Case Name: UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN CANS OF SYRUP
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1911-11-17
Citations: 192 F. 79
Docket Number: No. 16
Parties: UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN CANS OF SYRUP.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 192
Pages: 79–79

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN CANS OF SYRUP.
(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
November 17, 1911.)
No. 16.
Food (§ 24 ) — Food and Drugs Act — Suit for Condemnation.
It is a condition precedent to the maintenance of a libel for the condemnation of goods for adulteration or misbranding under Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, § 10, 34 Stat. 771. (TI. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1193), when based on a report of the Secretary of Agriculture, that such report should be made after an examination and hearing as provided for in section 4.
[Ed. Note.-UFor other cases, see Food, Dec. Dig. § 24.
What constitutes a violation of pure food regulations, see note to Briua v. United States, 105 O. O. A. 559.]
In Equity. Suit by the United States' against Certain Cans of Syrup. On motion for issuance of process on libel.
Motion denied.
Jasper Yeates Brinton, Asst, U. S. Dist. Atty.
Elton J. Buckley, for claimant.
For other cases see same topic & § numckk in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rein-indexes

Opinion:
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.
I defer to the decision in United States v. 20 Cases of Grape Juice (C. C. A.) 189 Fed. 331, but it may perhaps be not improper to add that I feel at liberty to reserve judgment upon the matter referred to in the dictum on page 334.
The government's motion that process may issue upon this libel is therefore refused.
Note. — The libel in the within case contained the following allegation:
'Your libelant further represents that these proceedings are sought to be instituted as a result of a report to petitioner by the Secretary of Agriculture, under the provisions of section 4 of the act of Congress aforesaid, and that all the matters above set forth are true."
The case was disposed of with reference to the foregoing allegation alone.