Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-07-1912
..... the sum of one hundred dollars for each subsequent offense." "sec. 9. the state chemist is hereby empowered to prescribe and enforce such rules and regulations relating to concentrated commercial feeding stuff as he may deem necessary to carry into effect the full intent and meaning of this act, and to refuse the registration of any feeding stuff under a name which would be ..... , chloral hydrate, or acetanilid, or any derivative or preparation of any of such substances contained therein." "third. if in package form, and the contents are stated in terms of weight or measure, they are not plainly and correctly stated on the outside of the package." "fourth. if the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding ..... have reached their destinations, provided they remain unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken packages." hipolite egg co. v. united states, 220 u. s. 45 , 220 u. s. 54 . to determine the scope of the act with respect to feeding stuffs, we must examine its definitions of the adulteration and misbranding of food, the term "food" including "all articles used for food, drink ..... which the bill seeks to enjoin are not in any way in conflict with the provisions of the federal act. they may be sustained without impairing in the slightest degree its operation and effect. there is no question here of conflicting standards, or of opposition of state to federal authority. it follows that the complainant's bill in this aspect of the .....
Tag this Judgment!