Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Pflaum

Citations

  • 50 Pa. Super. 55
  • 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 6

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional law — Food law — Title of act — Definition of food— Sulphur dioxide — Act of May IS, 1909, P. L. 620 — Classification.</p> <p>1. The Act of May 13, 1909, P. L. 520, entitled, “An Act relating to food; defining food; providing for the protection of the public health and .the prevention of fraud and deception by prohibiting the manufacture or sale, the offering for sale, or exposing for sale, or the having in possession with intent to sell of adulterated, misbranded and deleterious foods, prescribing certain duties for the dairy and food commissioner in reference thereto; and providing penalties for the violation thereof,” is not defective in title and violative of art. Ill, sec. 3, of the constitution, because confectionery is not specified in the title as one of the subjects legislated about.</p> <p>2. Confectionery is a food and is covered by the words in the title “relating to food; defining food.” Even if it were not a food in the ordinary acceptance of the term, yet as it is included in the catalogue of foods in the act, the title put on inquiry all persons interested as to what the legislature intended to include under the word “ food.”</p> <p>3. The Act of May 13, 1909, is a police regulation. In the act the legislature has declared that sulphur dioxide is deleterious to health and has forbidden its use in the manufacturing of confectionery. The courts must therefore assume that this determination was reached after full examination and on reasonable grounds, and that in the judgment of a body having control of the subject such prohibition was necessary to promote the public health.</p> <p>4. The Act of May 13, 1909, P. L. 520, does not violate sec. 7 of art. Ill of the constitution because it permits dealers in dried fruits and molasses to sell food containing sulphur dioxide while it prohibits dealers in confectionery and other foods from so doing. Such a classification is not improper, inasmuch as it is based upon substantial grounds of a p

Judges: Beaver, Head, Hendekson, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.