Buttfield v. Bidwell

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Buttfield v. Bidwell

94 F. 126, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3052

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedApril 28, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 94 F. 126 (Buttfield v. Bidwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buttfield v. Bidwell, 94 F. 126, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3052 (circtsdny 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Having reached a conclusion in this cause, it seems best to announce it promptly, instead of withholding it in order to prepare an elaborate opinion, because from an order [127]*127now made an appeal may be taken and perfected so as to be heard at the session of circuit court of appeals on May 24th (the last sessiou before vacation), when the circuit justice is expected to sit.

In brief, it may be said that this court is still of the opinion expressed in the earlier cause of Cruikshank v. Bidwell, 80 Fed. 7, that, by the insertion of the word “quality” in the statute, congress intended to cover more than mere purity and wholesomeness. So interpreted, the statute is in entire harmony with the drift of recent legislation, which, to a continually increasing extent, relegates to governmental determination and control matters which have always heretofore, in this country, at least, been left to the disposition of the individual citizen, or to the operation oí'natural laws. The questions as to the power of congress to pass such an act, and to provide that the standard of quality should be fixed each year under the supervision of the secretary of the treasury, were passed on in the Cruikshank Case. Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Having reached a conclusion in this cause, it seems best to announce it promptly, instead of withholding it in order to prepare an elaborate opinion, because from an order [127]*127now made an appeal may be taken and perfected so as to be heard at the session of circuit court of appeals on May 24th (the last sessiou before vacation), when the circuit justice is expected to sit.

In brief, it may be said that this court is still of the opinion expressed in the earlier cause of Cruikshank v. Bidwell, 80 Fed. 7, that, by the insertion of the word “quality” in the statute, congress intended to cover more than mere purity and wholesomeness. So interpreted, the statute is in entire harmony with the drift of recent legislation, which, to a continually increasing extent, relegates to governmental determination and control matters which have always heretofore, in this country, at least, been left to the disposition of the individual citizen, or to the operation oí'natural laws. The questions as to the power of congress to pass such an act, and to provide that the standard of quality should be fixed each year under the supervision of the secretary of the treasury, were passed on in the Cruikshank Case. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F. 126, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buttfield-v-bidwell-circtsdny-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack