Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/94430/hygrade-provision-co-inc-vs-sherman
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:23:19+00:00

Document:
Appellant Hygrade Provision Co., Inc.
1. Equity will interfere to prevent criminal proceedings under an unconstitutional statute when that is necessary to effectually protect property rights. P. 266 U. S. 500 .
2. A criminal statute is not lacking in due process of law merely because the application of its prohibition may be uncertain in exceptional cases, and the more clearly so where the act defined is made criminal only when performed with a specific intent to defraud. P. 266 U. S. 501 .
3. Laws of New York punishing those who sell or expose for sale meat or meat preparations falsely misrepresenting them as "Kosher," or "as having been prepared under and of a product or products sanctioned by the orthodox Hebrew religious requirements," or who sell or expose for sale in the same place both Kosher and non-Kosher meat etc., without signs indicating that both kinds are sold and labeling the articles accordingly, do not violate the rights of dealers under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment or infringe the Commerce Clause. Pp. 266 U. S. 501 , 266 U. S. 503 .
The general rule is that equity will not interfere to prevent the enforcement of a criminal statute, even though unconstitutional. Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140 , 264 U. S. 143 ; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200 , 124 U. S. 209 -211; Davis & Farnum Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207 , 189 U. S. 217 . But appellants seek to bring themselves within an exception to this general rule -- namely, that a court of equity will interfere to prevent criminal prosecutions under an unconstitutional statute when that is necessary to effectually protect property rights. Packard v. Banton, supra; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197 , 263 U. S. 214 . That these bills disclose such a case of threatened actual and imminent injury as to come within the exception is not beyond doubt. But, upon a liberal view of the decisions above cited and other decisions of this Court ( see Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 100 , and cases referred to in footnote), we accept the conclusion of the lower court, based on the decisions of this Court, that, if the statutes under review are unconstitutional, appellants are entitled to equitable relief, and pass to a consideration of the constitutional questions.
in order to encounter their prohibitions, the hazard of prosecution which appellants fear loses whatever substantial foundation it might have in the absence of such a requirement. Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343 , 246 U. S. 348 .
2. Lewis & Fox Company is a Massachusetts corporation conducting a general provision supply business, including the shipment and sale of original packages into and within the State of New York. It is this situation which forms the basis of the contention that the commerce clause is violated. It is enough to say that the statutes now assailed are not aimed at interstate commerce, do not impose a direct burden upon such commerce, make no discrimination against it, are fairly within the range of the police power of the state, bear a reasonable relation to the legitimate purpose of the enactments, and do not conflict with any congressional legislation. Under these circumstances, they are not invalid because they may incidentally effect interstate commerce. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52 , 237 U. S. 60 , 61; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501 , 225 U. S. 524 -526.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.