The Hebe Co. v. Shaw
248 U.S. 297 (1919)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

The Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919)

The Hebe Company v. Shaw

No. 664

Argued December 11, 12, 1918

Decided January 7, 1919

248 U.S. 297

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. 248 U. S. 302.

(2) That, as so construed and applied, the statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 248 U. S. 303.

(3) That, as applied to the cans containing the product, the prohibition

Page 248 U. S. 298

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. 248 U. S. 304.

(4) That the Federal Food & Drugs Act did not prevent such regulation. Id.

Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 248 U. S. 301

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.