Document: 335 U.S. 355 69 S.Ct. 112 93 L.Ed. 61 UNITED STATESv.URBUTEIT. No. 13. Argued Oct. 13, 14, 1948. Nov. 22, As Amended Dec. 6, Messrs. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., Alexander M. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Elman, Sp. to and William W. Goodrich Bernard D. Levinson, Attys., Federal Security Agency, both Washington for the United States. Mr. H. O. Pemberton, Tallahassee, Fla., respondent. Opinion Court by Justice DOUGLAS, announced REED. 1 The States filed a lib l under Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1044, 21 U.S.C. § 334, U.S.C.A. seeking seizure 16 machines labeled 'Sinuothermic.' libel alleged that device was misbranded within meaning 1050, 352(a), in representations leaflet entitled 'The Road Health' relative curative therapeutic powers diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment prevention disease were false misleading. It charged had accompanied interstate commerce. 2 Respondent, Fred Urbuteit, appeared as claimant several devices. He admitted devices leaflets been shipped commerce, but denied they together or related each other. also statements made case tried without jury articles ordered condemned. judgment reversed Appeals. 164 F.2d 245. is here on certiorari resolve conflict between it Kordel v. States, 345, 106. 3 Respondent Urbuteit terms himself naturopathic physician conducts Sinuothermic Institute Tampa, Florida. against which are electrical allegedly aiding diagnosis cure various diseases physical disorders such cancer, diabetes, tuberculosis, arthritis, paralysis. cures effected through its use described misleading leaflet, Health,' published distributed with machines. 4 from Florida number these one Kelsch, former pupil his who lives Ohio. Kelsch used treating patients and, though he did not receive them merchant, sold some patients. part this transaction contracted furnish supply leaflets, sent Ohio at different time than when forwarded. explain 5 seem have followed shipment But supra, holds, immaterial where advertising matter designed serve fact purposes labeling. This machine bore only words, Patent Trade Mark. explained usefulness treatment, diseases. Measured functional standards, 201(m)(2) 321(m)(2), permits, constituted types labeling Act condemns. 6 power condemn contained 304(a) confined 'adulterated introduced into while commerce'.1 We do not, however, read provision requiring travel machine. reasons policy argue criminal prosecutions 303, 333, equally forcible we come libels 304(a). Moreover, common sense view entirety—the purpose actual use. In plain us movements commerce single interrelated activity, separate isolated ones. concerned purification stream abstract. problem practical consumer protection, dialectics. literature leaves mail does save article being misbranded. Where standards two transactions integrated, requirements satisfied, mailings shipments times. 7 Appeals held certain evidence tendered value erroneously excluded trial, ruling inclined disturb. Petitioner claims, error prejudicial. argument since character respects diagnostic capabilities overwhelming, representation adequate sustain condemnation, be assumed phase established. reach question. Since must remanded Appeals, question any others survived will open consideration it. 8 Reversed. 9 BLACK, FRANKFURTER, MURPHY, JACKSON dissent stated their 106, although arises limitation 304(a), 'while commerce,' has scope 301(k), 'held sale after commerce.' relevant portion section reads follows: 'Any food, drug, device, cosmetic adulterated * shall liable proceeded thereafter, information condemned district court jurisdiction found *.'

Category: 7