Search Supreme Court Cases
PITTSBURGH MELTING CO. V. TOTTEN, 248 U. S. 1 (1918)
U.S. Supreme Court
Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Totten, 248 U.S. 1 (1918)
Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Totten
Argued April 22, 1918
Decided November 4, 1918
248 U.S. 1
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Oleo oil, a substance made from the fat of slaughtered beeves, seldom used by itself as food, but employed largely in making oleomargarine and somewhat in cooking, is a " meat food product," within the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 1907, when manufactured fit for human consumption and not "denatured," and is debarred from interstate and foreign commerce unless first inspected and passed as by that act provided. P. 248 U. S. 7.
So held where the shipper labeled the product "inedible," asserting it was not intended for food purposes, but retained no control of the use and declined to certify, as required by regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, that it was suitable for industrial purposes only, and incapable of being used as food by man.
232 F. 694 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Pittsburgh Melting Company filed a bill in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and G. E. Totten, Inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture, seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the Railroad Company to receive and carry in interstate and foreign commerce shipments of oil, the manufacture of the Melting Company, and to restrain the government inspector from interfering with the shipments.
A decree in favor of the complainant was rendered in the district court. 229 F. 214. Upon appeal, this decree was reversed by the court of appeals and the cause remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss the bill. 232 F. 694.
The case arises under the Meat Inspection Acts. Act June 30, 1906, c. 3913, 34 Stat. 674, and Act March 4, 1907, c. 2907, 34 Stat. 1260, 1265. The act provides an elaborate system of inspection of animals before slaughter, and of carcasses after slaughter and of meat food products, with a view to prevent the shipment of impure, unwholesome, and
unfit meat and meat food products in interstate and foreign commerce. The act in part provides:
"That, for the purposes hereinbefore set forth, the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause to be made by inspectors appointed for that purpose an examination and inspection of all meat food products prepared for interstate or foreign commerce in any slaughtering, meat canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment, and for the purposes of any examination and inspection said inspectors shall have access at all times, by day or night, whether the establishment be operated or not, to every part of said establishment, and said inspectors shall mark, stamp, tag, or label as 'Inspected and Passed' all such products found to be sound, healthful, and wholesome, and which contain no dyes, chemicals, preservatives, or ingredients which render such meat or meat food products unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or unfit for human food, and said inspectors shall label, mark, stamp, or tag as 'Inspected and Condemned' all such products found unsound, unhealthful, and unwholesome, or which contain dyes, chemicals, preservatives, or ingredients which render such meat or meat food products unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or unfit for human food, and all such condemned meat food products shall be destroyed for food purposes, as hereinbefore provided, and the Secretary of Agriculture may remove inspectors from any establishment which fails to so destroy such condemned meat food products. . . ."
And the act further provides:
"That on and after October first, nineteen hundred and six, no person, firm, or corporation shall transport or offer for transportation, and no carrier of interstate or foreign commerce shall transport or receive for transportation from one state or territory or the District of Columbia, to any state or territory or the District of Columbia, or to any place under the jurisdiction of the United
States, or to any foreign country, any carcasses or parts thereof, meat, or meat food products thereof, which have not been inspected, examined, and marked as 'Inspected and Passed' in accordance with the terms of this Act and with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. . . ."
The facts appearing of record, so far as we deem them necessary to the decision of the case, are:
The Melting Company has long been engaged in rendering or converting animal fats into various products, including the oil which is the subject matter of this controversy. At one time, the company made oleomargarine, but, owing to adverse legislation of the State of Pennsylvania, desisted from doing so. Government inspectors were in the works of the Melting Company and inspected and marked the products until 1909, when a controversy arose between the company and the government officers as to the purchase of the fats used by the company. Upon refusal to comply with the orders of such officers, inspection was withdrawn. Whether this action was right or not we do not stop to enquire, since the claim for relief is based upon the allegation that complainant's oil is not a meat food product within the meaning of the statute.
After inspection was withdrawn, the company continued to ship its oil, but did so under the then regulations of the Department of Agriculture concerning the shipment of fat for industrial use, as "inedible," and so marking the receptacle containing the same and making the certificate then required by the Department of Agriculture that it was inedible, and not intended for food purposes. On November 1, 1914, the Department adopted a new regulation requiring a certificate to accompany the shipment of such fats claimed not to be food products, stating that the same
"is not capable of being used as food by man, is suitable only for industrial purposes, is not for food purposes, and is of such character or for
such a use that denaturing is impracticable."
The regulation permits the shipment of oil for industrial uses after it is "denatured" -- that is, treated with a substance which renders it unfit for food, while still fit for use in industrial purposes. The Melting Company refused to make this certificate, which resulted in the notice to the Railroad Company to refuse to carry the oil, and brought about this suit to compel the carrier to receive and transport it.
The district court found that the oil manufactured and shipped by the Melting Company was not within the terms of the act, as it was not a meat food product, which is prohibited from shipment without inspection. The reasons for reaching that conclusion are set forth in the opinion of the district judge. 229 F. 214. The circuit court of appeals reached the opposite conclusion upon the testimony adduced. 232 F. 694.
An examination of the record satisfies us that the circuit court of appeals reached the right conclusion. The oil here in controversy, the testimony shows, is generally known as "oleo" oil, and is not "tallow" oil as that term is generally understood by the trade. Both oils are made from the fat of slaughtered beeves. Oleo oil by itself is seldom used as a food. It is, however, largely used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. In fact, it constitutes a large percentage of that product. It is used in cooking for shortening purposes. Made as it is by the Melting Company, it has no quality which prevents its use for such food purposes. It is not a tallow oil, distasteful and unfit to use in the making of food products. Without elaborating the discussion, we reach the conclusion that this product was clearly a "meat food product" within the meaning of the statute. It is true that the Melting Company does not sell it as such, and now marks it as "inedible." But that does not change the fact that a main use of such oil is in making edible products. The company has no control over the use of the oil after it is shipped, and the record
does not disclose what use is made of a large percentage of its product which was shipped abroad at the time this action was begun.
The enactment of the statute was within the power of Congress in order to prevent interstate and foreign shipment of impure or adulterated meat food products. The statute does not specifically define a meat food product. In our view, the product of the Melting Company is a meat food product in the sense of the use of those terms in the statute, and as such subject to the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. It being such meat food product, the Melting Company could not truthfully claim that it was not capable of being used as food by man, and hence could not make the certificate required.
The theory of the bill is that the product in question was not within the terms of the act; the district court reached the conclusion that this theory was the correct one, and so rendered a decree which required the Railroad Company to receive the oil for transportation in interstate and foreign commerce, without inspection, when labeled "inedible," and accompanied by the certificate of the Melting Company that such oil is inedible and not intended for food purposes and is of such a character that denaturing is impossible or will render the oil unavailable for the desired industrial use. This decree is consistent only with the finding of the district court that the product was not a meat food product within the meaning of the statute.
As we have said, we think the record shows, as found by the circuit court of appeals, that the oil made and offered for shipment by the Melting Company was a meat food product, and hence subject to the regulation of the statute requiring inspection before shipment. The decree requiring such oil to be shipped without inspection was properly reversed.
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.