United States v. Research Laboratories
Decision Date | 02 April 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 9898.,9898. |
Citation | 126 F.2d 42 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. RESEARCH LABORATORIES, Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., and Frank Hale, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash., and Wm. W. Barron, Atty., Department of justice, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Howard P. Arnest and William S. Nash, both of Portland, Or., and Stephen F. Chadwick, Orville H. Mills, and Chadwick, Chadwick & Mills, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
In the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri, 143 packages of a drug called Nue-Ovo were proceeded against by appellant, the United States, on a libel for condemnation under § 304(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,1 21 U.S.C.A. § 334(a). On application of appellee, Research Laboratories, Incorporated, claimant of the 143 packages of Nue-Ovo, the proceeding was removed to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington. In that court appellant was ordered to, and did, amend its libel. To the amended libel (hereafter called the libel) appellee filed exceptions, one of which was that the libel "fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." This exception was sustained and the proceeding was dismissed. From the order of dismissal this appeal is prosecuted.
The libel is crudely and inexpertly drawn. It does not state directly and positively, as a competently drawn libel would have stated, that the 143 packages of Nue-Ovo were misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce. It does, however, state:
Thus, in substance, the libel states that 143 packages of Nue-Ovo and printed circulars containing false and misleading statements concerning Nue-Ovo were shipped in interstate commerce from Chicago, Illinois, to Kansas City, Missouri, and that all the packages and all the circulars were so shipped by a single shipper (Nue-Ovo, Inc.) to a single consignee (Crown Drug Company) and were by said consignee simultaneously received in interstate commerce.
These statements must, for present purposes, be taken as true. Taking them as true, we hold that the circulars accompanied the packages and constituted their labeling within the meaning of the Act;4 that, since the circulars were false and misleading, the packages were misbranded within the meaning of the Act;5 that, since the circulars accompanied the packages in interstate commerce, the packages were misbranded while in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act; and that, therefore, the packages — and, of course, their contents — are subject to condemnation.
The libel does not state, nor is it material, whether the packages and the circulars did or did not travel in the same crate, carton or other container or on the same train, truck or other vehicle during their interstate journey. The packages and the circulars had a common origin and a common destination and arrived at their destination simultaneously. Clearly, therefore, they accompanied each other, regardless of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rutherford v. United States
...(6th Cir. 1965) (honey); United States v. 46 Cartons, etc., 113 F.Supp. 336, 338 (D.N.J.1953) (cigarettes); United States v. Research Laboratories, 126 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1942) cert. denied, 317 U.S. 656, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 528 (1942); Hanson v. United States, 417 F.Supp. 30 (D.Minn.1976)......
-
United States v. Sullivan
...States v. Two Bags, etc., Poppy Seeds, supra, United States v. 7 Jugs, etc., Dr. Salsbury's Rakos, supra; United States v. Research Laboratories, 9 Cir., 1945, 126 F.2d 42; United States v. Commercial Creamery Co., D.C.E.D.Wash.1942, 43 F.Supp. So construing section 301(k) of the Act there ......
-
United States v. 7 Jugs, etc., of Dr. Salsbury's Rakos
...aspects? This question is answered in the affirmative. The answer to these questions was first made in United States v. Research Laboratories, 9 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 42, 45, where the libel, which the lower court dismissed, alleged that the circulars accompanied the articles in commerce by ......
-
United States v. TWO BAGS, ETC.
...be construed to effect it." See also United States v. Schider, 246 U.S. 519, 522, 38 S.Ct. 369, 62 L.Ed. 863; United States v. Research Laboratories, 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 42, 45. In United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 280, 64 S.Ct. 134, 136, the Supreme Court gave recent expression to ......
-
Consuming Genomics: Regulating Direct-to-consumer Genetic and Genomic Information
...is, however, considered to be a subset of labeling. 21 C.F.R. §202.1 (a)(1) (2013); United States v. Research Laboratories, Inc., 126 F.2d 42, 45 (7th Cir. 146. See, e.g., 23andMe, @23andMe, Twitter (July 30, 2012, 4:07 PM), https://twitter.com/23andMe/status/230077137040842754 [hereinafter......