Commonwealth v. Sweeney
Citations
- 61 Pa. Super. 367
- 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 334
Syllabus
<p>Statutes — Construction—Adulteration of drugs — Act of May 8, 1909, P. L. 470.</p> <p>The Act of May 8, 1909, P. L. 470, entitled “An act to prevent the manufacture and sale of adulterated or misbranded drugs; defining the word ‘drug’; prescribing penalties for violation of this act, and the method of its enforcement,” is a highly beneficial and remedial statute, and must be so construed, if possible, as to give effect to legislative intent. The fact that it carries a penalty for its violation, and to that extent may be regarded as a penal statute, is not a ground for subjecting it to such a hypercritical construction as to thwart the legislative design.</p> <p>Constitutional law — Delegation of legislative power — Adulteration of drug — Definition of drug — Act of May 8, 1909, Section 8, Clause 1, P. L. 470 — Revival or amendment of law.</p> <p>The first clause of Section 3, of the Act of May 8, 1909, P. L. 470, which provides “that for the purpose of this act, an article shall be deemed to be adulterated: First: If a drug is sold under or by any name recognized by the United States Pharmacopoeia, the National Formulary, or the American Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, it differs from the standard of strength, quality or purity as determined by the test or formula laid down in” the standard works mentioned, etc., does not violate Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania prohibiting any delegation of legislative power, inasmuch as it does not designate any person or body to which such power is delegated.</p> <p>Clause 1, of Section 3, of the Act of May 8,1909, P. L. 470, does not violate Article III, Section 6, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania- which provides that “No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only,” inasmuch as there is nothing in the language used, disclosing an intent to write into the provisions of the act any former law of Pennsylvania or the United State, or to sta
Judges: Head, Kephart, Orlady, Rice, Trexler
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Holgate Bros. v. BashoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1938-06-30· cited 106×
- Western Pennsylvania Restaurant Ass'n v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1951-01-02· cited 95×
- Commonwealth v. DaileySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1921-03-05· cited 4×
- Commonwealth v. DimasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1951-11-15· cited 2×
- Commonwealth v. PaschallDauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1942-07-13· cited 1×
- Soble v. State Board of PharmacyDauphin County Court of Common Pleas· 1940-04-03
- Commonwealth v. Prince Manufacturing Co.Carbon County Court of Common Pleas· 1971-12-14
- Susquehanna County Liquor LicensesSusquehanna County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1922-01-24
- Commonwealth v. LichterWashington County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1922-04-17
- Commonwealth v. StonerFranklin County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1937-03-20
- Commonwealth v. HendersonMontgomery County Court of Common Pleas· 1971-12-17
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.