|
|
Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (1936)
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.
Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (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. 233, click here.
Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck No. 597 Argued January 6, 1936 Decided February 10, 1936 297 U.S. 251
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
1. As an incident to a temporary and experimental scheme for assisting the milk industry by fixing prices to producer and consumer (Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502), the New York Milk Control Act, as amended, discriminated between dealers who had, and dealers who had not, well advertised tradenames, by permitting the latter to sell bottled milk in the City of New York at a price one cent less per quart than the price prescribed for the former. Held, that there was a reasonable basis for the discrimination, and that a dealer of the former class who failed to show that, in practice, the differential had resulted in any gain of trade at its expense by the latter class of dealers, or had caused it substantial loss, did not prove a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 261, 263.
2. The findings in this case establish that, before the fixing of prices under the Act, dealers without well advertised brands were able to compete for the trade in question, but only by slightly underselling their advertised competitors. The differential is sustained as an attempt, competent to the legislature during the limited term of the experiment, to preserve this trade practice, already existing, which balanced the advantage of a lower price for the one group against the advantage of advertisement enjoyed by the other. P. 261.
11 F.Supp. 599 affirmed.
Appeal from a decree which dismissed, upon the final hearing, a suit to enjoin the enforcement of a provision of the New York Agriculture & Markets Law. For an earlier phase, see s.c., 293 U.S. 194. Cf. p. 266, post.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (1936) in 297 U.S. 251 297 U.S. 252–297 U.S. 256. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=X5UA5SEV7CT3B5Q.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (1936), in 297 U.S. 251, pp. 297 U.S. 252–297 U.S. 256. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=X5UA5SEV7CT3B5Q.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (1936). cited in 1936, 297 U.S. 251, pp.297 U.S. 252–297 U.S. 256. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=X5UA5SEV7CT3B5Q.
|