United States v. Thirteen Crates of Frozen Eggs
| Decision Date | 21 November 1913 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. THIRTEEN CRATES OF FROZEN EGGS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
H Snowden Marshall, U.S. Atty., and Addison S. Pratt, Asst U.S. Atty., both of New York City.
Breed Abbott & Morgan, of New York City, for Armour & Co. claimant.
The claimant, Armour & Co., of Chicago, Ill., having a plant and place of business there, is a purchaser of and dealer in eggs and other food products, not a producer. At Chicago, Ill., it purchased and had on hand these eggs in question and others like them. They were released from the shells and frozen but by reason of decay had so far decomposed that they were not fit for human food or consumption as such. As unfit for human consumption these with others had been selected and segregated by claimant at Chicago, Ill., from their other eggs. It is conceded that these eggs had reached such a stage of decomposition as to come within the definition and description of 'adulterated' article of food if handled, shipped, or sold, or intended to be shipped and sold as an article of food. Eggs in this condition may be sold and used as an article of food, or for tanning purposes (that is, for use in the tanning of leather), and claimant had sold eggs of this description, selected and segregated at the same time as these, to a tannery or tanning firm located and doing business at a point not far distant from Chicago for tanning purposes. It had not shipped or sold any of its eggs of this description to be used and consumed as an article of food and did not contemplate doing so.
The 13 crates of frozen eggs seized and sought to be condemned in this proceeding were shipped by the claimant, Armour & Co., in interstate commerce from Chicago, Ill., to New York City, N.Y., where that corporation had and has a warehouse and place of business and had been received there, but had not been sold or disposed of or offered for sale when the seizure was made. There are tanneries in the vicinity of New York, and in fact the intention of the claimant in so transporting these eggs in question from Chicago to New York was to offer them for sale and dispose of them, if possible, at New York for use in tanning and not for use or consumption as food. This intention or purpose of the claimant had not been disclosed in any way or manner to any person or by any labeling or branding. The eggs in question had not been denatured or subjected to any chemical or other process. They were rotten, decayed eggs, unfit for human food, and came within the definition 'adulterated' for the reason they consisted in whole or in part of a filthy and decomposed or putrid animal or vegetable substance. See subdivision 6, section 7, of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 768. By section 6 of the act it is provided that 'the term food as used herein shall include all articles used for food * * * whether simple, mixed or compound. ' By section 2 the introduction into one state from another state ' * * * of any article of food * * * which is adulterated * * * within the meaning of this act, is hereby prohibited. ' Section 10 provides for the seizure and condemnation of 'any article of food * * * that is adulterated * * * within the meaning of this act ' and which, having been transported in interstate commerce, remains unsold, etc.
The contention of the United States is that eggs are an article of food and that they remain such if not denatured or subjected to some chemical process which destroys them as an article of food, and that when they become decomposed and therefore unfit for food they are, within the meaning of the act (section 7, subd. 6), an adulterated article of food and subject to the condemnation of the act. The contention of the claimant is that, while the eggs prior to decomposition were an article of food, when decomposed they have lost their character as an article of food if the owner does not intend to use, transport, or sell them as an article of food but does intend to transport them and sell them for tanning purposes only and transports them for that purpose only. The contention is that an undisclosed intent to transport in interstate commerce and sell decomposed eggs, which are actually unfit for food, for use in tanning only takes the same out of the category of 'adulterated article of food.'
The difficulty with this contention is that these eggs, or eggs of this character, not denatured, come squarely within the definition of an adulterated article of food. The character of the thing does not depend on the intent or purpose of the owner in transporting it or selling it, or the purpose the owner may have in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 426 Bags of Economy Special Hog Feed
... ... directly in point are the following: United States v. 12 ... Crates of Frozen Eggs (D.C.) 208 F. 950; Id., 215 F. 584, ... 585, 131 C.C.A ... ...
-
Ferch v. People, 14202.
... ... of bad eggs for human consumption, on appeal to the county ... C.A. § 1 et seq ... United States v. Thirteen Crates of Frozen Eggs, ... ...
-
United States v. Technical Egg Products, Inc.
...product retains a semblance of the identity it possessed as a food, the product must be considered as a food. United States v. Thirteen Crates of Frozen Eggs, 2 Cir., 208 F. 950, affirmed, 2 Cir., 215 F. The plaintiff is entitled to an injunction by virtue of the provisions of § 332 of Titl......
-
United States v. 52 Drums Maple Syrup
...commerce is immaterial on the question of the government's right to forfeit because of such shipment. United States v. Thirteen Crates of Frozen Eggs, D.C., 208 F. 950; Affirmed, 2 Cir., 215 F. 584; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45, 31 S.Ct. 364, 55 L.Ed. 364. The introduction......