|
|
The Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
The Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 248 U.S. 294, click here.
The Hebe Company v. Shaw No. 664 Argued December 11, 12, 1918 Decided January 7, 1919 248 U.S. 297
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Syllabus
The General Code of Ohio, § 12725, forbids, under criminal penalty, the manufacture, sale, etc., of condensed milk, unless made from unadulterated milk from which the cream has not been removed and in which the milk solids are equivalent to 12% of those in crude milk and 25% of them fat, and unless the container is distinctly labeled, stamped or marked with its true name, brand, and by whom and under what name made; by § 5778, a food is adulterated if a valuable ingredient has been wholly or in part abstracted, and § 12720 allows skimmed milk to be sold only under restrictions. Appellants’ product, assumed to be wholesome and nutritious and consisting of condensed skimmed milk combined with cocoanut oil, was imported from another state in cases each containing a number of the one pound or six-ounce cans in which it was retailed, each can being labeled "Hebe A Compound of Evaporated Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat Contains 6% Vegetable Fat, 24% Total Solids," with the place of manufacture and address of the company, and the words "For Coffee and Cereals For Baking and Cooking."
Held:
(1) That the product was within the .prohibition of § 12725. P. 302.
(2) That, as so construed and applied, the statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 303.
(3) That, as applied to the cans containing the product, the prohibition of local sale was not invalid as a direct burden on interstate commerce; in this aspect, the cases in which the can were shipped, and not the cans, were the "original package." P. 304.
(4) That the Federal Food & Drugs Act did not prevent such regulation. Id.
Affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," The Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919) in 248 U.S. 297 248 U.S. 298–248 U.S. 301. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6V5P5CG4FGJ8DZ2.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." The Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919), in 248 U.S. 297, pp. 248 U.S. 298–248 U.S. 301. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6V5P5CG4FGJ8DZ2.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in The Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919). cited in 1919, 248 U.S. 297, pp.248 U.S. 298–248 U.S. 301. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6V5P5CG4FGJ8DZ2.
|