Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 266 (1936)

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 297 U.S. 251, click here.

Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Ten Eyck

No. 349

Argued January 15, 1936
Decided February 10, 1936
297 U.S. 266

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

1. The New York Milk Control Act, as amended effective April 1, 1934, discriminates between milk dealers without well advertised trade names who were in the business before April 10, 1933, and those in that class who entered it later, by granting to the former and denying to the latter the privilege of selling milk in New York City at a price one cent below the minimum binding on competitors with well advertised trade names. Held, that the discrimination is arbitrary and unreasonable, and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 271.

2. This provision, on its face, is not a regulation of a business in the interest of, or for the protection of, the public, but an attempt to give an economic advantage to those engaged in a given business at an arbitrary date as against all those who entered the business after that date. No reasons for the discrimination are disclosed by the record, and, in the absence of such showing, the Court has no right to conjure up possible situations which might justify the discrimination. Pp. 272, 274.

3. The question whether the time limitation found unconstitutional is severable from the provision for the price differential is left for adjudication by the state courts upon remand of the case. P. 274.

Reversed.

Appeal from a judgment upholding an order denying the appellant a license to sell milk. For reports of the case in the New York courts, see 267 N.Y. 9, 195 N.E. 532; 242 App. Div. 881, 275 N.Y.S. 669. Compare the case next preceding in this volume.