Mahoney v. Carolene Products Co.

2 F.2d 366, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2054
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided November 14, 1924·No. No. 1704·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the injunction in this case was properly issued; that the construction placed by the District Court upon section 17a1 of chapter 94 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, as amended by St. 1923, c. 170, as applied to the manufacture and sale of plaintiff’s product, carolene, is correct; that the act proscribes the addition of fat or oil, other than milk fat, to whole milk, cream, or skim milk, and the blending or compounding the same therewith, with intent to sell, etc.; that it does not proscribe- the addition of egg yolk, but of fat or oil, as such, other than milk fat. Egg yolk is not a fat or oil, even though it may contain some fat. To construe the statute as covering earolene would also proscribe the manufacture and sale of such compounds as milk shake (which contains eggs) and milk chocolate (chocolate contains fat) and other products of like character sold in great quantities throughout the country. The construction here upheld is not incompatible with the language or spirit of the statute.

The decree of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the appellee.

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

Mahoney v. Carolene Products Co., 2 F.2d 366, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2054 (1st Cir. 1924).

2 F.2d 366 (Mahoney v. Carolene Products Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carolene Products Co. v. United States
140 F.2d 61 (Fourth Circuit, 1944)
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Sage Stores Co.
141 P.2d 655 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1943)