Universal Mach. Co. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Com'n
| Decision Date | 30 June 1938 |
| Citation | 16 N.E.2d 53,301 Mass. 40 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE UNIVERSAL MACHINE COMPANY v. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CONTROL COMMISSION & another. |
March 9, 1938.
Present: FIELD LUMMUS, DOLAN, & COX, JJ.
Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. Intoxicating Liquor. Public Officer. Equity Pleading and Practice, Bill, Demurrer. The Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission had power, under G. L. (Ter Ed.)
c. 138, Section 24, as appearing in St.
1933, c. 376 Section 2, and as amended by St. 1934, c. 232, to make a regulation numbered 30A that
An allegation in a bill in equity that use of a certain mechanical washer in conjunction with a certain powder was an "equally effective method of germicidal action for the washing and sterilizing of glasses as required by" regulation 30A of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission was a conclusion of law and was not admitted by a demurrer to the bill. A proper interpretation of regulation 30A of the Alcoholic Beverages Control
Commission permitting the substitution of certain "equally effective methods of germicidal action by the use of heat, hot water, steam or mechanical devices" for that specifically described therein was that the device must be one which through the action of heat, hot water or steam produces germicidal action equal to that of "clean water heated to and maintained at a minimum of 160 degrees Fahrenheit" for at least five minutes; the use of a certain mechanical washer in conjunction with a certain powder alone would not be a permissible substitute device. A general allegation in a bill in equity that members of the Alcoholic
Beverages Control Commission have "acted in an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable manner" in the interpretation of a regulation, without specification of acts, was a conclusion of law not admitted by demurrer.
A determination by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission of what were the best methods for sterilizing glasses and other utensils under plans described by them in their regulation 30A was a question of fact for the commission to determine and their refusal to approve of a particular method, not shown to have been made in bad faith, could not be controverted.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on November 19, 1937. Demurrers by the defendants were heard by Williams, J., and were sustained and a final decree dismissing the bill was entered. The plaintiff appealed.
H. J. Booras, (J.
A. Edgerly with him,) for the plaintiff.
R. Clapp, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.
This is a suit in equity which was brought in the Superior Court whereby the plaintiff seeks to have the defendants, the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission and Joseph F. O'Brien (its chief investigator and counsel), and their agents, investigators and representatives enjoined from representing to customers or prospective customers of the plaintiff, and to the various present or prospective "licensees of alcoholic beverages," and to the trade in general, that the "Universal Electric Washer" of the plaintiff as used in conjunction with "Sterilo-Cleaner Powder" does not comply with the regulations of the defendant commission. The defendants demurred to the plaintiff's bill. The judge entered an interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrers on the first ground stated therein, "That the plaintiff has not set forth in its bill any cause or matter entitling it to relief in equity," and the plaintiff appealed therefrom and from the final decree entered dismissing the bill.
The plaintiff alleges in its bill that it manufactures and sells to the general public, and particularly to "licensees of alcoholic beverages," a "certain" washer of glasses, known as "Universal Electric Washer," which, as used in conjunction with "Sterilo-Cleaner Powder," effectively washes and sterilizes glasses; that "said mechanical device or apparatus . . . is an equally effective method of germicidal action for the washing and sterilizing of glasses," as required by regulation 30 A of the commission; and that it is most accommodating and acceptable to the trade and to the storekeepers generally, who hold licenses and are under the duty of observing the regulations of the commission. The bill further recites that the commission, through the defendant O'Brien and its various other inspectors and investigators, has represented and represents to various customers and prospective customers of the plaintiff that its device does not comply with the regulations of the commission; that it cannot and should not be used by the licensees as a sterilizer of glasses; and that the only methods approved by the commission to that end are those whereby glasses must be submerged for at least five minutes to the germicidal action of clean water heated to and maintained at a minimum of one hundred sixty degrees Fahrenheit. The plaintiff further represents that the defendants, unmindful of the further provision of regulation 30 A that "Equally effective methods of germicidal action by the use of heat, hot water, steam or mechanical devices may be substituted," by their representation to "licensees of alcoholic beverages" and to the trade and customers of the plaintiff, cause many of its customers not to buy its washers, and others, who have contracted to buy the same, to withdraw from their contracts to purchase; that the commission is without right or jurisdiction to make regulations "as to the washing and sterilization of dishes and silverware in licensed places where food is served, for said power is vested by Chapters 140 and 111, and by other provisions of law, in the various boards of health and licensing authorities of the various cities and towns . . . and that . . . [the defendants'] interpretation of regulation 30 A is arbitrary, unfair, and unreasonable," in that it fails to take into consideration its provisions for the substitution of equally effective devices. The bill further alleges that, in these circumstances, irreparable damage is being done and will be done by the defendants and their representatives, to the "trade, business, and contractual rights and privileges" of the plaintiff, and that it "has no complete or adequate remedy at law."
The commission is established by Section 43, inserted in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 6 by St. 1933, c. 120, Section 2, as amended by St. 1933, c 375, Section 1. By the provisions of Section 44, inserted in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 6 by St. 1933, c. 120, Section 2, as amended by St. 1933, c. 376, Section 1, the commission is given general authority as to the supervision of the conduct of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial