Stolz v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action brought in the municipal court of St. Paul, to recover ¡$250 for goods sold and delivered. In his answer the defendant .admitted the facts stated in the complaint, and pleaded that the ¡goods sold consisted of baking powder in cans and boxes, known as “Gates’ Crystal Baking Powder;” that'such powder contained ¡alum, but the cans and boxes were not labelled or marked in any way .showing that fact; and that the goods were offered and sold by plain--fciff to defendant…
Read the full summary
Action brought in the municipal court of St. Paul, to recover ¡$250 for goods sold and delivered. In his answer the defendant .admitted the facts stated in the complaint, and pleaded that the ¡goods sold consisted of baking powder in cans and boxes, known as “Gates’ Crystal Baking Powder;” that'such powder contained ¡alum, but the cans and boxes were not labelled or marked in any way .showing that fact; and that the goods were offered and sold by plain--fciff to defendant with the purpose and intent on the part of both ■of them that they should be disposed of to defendant’s customers in St.…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The question before us is whether sections 1 and 2 of chapter 7 of the General Laws of 1889, embracing a prohibition of the sale of baking powder containing alum, unless the condition therein prescribed shall be complied with, is a constitutional exercise of legislative power. These sections declare it to be a misdemeanor to manufacture for sale within the state, or to offer for sale, or to sell, baking powder containing alum, unless a label bearing the words, “this baking powder contains alum,” shall be affixed to each package of the same. Subsequent sections of the act, concerning which we…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- The People v. . MarxNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- People v. . ArensbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Powell v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- State v. CantienySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Isenhour v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
- State ex rel. Young v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- State v. LaytonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- State v. W. S. Buck Mercantile Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1928
- Leuthold v. StickneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.