Inman v. Sandvig

15 P.2d 696, 170 Wash. 112, 1932 Wash. LEXIS 940
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 4, 1932
DocketNo. 24258. Department One.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 15 P.2d 696 (Inman v. Sandvig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Inman v. Sandvig, 15 P.2d 696, 170 Wash. 112, 1932 Wash. LEXIS 940 (Wash. 1932).

Opinion

Parker, J.

— -The plaintiff, Inman, having an established apple growing business in Yakima county, commenced this action in the superior court for that county, seeking injunctive relief against the defendant Sandvig, as prosecuting attorney of that county, and other officers charged with the enforcement of our *113 horticultural statutory provisions and the rules and regulations lawfully adopted and promulgated in pursuance thereof. The Yakima County Horticultural Union and the Yakima Fruit Growers’ Association, each being cooperative marketing associations having a large established business in Yakima county, by intervention, became parties to the action, joining with the plaintiff, Inman, seeking the same relief against the defendants.

A trial of the cause upon the merits in the superior court resulted in a judgment denying to the plaintiff and interveners relief as prayed for by them, from which they have jointly appealed to this court.

As we view the arguments of counsel and the right of this controversy, our problem is, in substance, this: Is the rule assumed to be adopted and promulgated by the director of agriculture, providing that No. 3 grade apples “shall not be wrapped nor packed nor lidded in a standard apple box of the state of Washington,” a valid, enforcible rule, subjecting one so packing apples for market to the penalties prescribed by the statute? We pass over several questions argued by counsel, directly to the question of the validity of this rule in the light of the due process of law and equal privileges and immunities guaranties of our state constitution.

Chapter 42, Laws of 1903, p. 49 (Rem. Comp. Stat., § 11626), provided that

‘ ‘ The standard size of an apple box shall be eighteen inches long, eleven and one half inches wide, ten and one-half inches deep, inside measurement.”

Thus, there was first established by statutory enactment a standard size apple box in this state. This was in harmony- with a custom which then, and for a long time prior thereto had, prevailed throughout the fruit growing and fruit marketing districts of this *114 state, and to a considerable extent elsewhere in the United States. This has remained the law np to the present time, it being reenacted in § 22, chapter 194, Laws of 1927, p. 278 (Rem. 1927 Sup., § 11603-22), our general weights and measures law.

Since 1903, this dimension apple box has, by law or custom, become a recognized measure for the marketing of apples generally in the United States, and to a considerable extent in foreign markets. To offer for sale, or contract for sale of, apples at so much per box, has become as definite and certain in meaning as to offer for sale, or contract for sale of, wheat or corn at so much per bushel.

In chapter 27, Laws of 1931, p. 88, amendatory to chapter 166, Laws of 1915, p. 514, § 16, our general law relating to horticulture, we read:

“Section 16. It shall be unlawful for any person growing or packing and selling, offering for sale or shipping in boxes or packages, any fruit, vegetables or horticultural products grown in this state, or expose for sale, sell or offer for sale in the State of Washington, any fruit, vegetables or horticultural products without plainly marking on the outside of the box, package or parcel, with such standards, rules and regulations as have been or may be adopted and required by the director of agriculture after public hearings as provided by law, and it shall be unlawful for any person having in his possession for sale or offering for sale or selling any fruit or horticultural products grown in this state and shipped in boxes or packages; to repack the same in the boxes or packages of any other grower or shipper or from any other place or to sell or offer for sale in closed packages, or to pack in or offer for sale in marked box or package any fruit or horticultural products other than that originally contained or shipped therein unless the markings are changed to conform to the contents of the package as heretofore provided.
“In addition to the marks required to be placed upon any closed box or package of fruit, vegetable or *115 horticultural products grown in this state, as herein-above provided, the grower thereof or association or organization of growers packing the same shall mark upon the outside of such package the grade of the fruit, vegetable or horticultural products contained therein, specifying the grades and markings according to the obligatory grading rules and regulations, issued, published, and adopted by the director of agriculture, or a special or private grade or brand duly registered and approved by the director of agriculture as provided by law, and it shall be unlawful for any person to remark any such closed package to a higher or superior grade than that originally marked by the grower thereof or association or organization packing the same, or for any person other than the grower or association or organization packing such fruit grown in this state to place upon any such closed package not marked with the grade of the contents thereof any mark or brand indicating the grade of such contents:
“Section 17. It shall be unlawful for any grower thereof or association or organization of growers packing apples, or other fruits, vegetables or nursery stock, to mark the package with the grade of the contents, or for any person to ship, sell, barter, or otherwise dispose of or offer for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, any package of apples, or other fruits, vegetables, or nursery stock, grown and packed within the State of Washington unless such contents shall comply with the general obligatory rules and regulations made, adopted and published from time to time by the director of agriculture, which general obligatory rules and regulations shall define and establish the standard for the grades.”

Prior to August, 1932, the rules adopted and promulgated by the director of agriculture established standards for grades of apples in part as follows:

“Extra Fancy or First Grade, shall consist of apples of one variety which are mature, hand picked, clean, well formed, sound, free from bruises, limbrubs, sprayburn, sunburn, russeting, drouth spot, hail mark, *116 visible watercore, broken skin, apple scab, stings, and from diseases and insect injury, except that slight blemishes shall be permitted in this grade.
“Fancy or Second Grade shall consist of apples of one variety which are mature, hand picked, clean, fairly well formed, sound, free from visible watercore, broken skin, and from damage caused by bruises, limbrub, sprayburn, sunburn, russeting, drouth spot, hail marks, apple scab, disease and insect injury.
“C Grade or Third Grade shall consist of apples of one variety which are mature, hand picked, clean, not badly misshapen, sound, free from soft bruises, broken skin, and from serious damage caused by sunburn, growth cracks, visible watercore, disease and insect injury. ’ ’

These grades were in harmony with grades recognized by custom and by our general act of 1915, and amendments thereto, relating to horticulture.

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

Related

Matter of Personal Restraint of Cashaw
866 P.2d 8 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994)
Clark v. Dwyer
353 P.2d 941 (Washington Supreme Court, 1960)
Cotten v. Wilson
178 P.2d 287 (Washington Supreme Court, 1947)
Friedman v. Valentine
177 Misc. 437 (New York Supreme Court, 1941)
Tacoma Bread Co., Inc. v. Mankertz
57 P.2d 1056 (Washington Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 P.2d 696, 170 Wash. 112, 1932 Wash. LEXIS 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inman-v-sandvig-wash-1932.