DocketNumber: No. 8983
Citation Numbers: 153 F.2d 127
Judges: Edgerton
Filed Date: 1/14/1946
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/23/2022
This appeal is from a decree which restrains appellant, a Washington baker, from manufacturing or introducing into commerce in the District of Columbia “any food that consists in whole or in part of filthy or putrid substances or has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth.” The court found that appellant had been doing these things. Appellant does not question the findings. His contention is that because his business is a local one, carried on entirely within the District of Columbia, the Federal Food, Drug, and
Section 331 of the Federal Act prohibits “(a) The introduction * * * -into interstate commerce of any food * * * that is adulterated * * * '(§0 The manufacture within any Territory of any food * * * that is adulterated * * Section 321 defines “Territory” as “including the District of Columbia” and defines “interstate commerce” as “(1) commerce between any State or Territory and any place outside thereof, and (2) commerce within the District of Columbia or within any other Territory * * Section 342 provides that food shall be deemed “adulterated * * * (3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food; or (4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.” With exceptions not material here, section 332 gives the district courts jurisdiction to restrain violations of section 331.
On their face the quoted provisions of the Federal Act support the decree appealed from. Appellant’s attack upon the decree rests on the premise that these provisions of the Federal Act “parallel in substantially every respect the local laws and regulations upon this subject of adulterated foods.” From this premise appellant derives the conclusion that the Federal Act, despite its plain language, is not applicable to local business in the District of Columbia.
We find that both appellant’s premise and his conclusion are incorrect.
Chapter 1 of Title 33 of the District of Columbia Code forbids sale or delivery, or possession for sale, of “any article of food or drug which is adulterated within the meaning of this chapter.”
The local act of December 16, 1941, “To prevent the sale of unwholesome food in the District of Columbia”
It is not clear that these local acts prohibit, as the Federal Act does, all of the misconduct which appellant has committed and which the injunction forbids. Moreover these local acts do not specifically provide, as the Federal Act does, for restraint of such misconduct by injunction. The remedies provided by the local acts are condemnation of unwholesome food, criminal prosecution, and revocation of licenses.
We conclude that the provisions of the Federal Act which are involved in this case are not closely paralleled by local law. But even if they were, it would not follow that the local law would supersede the federal instead of supplementing it.
Affirmed.
June 25, 1938, 52 Stat.. 1040, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 301-392.
D.C.Code, 1940, § 33 — 101, 30 Stat. 246.
§ 33 — 103 (b) ninth.
D.C.Code, 1940, Supp. IV §§ 22— 3416 to 22-3422, 55 Stat. 807.
Bakeries are licensed under the General License Law of the District of Columbia. D.C.Code, 1940, §§ 47 — 2301, 47 — 2327; 47 Stat. 550, 554. This law authorizes the Commissioners to revoke licenses in the interest of health, and provides for criminal prosecutions. Code, §§ 47 — 2345, 47 — 2346, 47 Stat. 563.
D.C.Code, §§ 22-3421, 47 — 2347.
Nuckols v. United States, 69 App. D.C. 120, 99 E.2d 353. Cf. Page v. Burnstine, 102 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 268.
Johnson v. United States, 225 U.S. 405, 413, 32 S.Ct. 748, 56 L.Ed. 1142; Kleindienst v. United States, 48 App. D.C. 190, 202; O’Brien v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 135, 99 F.2d 368.
United States v. Beach, 324 U.S. 193, 65 S.Ct. 602.
Id., 324 U.S. at page 195, 65 S.Ct. 663. The Pure Pood and Drugs Act of 1908, 34 Stat. 768, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-5, 7 et seq. was repeatedly held to be applicable, according to its terms, to local activity in the District. Galt v. United States, 39 App.D.C. 470; Dade v. United States, 40 App.D.C. 94. It was also held to supersede certain provisions of an earlier local law. District of Columbia v. Coburn, 35 App.D.C. 324.
D.C.Code, § 22-3422.