William Henning & Co. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

William Henning & Co. v. United States

193 F. 52, 113 C.C.A. 382, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1047

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1912

DocketNo. 2,301

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 F. 52 (William Henning & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Henning & Co. v. United States, 193 F. 52, 113 C.C.A. 382, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1047 (5th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Conceding in this case that the addition of pumpkin to tomato catsup as a filler results in an article that may be described as a compound, still the food and drugs act requires that such article must be labeled, branded, or tagged so as to plainly indicate the substances composing the compound, and it is not a compliance with the act to merely mark the word “Compound” on the package.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Conceding in this case that the addition of pumpkin to tomato catsup as a filler results in an article that may be described as a compound, still the food and drugs act requires that such article must be labeled, branded, or tagged so as to plainly indicate the substances composing the compound, and it is not a compliance with the act to merely mark the word “Compound” on the package.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 F. 52, 113 C.C.A. 382, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-henning-co-v-united-states-ca5-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack