Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan

280 F. 624, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1662, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1841, 2 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1662
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 1922
DocketNo. 136
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 280 F. 624 (Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan, 280 F. 624, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1662, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1841, 2 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1662 (2d Cir. 1922).

Opinions

MAYER, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). This is concededly a test case. The principal question is whether sweet cider [626]*626is included in tbe classification “other soft drinks” set forth in section 628 of the Revenue Act of 1918, which became law February 24, 1919. 40 Stat. at b. 1057, 1116 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6161%d).

Section 628 reads as follows:

“See. 628. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid in lieu of the taxes imposed by sections 313 and 315 of the Revenue Act of 1917—
“(a) Upon all beverages derived wholly or in part from cereals or substitutes therefor, and containing less than one-half of one per centum of alcohol, sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, in bottles or other closed containers, a tax equivalent to 15 per centum of the price for which so sold; and upon all unfermented’ grape .iuice, ginger ale, root beer, sarsaparilla, pop, artificial mineral waters (carbonated or not carbonated), other carbonated waters or beverages, and other soft drinks, sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, in bottles or other closed containérs, a tax equivalent to 10 per centum of the price for which so sold; and
“(b) .Upon all natural mineral waters or table waters, sold by the producer, bottler, or importer thereof, in bottles or other closed containers, at over 10 cents per gallon, a tax of 2 cents per gallon.”

A reading of this section shows at once that Congress classified and referred to different kinds of beverages which were to be subjected to the tax.

[1] If this case were to be decided by the dictionary definition of “soft drink,” then unquestionably sweet cider would be included; for according, for instance, to the Century Dictionary, “soft drink” is “any drink that is nonalcoholic, as lemonades, ginger ale, tea,” etc. “Cider,” according to the dictionaries, was “formerly any liquor made of the juice of fruits; now the expressed juice of apples, either before or after fermentation.” “Hard cider” is “fermented cider.” “Sweet cider” is “cider before fermentation or cider in which fermentation has ,been prevented.”

It is agreed by the parties, and it is a matter of common knowledge, that “sweet cider” is a nonalcoholic beverage, and therefore, within the dictionary definition -supra, is a soft drink just as tea is a soft drink in the sense of a nonalcoholic beverage. If, therefore, Congress had intended that every nonalcoholic beverage should be taxed under section 628 supra, it would have been easy to frame a statute which would have read merely that there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid certain taxes upon “all soft drinks,” or upon all drinks, whether fermented or unfermented, containing less than one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol.

[2] It is a familiar rule of statutory construction that the legislative body is not presumed to use meaningless language, or, putting the rule another way, that in ascertaining the legislative intent due consideration and weight shall be giyen to the words and phrases of a statute.

[3] The inquiry immediately suggests itself: In mentioning such well-known drinks as ginger ale, root beer, and others, why did Congress omit “sweet cider,” when it is probably the oldest nonalcoholic beverage of all the list set forth in section 628? The answer is to be found in the history of the legislation as illuminating the phraseological structure of the statute and in ascertaining the position of “cider” in common knowledge and in the English language.

[627]*627“Cider” originally meant strong drink, and was known to the ancients, as a most cursory examination of the encyclopaedias will disclose. In medieval English it was “cyder,” and so continued until it attained its present spelling.

It has a familiar place in literature; for Bacon refers to “a kind of cider made of a fruit of that country,” and in Audley Court Tennyson speaks of “a flask of cider from his father’s vats.” An English revenue or excise statute of 1763 was known as the Cider Act. Sweet and hard cider have been designations of the fermented and unfermented expressed juice of apples in common use in the English language long before any man now living was born.

Doubtless in every state of the Union and almost in every corner of every state sweet cider is produced for home consumption or commercial distribution, and, whether in the Genese'e Valley or the Shenandoah Valley, there is hardly a farm, large or small, where typical of the farms throughout the country, there is not some production of sweet cider. Yet, with the knowledge of its widespread production, Congress deliberately omitted mention of this healthful beverage from the statute here under consideration.

An examination of the list of beverages specifically named in section 628 (a) will, show that, with the exception of “unfermented grape juice,” all are manufactured or artificially created, as distinguish from the natural juice of the apple expressed from it by mechanical means more or less simple. Artificial mineral waters and other carbonated waters are manifestly artificial. “Ginger ale” is defined in the Century Dictionary as “an effervescing drink similar to ginger beer. The name was probably adopted by manufacturers to differentiate their production from ordinary ginger beer.” Ginger beer is defined as “an effervescing beverage made by fermenting ginger, cream of tartar and sugar with yeast and water.” Root beer is a drink containing the extracted (not expressed) juices of various roots, as of dock, dandelion, sarsaparilla and sassafras. Sarsaparilla is derived from a plant found in various countries throughout the world, and the drink is not an expressed juice, but a preparation made by extraction or some similar process.

“Pop” is an effervescent beverage, so called from the sound made by the explosion of the cork, as ginger “pop,” and is an old generic term for an effervescent drink.

Dictionaries in common use do not define “unfermented grape juice,” but the International Encyclopaedia states that it is made by expressing the juice, sweetening, heating to the boiling point, and sealing while still hot in cans or strong bottles. Albert E. Leach, a recognized authority on foods and beverages, in his work entitled Food Inspection and Analysis, defines it as “the juice of grapes filtered, sterilized and put in glass containers.” It is probably correct, therefore, to assume that unfer-mented grape juice is the expressed juice of the grape, and, if so, it is the only instance specifically mentioned in the statute of a beverage which is an expressed juice of a fruit as distinguished from beverages otherwise and artificially made.

It is attempted to find support for the proposition for which the government here contends in the judicial definition of “soft drinks” in [628]*628some reported cases, but definitions must always be read in the light of subject-matter and of context and of the object sought to be accomplished.

In Eureka Vinegar Co. v. Gazette Printing Co. (C. C.) 35 Fed. 570, will be found a discussion of the definition of the word “cider.” It was there held:

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

Related

Rathborne v. Collector of Revenue
200 So. 149 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1941)
Knapp v. Commissioner
41 B.T.A. 23 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)
Duradene Co. v. Magruder
21 F. Supp. 426 (D. Maryland, 1937)
Aronson v. White
87 F.2d 272 (First Circuit, 1937)
Mills Novelty Co. v. United States
50 F.2d 476 (Court of Claims, 1931)
Inland Products Co. v. Blair
31 F.2d 867 (Fourth Circuit, 1929)
United States v. Phez Co.
28 F.2d 106 (Ninth Circuit, 1928)
Phez Co. v. United States
25 F.2d 1011 (D. Oregon, 1927)
Salembier & Villate, Inc. v. McElligott
14 F.2d 984 (S.D. New York, 1926)
Douglas v. Edwards
298 F. 229 (Second Circuit, 1924)
United States ex rel. Simonian v. Tod
297 F. 172 (Second Circuit, 1924)
Casey v. Sterling Cider Co.
294 F. 426 (First Circuit, 1923)
American Synthetic Dyes, Inc. v. Edwards
290 F. 1018 (S.D. New York, 1923)
Sterling Cider Co. v. Casey
285 F. 885 (D. Massachusetts, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 F. 624, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1662, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1841, 2 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-cider-vinegar-fruit-co-v-riordan-ca2-1922.