*1 1925. ' n 270TJ.S. Syllabus. claim fiction a helped out theory a false A new a application it is reduced to claim practice; description years, on within two may original be based in original priority notwithstanding and the established Wintrodth, tervening Chapman 126, claims. printed bar if description A a patent 137. would effective patent equally or in an issued is a periodical goes. far reduction to practice so application an below, disregard relied analogies upon to the As can- applications, explained, however patent abandoned rule beyond principle not be taken to establish n rule it actually empirical As an doubt applied. no. and we Office, Patent to the necessary convenient not infer although disturb we it, disposed are not Office was practice of the different. originally obviously foreign inventions the statute as to policy of be do- applied cannot footing on its own stands repeat fundamental rule we affairs. The mestic qualifica- be the first inventor. must patentee encоurage improvements or to wish to in aid á tions of. rule hot investigations.do laborious avoid here. from applying reversed.
Decree COMPANY. PALMER BROTHERS WEAVER v. STATES DISTRICT OF THE UNITED APPEAL FROM THE' COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. DISTRICT FOR THE WESTERN 8, 1926. March Argued December No. 510. 1925. Decided weight; great but it Legislative are entitled to determinations legislature has open parties show that always to interested power. transgressed P. 410. limits of its may things legislative be shown Invalidity act of a by evidence, burden byor facts established judicially noticed, invalidating facts. attacking party to establish the being on the P. 410. PALMER BROS. CO. Appellant. Counsel for (Pa. 802,) forbidding use,
3. A state law Ls. c. com- fortables, sterilized, arbitrary even when is so far process unreasonable that it violates the clause of due the Four- Pp. 410, teenth Amendment. *2 pro- considering whether the mere failure of Act to Without the the
hibit the use of other materials is sufficient invalidate pro- shoddy prohibition equal of the use of as a violation of the things clause, permitted number and of tection the character the properly may in to be used such manufacture be taken into account prohibition deciding in whether the of is a reasonable regulation arbitrary due and valid or is and violative of the process clause. P. 412. measure, prohibition sustained, health
5. Such a can not be as a showing composed when of face of evidence even sterilization, materials, harmless secondhand is rendered permission, Act, of in the same use numerous kinds in face P. of if sterilized when secondhand. materials, prohibition measure to can such be sustained as a 6. Nor adequate regulations. deception, deception since be avoided P. 414. con- yield mere guaranties can not made to
7. Constitutional be venience. P. 415. regard facts Every opinion to the read with Court is Pennsyl- actually Powell of ease and decided. the the
vania, distinguished. 127 IT. P.' 414. (2d)
3 Fed. 333, affirmed. Appeal enjoining from a decree of the District Court Pennsylvania, defendant (appellant), an official of enforcing against plaintiff a (appellee) law regulating State of bedding, manufacture and sale in so far Plaintiff shoddy. forbade the manu- factured using shoddy comfortables in Connecticut, made of new and materials, product and' sold its Pennsylvania. See also U. S. 588.
Mr. E. Lowry Humes, George with whom Messrs. W. Woodruff, Attorney Pennsylvania, General of and James Campbell, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellant. 1925.. 270 U. S.
Argument Appellant. statute for the legislature purpose enacted protecting health, public securing public deception. fraud and proper pur- That these are for the exercise of the admitted. poses police power is insanitary evil condition thаt existed industry, insanitary product which was into the hands of the coming consuming public, as well deception as the fraud and which was being practiced of the articles sold. make-up knowledge Much part this evil was the common knowledge Pennsylvania mankind. The statute of 1913 and its only absolutely related to mattresses, amendments use of in their prohibited the manufacture. With advantage years’ experience of ten in the enforcement Act, knowledge of that as well as a the activities twenty-five other States where police .power had *3 invoked for the already purpose, legisla- been the same character, the extent ture, estimating evil, and of the 1923; the Act of and in Act, enacted the extended to all articles of regulations stuffed and filled bedding, comfortables; including and, make effective enforce- a new of possible, prescribed ment method tagging and enactment, Maryland Since this a labeling. adopted has law, and the of city Spokane, similar Washington, has passed subject. an ordinance on the same growth bedding industry develop- and the practices ment of the which led to such general recog- a nition of the existence of to require evil.as exercise the power by legislatures of the police twenty-seven the of States two cities within large a period of fourteen years, demonstrates the wisdom of the of this words Hardy, is, in Holden Court 169 U. S. 366, that the law to a extent, progressive certain- questions science. The in this are more far raised case reaching their effect than is evident'on the of face the record; and the affirm- ation of the of judgment the court below would have the v. PALMER BROS. CO. 405 Argument Appellant. 4'A legislative a' the of striking effect down enactments large number States. legislatures
The state have a in classi- wide discretion Milligan Heath & subjects regulation. fying police Mfg.'Co-. Dakota, Gow Ward and 338; S. North V. Krinsky, 503; Connolly Pipe Union Sewer U. S. Co., legis- S. 540. Inasmuch the Pennsylvania U. made a lation classification “which bears a reasonable just relation to the act question, cannot seriously per- appellee-or any contended son has been denied the' equal protection of the law. prohibitions, restrictions, bur- regulations, penalties, and dens fall on all equally' persons similarly situated. Magoun v. Illinois & Bk., Trust Sav. Commonwealth,
Powell The conclusion Act court below is that only provision violates the 14th provision which Amendment is the absolutely in the prohibits use articles covered Act by the Act. Every provision of the upon is based the same classification and therefore if the classification is arbitrary equal-protection of laws clause the 14th Amеndment is violated entire by Act, and the entire Act must Under definitions fall. in the Act, secondhand materials are materials whose identity prior use can be readily are determined, confined almost entirely to materials formerly used re-used only remaking and renovating. Except when remade and renovated for owner, these materials is limited. Shoddy, however, *4 process manufacture, identity. loses'its nature Its facilitates the practice of fraud and deceit.
The question as to whether
legislature
or not the
exer-
goоd judgment
cised
in enacting the measure is imma-
for
terial
the purposes of this case. Heath & Milligan
Mfg.
Dakota,
Co. v. North
406 270 U. S. Appellee. Argument 127 Commonwealth, U. Powell v. S. ruled clearly by n 271 Hannibal & St. People Weiner, 74; Ill. 678. Cf. Husen, B. R. v. 95 S. 465. Joseph one the limited for determination is reasonable rela- challenged provisions had a whether by Act. the cases cited purposes tion to That than dis- large below rather establish deny the court below assumed cretionary judicial which court power analysis cases themselves. exercise, is shown 390; Swasey, Nebrаska, 262 U. S. Welch v. Meyer Angeles, ; Connolly U. S. y. v. Los -/Dobbins Steele, Co., 184 U. Pipe 540; Sewer Lawton v. Union Baking Bryan, Co. S'. 152 U.' S. Burns efficacy legislation, argue To the merit of it be to the error into invokes, adopt of the remedies would already that court fallen. has Smith, Edwin E. Mr. W. with whom Messrs. Carl brief, were and Frank L. McGuire on the Clock appellee.. Act nor testimony
There is
in -the
nothing
legislature,
prohibition
indicate
would
deception.
fraud and
shoddy,
attempting
it would
seem
could be seen
anything
It would
other
any
that a certain material was
be
used.
provisiоns
kind of
be
But the
might
preventing
the statute as to
effective
labels seem
these
the court
provisions
fraud and
deception, and
permitted
has
to stand.
beíow
is of
in de-
little value
history
legislation
that if a movement
termining the case.
It is well known
of a statute
resulting
passage
is started,
of some sort
,a
in,
fol-
short time it is
legislatures,
of the state
one
con-
very
without
much
States, apparently
lowed
bedding*
that, starting
1909, this
Thus
sideration.
twenty-eight
in sixteen
spread
years'
has
legislation
*5
(cid:127) 407
PALMER
v.
BROS. CO.
Argument
Appellee.
402
The
all
is
futility
legislation
shown
Statеs.
in the
It
testimony
only
Pennsylvania
record.
is
is so
as to
made
Maryland
the law
broad
cover
fabric.
by grinding up
unused
perfectly new and
the-
Maryland
after
passed
statute was
modelled
legislation
Pennsyl-
statute. None of this
Pennsylvania
until,
1923.
vania related
Act of
There
judicial
any
no
these statutes
interpretation
has been
Weiner,
People
v.
Opinion
TJ.
Court.
People Weiner,
74;
unconstitutional
Ill.
Greens
Ehrenreich, Taft,
Ala.
118 N. C.
579;
boro
State
Slomberg,
Koscinsko
prohi
Miss.
*6
an
bition of
article is
if regulation will
unconstitutional
accomplish
Weiner,
the intended purpose. People v.
&
supra;
Husen,
Hannibal
B.
Joseph
St.
B.
v.
95 U. S.-
Ehrenreich,
Greensboro
465;
v.
supra;
Taft,
State v.
Valley Bys.
supra;
Harrisburg,
v.
appellee the grounds, among others, Act on that, as applied it the business appellee, repugnant to the due proc- equal protection еss and clauses of the Fourteenth Amend- An application ment. under 266 of the Judicial Code § for a temporary injunction was denied. The decree was by affirmed 266 XJ. Later,- court. S. 588. defendant answered, there was a trial at which much evidence was introduced. The District Court found the statute infringes appellee’s constitutional insofar rights as it use of absolutely prohibits the the manufacture to that comfortables; and extent the decree restrains enforcement. This 238 of appeal its under the Judicial § . Code. decision is whether the provision pmv to forbid the
porting absolutely
com-
fortables violates the due
process
equal
clause
pro-
tection clause. The answer
on the
depends
facts
case.
determinations
Legislative
express or implied are
weight;
entitled to
but
great
always
to inter-
open
show,
that the
parties
legislature
ested
has transgressed
Mahon,
Penna. Coal Co. of its
power.
the limits
Invalidity may
shown
things which
Kirkendall,
noticed (Quong Wing
judicially
will be
59, 64),
223 U. S.
facts
established
evidence. The
on
attacking
burden is
party to
establish
invali-
facts. See Minnesota
Cases,
Bate
dating
Appellant that, record material should be sterilized.- health, bedding materials of secondhand for the sterilization that, shows appellee usés effective steam it makes from which parties ho between the controversy There is sterilizers. dis- harmless may be rendered as to whether made is sometimes infection or sterilization. While been materials that have rags, and from other filthy that all'dan- undisputed it stands infection, exposed to treat- by appropriate be eliminated may health gers Dis- In course of its decision the at low cost. ment by all parties It is conceded said, trict Court harmless sterilization.” perfectly bе rendered proper sterilization determines impliedly itself Act. second- permits the use effective. It practicable *9 OCTOBER TERM, 1925. Opinion of the Court. 270U.S. hand materials and.new and secondhand when feathers sterilized, and it regulates for processes such sterilization.
There was no evidence that any sickness or disease was ever caused the use of shoddy. And the con- record persuasive tains evidence, and by citation discloses opinions of scientists eminent public fields related to health, the transmission of disease-producing bac- teria is almost entirely by immediate contact with, proximity close to, infected bacteria persons; that such when perish rapidly separated from or- human or animal ganisms; there is no probability such them, bacteria, or vermin likely carry survive after usually required materials, for the period gathering of the production of shoddy, and the manufacture and strongly of comfortables. shipping This evidence tends that, show absence of sterilization or disinfec- there would be tion, little, any, danger tо the health the users of filled with shoddy, new or sec- confirms, ondhand; conclusion that all danger of shoddy may from the use be eliminated sterili- zation. discretion
The State has wide for selecting things needWe consider regulation. not whether fail- the mere the use of-other filling ure to forbid are materials that Act is mentioned sufficient itself to invalidate prohibiting the provision shoddy, as a viola- equal protection of the tion clause. But the number things permitted character be used in such properly may manufacture taken into account in de- ciding. prohibition whether the reasonable is a or is regulation, and valid arbitrary and violative of comfortables, Shoddy-filled due process clause. made are useful articles for which appellee there is much de- mand. And it a matter concern public pro- of things necessary duction sale convenient not They distinguished use should be forbidden. are to be PALMER BROS. CO. (cid:127) (cid:127) Opinion the Court. power deeméd to the State is have things dangerous. inherently suppress to regulate enacted laws States havе Many *10 of (Laws Illinois protection Legislation the health. 375,) regulation prohibited mere beyond went p. even when quilts of secondhand or comfortables the sale ma sterilized sterilized or when remade from ,271 state In v. Ill. the Su People terials. Weiner not prohibit Court held that to the of material preme by safe dangerous might'be rendered inherently that pro regulation transgresses the constitutional reasonable rights. personal property tection of Powell insists that this case ruled appellant The. But are essеn Pennsylvania, v. the cases A of Pennsylvania prohibited different. law tially oleomargarine. manufacture, sale, sale, for possession charged posses An indictment Powell sale trial sion with intent to sell. At the he admitted certain and, defense; prove his offered for allegations facts which were excluded as immaterial. were,. facts sufficient to decision whether these Mr. that, invalid. Justice applied,
show law was Harlan, (p. 682) pur for the said that speaking Court, “ the article these offers was to show pose proof invention, not an dairy sold was a adulteration but whole injurious public health, nor products, n . . [p. nutritious as an article of food . some and offer in the court below It will be observed that the 684.] articles de- particular proof was to show sale, viola- sold, and his possession those fendant were, fact, wholesome nutritious statute, tion of wúth that entirely of food. It is offer articles .consistent oleomargarine kinds indeed, that most many, are or ingredients in the market' contain butter say; court injurious-to health. The cannot become may" judicial cognizance, which it anything take S.TJ.
Opinion of the Court. disclosed such is not Under the circumstances fact. record, and in of constitu- to settled rules obedience is the construction, tional it must be assumed that such Commonwealth, fact.” Powell 114 Pa. St. And see 265, 279, 295. recog- Laws are enforced which the court frequently nizes aby invalid attacked dif- possibly probably Wing ferent or in way.” Quong int'erest a different Kirkendall, supra, well 64. This is illustrated Pennsyl- Schollenberger Powell with compared Case vania, Every 171 U. S. opiniоn having is to be read regard actually to the of the case the question facts Virginia, Cohens Wheat, 264, decided.
facts clearly distinguish this case from Powell Case. There, oleomargarine it was assumed that most kinds of in the market were or might injurious become to health. *11 Here, it is established sterilization eliminates the that if dangers, any, from the use of shoddy. As fact, the provision cannot be sustained as measure to health. And the protect fact that the Act per- materials, mits the of numerous use prescribing steriliza- if are they secondhand, tion also serves to show that the prohibition old, even when unreasonable sterilized, is and arbitrary.
Nor can such prohibition be sustained aas to measure deception. order In to ascertain whether the materials used and the finished articles conform to its re- the Act quirements, expressly provides for inspection of the such places where articles sold or made, are kept Every of. bedding sale. required article- is to taga bear showing the materials used and giving the names and addresses оf makers and vendors, and bearing the word there where has been prior use, the giving number of the permit for sterilizing and disinfecting where secondhand materials or feathers are used for filling. Obviously, these regulations or others BROS. CO. PALMER Stone, JJ., dissenting. Brandéis, Holmes, shoddy- to effectively may applied adequate are filled articles. made to not be constitutional guaranties Wisconsin, Schlesinger v. to mere convenience.
yield
legitimate
here involved is
The business
ante,
p.
regulation,,
all reasonable
subject
it is
and, while
useful;
manu
shoddy
usе of
prohibition
absolute
violates
arbitrary and
purely
facture of comfortables
Adams
Amendment.
Fourteenth
clause
process
due
Nebraska, 262
Meyer
Tanner,
590, 596;
S.U.
Decree affirmed. Mr., Holmes, dissenting. Justice Pennsylvania opinion Legislature If the of unsterilized by the use likely spread to be disease I this Court suppose do not in comfortables absurd manifestly so opinion pronounce would then I not, If upon. acted we should not be it could right for ought opinion to be that we assume think Legislature may law. The have testing purрose of filling further that the actual opinion practice been from gathered unsterilized with must we spread; again wide and this filthy floors was It admitted to be impossible true. be- assume product the innocent infected distinguish way, up when it is made into the comfortables. practicable danger Legislature regarded premises, On these inspection inadequate and tagging very great *12 to me that in order to remedies, it seems constitutionally it forbid of disease could spread Notwithstanding upholstery. Wisconsin the Schlesinger statemеnt the broad I it suppose do not was intended to overrule day, Lynch, & Co. Purity 192, Extract Tonic I referred cases to which the other there. ' OCTOBER.
Syllahus. 270 U.S. It is said that there unjustifiable discrimination. A classification is not .to be pronounced arbitrary because it on goes practical grounds'and only objects attacks those exhibit foster an evil on a scale. large It is not required mathematically precise embrace every case that theoretically is capable doing the same “ harm. If the law presumably hits evil whеre it felt, most it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which might have been applied.” Wilson, Miller v. In cáse, Schlesinger Wisconsin, I think are pressing that we Fourteenth Amendment too far.
r Mr. concur Justice Mr. Brandéis Justice Stone in this opinion.
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY v.
THOMPSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OP SUPREME APPEALS OP THE
STATE OP WEST VIRGINIA. Argued January 27, No. 178. 1926. Decided March liability goods The statement the basis of carrier’s “ ” damaged presumed negligence lost or effect in transit is in only a statement of substantive law that the carrier liable damage unless the loss or public was due to act of God (cid:127) еnemy, goods. or the nature of the P. 421. proviso ship- The second Of the Amendment relieves Cummins 2.. pers filing claim, etc., damage goodi notice of where n “carelessness, only negligence,” is due transit to the carrier’s damage negligence when is due to the carrier’s in fact. P. 422. negligence proof shipper
3. The establish burden is on the meaning proviso. within the P. 422. goods shipped
4 Evidence good were condition delivered condition, prima in bad makes a case. P. 422. facie where, prima 5.' But to rebut such showing, carrier intro- facie n goods duced evidence of the condition of which the the cars in