Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Martin v. Wholesome Dairy, Inc.

Martin v. Wholesome Dairy, Inc.

437 S.W.2d 586, 1969 Tex. App. LEXIS 2452
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 29, 1969
Docket11652
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 437 S.W.2d 586 (Martin v. Wholesome Dairy, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martin v. Wholesome Dairy, Inc., 437 S.W.2d 586, 1969 Tex. App. LEXIS 2452 (Tex. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

HUGHES, Justice.

. This suit was brought by Wholesome Dairy, Inc., appellee, against Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, James E. Peavy, Commissioner, Texas State Board of Health and Manuel D. Hornedo, M.D., Director, El Paso City County Health Unit, seeking a declaratory judgment that Art. 713a, V.T.P.C., is unconstitutional or inapplicable to an imitation milk product known as “Farmer’s Daughter High Protein Drink” which appellee desired to manufacture and sell in the State of Texas. 1

In a non-jury trial the trial court declared Art. 713a, V.T.P.C., unconstitutional and enjoined appellants from enforcing it.

The pertinent portions of Art. 713a read:

“Sec. 1. Where used in this Act:
(a) The word person shall mean any individual, firm, copartnership, or corporation.
(b) Filled milk shall include any milk, cream, or skimmed milk whether or not condensed, evaporated, concentrated, powdered, dried, or desiccated, to which has been added or which has been blended or compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat so that the resulting product is in imitation or semblance of milk, cream, or skimmed milk, whether or not condensed, evaporated, concentrated, powdered, dried or desiccated. Provided,, that this definition shall not be construed to include any distinctive proprietary food compound prepared, and designated for feeding infants and young children, and cutomarily used on the order of a physician.
Sec. 2. It shall hereafter be unlawful to handle for use, manufacture, or sale within this State any form of filled milk. It is declared that filled milk is an adulterated article of food injurious to the public health, and its sale constitutes a fraud upon the public. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture within this State or to ship or deliver for shipment in intrastate commerce any filled milk.”

The trial court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we quote those deemed material here:

Findings of Fact
“2. ‘Farmer’s Daughter High Protein Drink’ is an imitation milk, which is manufactured by plaintiff, is composed of a mixture of water, nonfat dry milk, coconut oil, corn syrup solids, sodium caseinate, mono-diglycerides, starch, and carotene. This article of food can be *588 manufactured by using' various vegetable oils other than coconut oil.
4. An imitation milk product can be made by combining fat-free milk solids with some vegetable oils so that the resulting product will be wholesome, nutritious, beneficial to health, and comparable to although less nutritious than natural whole milk.
5. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not an imitation milk product made by combining fat-free milk solids with coconut oil is wholesome, nutritious, beneficial to health, and comparable to natural whole milk.
6. When the ‘Farmer’s Daughter High Protein Drink’ is made with coconut oil and the label of such product represents that it contains only vegetable oil, the product is misleading to persons on a diet intended to reduce their serum cholesterol level.
7. The manner in which ‘Farmer’s Daughter High Protein Drink’ is packaged and labeled is not misleading to the general public and does not mislead people into believing that it is natural whole cow’s milk.
8. When consumed as a dietary fat, coconut oil produces a higher serum cholestrol level than other vegetable oils and high serum cholestrol levels are related to coronary heart disease especially atherosclerosis.
9. The ‘Farmer’s Daughter High Protein Drink’ is intended to be used as a dietary replacement for whole cow’s milk.
10. When milk fat is removed from cow’s milk specific nutrients are removed with the milk fat and these nutrients are not found in the vegetable oil used in lieu of milk fat in a filled milk.”
Conclusions of Law
“4. The Filled Milk Statute, Article 713(a), Texas Penal Code, transcends the police powers of the State for the reason that the food products prohibited are nutritious, wholesome, and healthy; hence, its sale and consumption by the citizens of the State do not affect the health, welfare, safety, or morals of its citizens, and it cannot deceive or defraud them so long as it is sold in cartons bearing the information as shown on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9.
5. A wholesome and nutritious food product such as the one involved in this case may be strictly regulated because of its resemblance to milk, but it may not be prohibited. The prohibition of its manufacture and sale as provided by Article 713(a) is not a valid exercise of the police power, and it is in contravention to Article 1, Section 19, of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
6. The Filled Milk Statute is dis-crimininatory and arbitrary and denies Plaintiff equal protection of the law as guaranteed by Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Texas, for the reason that it prohibits the sale of harmless compounds when the same are blended so that the product is an imitation of milk, while other forms of imitation products containing substantially identical ingredients are permitted.”

The product which appellee desires to sell looks like the milk of a cow, smells like it and tastes like it.

“Farmer’s Daughter High Protein Drink” is a mixture of water, nonfat dry milk, coconut oil, corn syrup solids, sodium caseinate, mono-diglycerides, starch and carotene which is an imitation or semblance of milk. Its manufacture and sale is prohibited by Art. 713a.

We picture three sides of the carton in which this imitation milk is marketed. The front or spout side does not have the words “Imitation Milk” on it. The side opposite the front or back side has the nutritional analysis and other lettering on it. The other two sides are identical. As to them *589 it should be noted that the words “Imitation Milk” are on the slanted portion of the carton which makes the roof like top of the carton.

These cartons are of the same shape and design as the cartons in which whole milk is sold. They are colored in part blue, green, black and white.

*590

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

Related

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
Texas Supreme Court, 2015
Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
469 S.W.3d 69 (Texas Supreme Court, 2015)
Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
268 S.W.3d 190 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Rosemarie Satterfield, as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Mundet Cork Corporation
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
251 S.W.3d 520 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Barbara Robinson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of John Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers v. Wichita Engineering Co.
504 S.W.2d 606 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Fielder
27 Cal. App. 3d 792 (California Court of Appeal, 1972)
Lewis v. Southmore Savings Association
480 S.W.2d 180 (Texas Supreme Court, 1972)
People Ex Rel. Orcutt v. Instantwhip Denver, Inc.
490 P.2d 940 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1971)
Southmore Savings Ass'n v. Lewis
467 S.W.2d 226 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Beaumont Barber College, Inc. v. Texas State Board of Barber Examiners
448 S.W.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
437 S.W.2d 586, 1969 Tex. App. LEXIS 2452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-wholesome-dairy-inc-texapp-1969.