American Linseed Oil Co. v. Crumbine

Citations

• 207 F. 332
• 125 C.C.A. 82
• 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1634

Syllabus

<p>1. Statutes (§ 107*)—Constitutionality—Subject op Act.</p> <p>Sess. Laws Kan. 1911, c. 179, entitled “An act to prevent the adulteration of turpentine, linseed oil or flaxseed oil, prevent deception in the sale thereof, and to provide for the punishment of such adulteration and deception,” and the provisions of which accord with such title, is not invalid as in violation of Const. Kan. art. 2, § 16, providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, in that it deals with both turpentine and linseed or flaxseed oil; the subject-matter of the act, from a legislative view, being adulteration.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 121-134; Dec. Dig. § 107.*]</p> <p>2, Constitutional Law (§ 276*)—Liberty to Contract—Police Powers op State—Laws to Prevent Fraud.</p> <p>Provisions in such act prohibiting the sale of any article under the name of turpentine which is not in fact turpentine and unadulterated, or any adulterated turpentine or compound of linseed or flaxseed oil unless plainly marked on the container with the word “adulterated” or “compound,” with a statement of the actual proportion of its ingredients, do not render it unconstitutional as in violation of any rights guaranteed by the fourteenth constitutional' amendment, hut such provisions are clearly within the police powers of the state.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 845, 846; Dec. uig. § 276.*]</p>