General Foods Corp. v. Henderson

505 P.2d 851, 84 N.M. 508
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 19, 1973
DocketNo. 9499
StatusPublished

This text of 505 P.2d 851 (General Foods Corp. v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Foods Corp. v. Henderson, 505 P.2d 851, 84 N.M. 508 (N.M. 1973).

Opinion

OPINION

OMAN, Justice.

This is a suit for declaratory judgment pursuant to §§ 22-6-1 to 3, N.M. S.A. 1953. Plaintiff sought to have its product, “Thick & Frosty,” declared not to be a filled dairy product within the meaning of the New Mexico Filled Products Act, which appears as §§ 52-2-5 to 10, N.M.S. A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 1, 1962 and Supp. 1971 thereto). In the alternative, plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the New Mexico Filled Products Act and the constitutionality of the Act’s application. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. We affirm.

Although the trial court found for plaintiff on all three theories asserted in the complaint, and defendants rely upon three separately stated points for reversal on this appeal, we affirm solely upon the ground that “Thick & Frosty” is not a filled dairy product within the contemplation of the New Mexico Filled Products Act, supra. We need not and do not consider the questions raised as to the constitutionality of this Act and the constitutionality of the Act’s application.

Briefly, the facts material to this appeal as found by the trial court and which are in no way challenged are:

(1) “Thick & Frosty” is a frozen thick shake concentrate developed by plaintiff. Its ingredients are water, corn syrup, hydrogenated coconut and palm kernel oil, glycerol, nonfat dry milk, flavor, sorbitol, propylene gycol, methyl cellulose, carrageenan, dextrose, salt, mono and diglycerides and polysorbate 65, artificial color and guar gum. The ingredients are listed in the order of their predominance in the concentrate. Of the total ingredients only 3.5% consists of nonfat dry milk.
(2) “Thick & Frosty” is shipped and marketed as a frozen food product, is presently being sold in each of the United States, and is marketed in retail grocery stores for the purpose of being used exclusively as a base in the preparation of thick shakes for consumption in the home.
(3) “Shake” or “milk shake” is a generic term, and includes any food preparation produced by combining milk with a base which are shaken or agitated together to form a drink. The base used in making the shake is not itself a shake.
(4) A “thick shake” is a special type of shake typically served in drive-ins or quick-service food establishments and which is distinguishable from other shakes in that a “thick shake” is discernably colder, more viscous and .more froth)r than a regular “shake.”
(5) Until the marketing of “Thick & Frosty” there was no product on the market from which a “thick shake” could be made in the home. Those made in drive-ins or quick-service food establishments re- . quire the use of costly equipment known as a heat exchange unit.
(6) “Thick & Frosty” is pure, wholesome and nutritious, and is in no way deleterious or harmful to the health of the consumer. It is presented and sold to the consumer only in its concentrated form and only for use as a base for making “thick shakes” by mixing it with milk. It is palatable only after so mixed.
(7) “Thick & Frosty” is displayed and shown for home use in cartons which are clearly, accurately and truthfully labeled, and the labels fully and accurately list the ingredients and accurately describe the use for which the product is intended.
(8) “Thick & Frosty” possesses unique and distinctive characteristics which were specifically and functionally designed to create, and which did create, a unique product different from any previously existing product which might have been used as a base for making shakes, some of which are:
“(a) The product may be frozen and maintained at zero degrees (0°) Fahrenheit and spooned easily into a drinking glass without thawing.
“(b) The product, when in its carton, has a unique, coarse, and highly crystallized structure which is developed for a specific functional purpose.
“(c) The product, in its carton, is intensely unpalatable in flavor and cannot readily be eaten palatably and cannot be drunk at all.
“(d) The product is more expensive to purchase than ice cream or ice milk.
“(e) The product has a substantially lower freezing point, lower overrun, and is significantly heavier and denser than ice cream.”

In addition to these undisputed facts as to the content, qualities, etc., of “Thick & Frosty,” the trial court also found:

(9) “Thick & Frosty” is not intended to replace and does not replace or serve as a substitute for any dairy product, or any other product, there being no other product on the market which is sold at retail and which can be utilized for the purpose of making a “thick shake” at home.
(10) When presented or sold to the consumer, “Thick & Frosty” does not have the appearance, taste or texture of any dairy product. The ordinary consumer readily distinguishes it from any dairy product, and is not and could not be confused or deceived by it or its label. It is a new and distinct product which has physical and other characteristics so totally different from ice cream, or any other dairy product, that it was not intended to be and is not in imitation or semblance of any dairy product.

Defendants state they challenge these findings shown herein as No. 9 and No. 10, but they fail to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as support therefor. They have selected certain evidence which they contend establishes “Thick & Frosty” to be a filled dairy product. They have not stated the substance of all the evidence bearing upon this issue, with proper references to the transcript, as required by Supreme Court Rule 15(6) [§ 21-2-1(15) (6), N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970)]. The trial court’s findings, which lead logically to its conclusion that “Thick & Frosty” is not a filled dairy product, as that term is defined in the New Mexico Filled Products Act, supra, are supported by substantial evidence. For definitions of substantial evidence see Marjon v. Quintana, 82 N.M. 496, 484 P.2d 338 (1971); McCauley v. Ray, 80 N.M. 171, 453 P.2d 192 (1968); Samora v. Bradford, 81 N.M. 205, 465 P.2d 88 (Ct.App.1970).

Defendants argue that because “Thick & Frosty” was developed and is designed to be mixed with milk by the consumer in order to produce a finished or consumable product with the desired, qualities of a “thick shake,” the consuming public is lead to equate “Thick & Frosty” with a “thick shake” and, in essence, purchases a “thick shake” for use in the home.

We cannot agree.

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

Related

62 Cases of Jam v. United States
340 U.S. 593 (Supreme Court, 1951)
Midget Products, Inc. v. Jacobsen
295 P.2d 542 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Kansas State Board of Health
388 P.2d 582 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1964)
State v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc.
342 P.2d 1088 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1959)
Samora v. Bradford
465 P.2d 88 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1970)
Marjon v. Quintana
484 P.2d 338 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1971)
McCauley v. Ray
453 P.2d 192 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1968)
Aeration Processes, Inc. v. Jacobsen
184 Cal. App. 2d 836 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Libby v. United States
210 F. 148 (Fourth Circuit, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
505 P.2d 851, 84 N.M. 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-foods-corp-v-henderson-nm-1973.