegar made from dried or evaporated apples by substantially the process above described. There is no claim by the libelant that the vinegar was inferior to that made from fresh or unevaporated apples.
Since 1906, claimant has sold throughout the United States its product manufactured from unevaporated as well as from evaporated apples as 'apple cider' and 'apple cider vinegar,' selling its vinegar under the brand above quoted, or under the brand 'Sun Bright brand apple cider vinegar made from selected apples.' Its output of vinegar is about 100,000 barrels a year. Before and since the passage of the Food and Drugs Act, vinegar in large quantities, and to a certain extent a beverage, made from evaporated apples, were sold in various parts of the United States as 'apple cider vinegar' and 'apple cider,'respectively, by many manufacturers. Claimant, in manufacturing and selling such products so labeled, acted in good faith. The Department of Agriculture has never sanctioned this labeling, and its attitude with reference thereto is evidenced by the definition of 'apple cider vinegar' set forth in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.
...1614. "It is not difficult to choose statements, designs, and devices that will not deceive." United States v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438, 443, 44 S.Ct. 529, 531, 68 L.Ed. 1094 (1924), quoted in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumers Council, Inc., 425 U.S.......
-
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc
...believe will mislead his em- ployees." Id., at 620, 89 S.Ct., at 1943, 23 L.Ed.2d, at 581. Cf. United States v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438, 443, 44 S.Ct. 529, 531, 68 L.Ed. 1094, 1097 ("It is not difficult to choose statements, designs, and devices which will not deceive"). Althoug......
-
INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber
...sub nom. Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. FCC, 396 U.S. 842 90 S.Ct. 50, 24 L.Ed.2d 93 (1969). Cf. United States v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438, 443 44 S.Ct. 529, 531, 68 L.Ed. 1094 (1924) ("It is not difficult to choose statements, designs and devices which will not Accord, Friedman v. R......
-
National Nutritional Foods Ass'n v. Food and Drug Administration, s. 1189-1203
...that resulting from indirection and ambiguity, as well as from statements which are false.' United States v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438, 443, 44 S.Ct. 529, 531, 68 L.Ed. 1094 (1924).71 Under the terms of the regulation, 'the label may state that the food is a source of an essential......
-
THE "CATCH-22" OF RULE 23(B) (2): PAST PURCHASER'S STANDING TO PURSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
...[https://perma.cc/Y8G2-RHQB]. (130) United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 (131) See id. at 443-44. (132) See id. at 439. (133) Id. at 442-43 (first citing United States v. Schider, 246 U.S. 519, 522 (1918); then citing United States v.......
-
§2.2 Adulteration and Misbranding Under 1906 Act
...fact that some one may honestly believe in the theory which he fraudulently and dishonesty exploits."[122] U.S. v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 "It was stipulated that the juice of unevaporated apples when subjected to alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentation is entitled to the ......
-
The War on Drugs: How KSR v. Teleflex and Merck v. Integra Continue the Erosion of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection
...at 497–98. 29See Milestones, supra note 23. 30Id. (citing United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels (More or Less) Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438, 442–43 (1924)). 31Id. (citing Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 75 Pub. L. No. 717, § 505(a), 52 Stat. 1040, 1052 (1938)). 32Michael D. ......
-
§2.3 Act of 1938
...161 at 3.[170] Compare with American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94 (1902); see also, U.S. v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 (1924).[171] See note 161.[172] Id.[173] See also, U.S. v. 23 7/12 Dozen Bottles, 55 Cent-Size, Etc., 44 F.2d 831 (1930). [174] 73 Congress......