UNITED STATES
v.
RESNICK ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The defendants were indicted under the Standardized Containers Act of 1928 for manufacturing and selling two-quart metal hampers that did not comply with the Act's prescribed standard sizes and tolerances. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the charges, holding that because the Act specified only nine standard hamper sizes (ranging from one-eighth bushel to two bushels) and did not expressly prohibit two-quart hampers or authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to set tolerances for them, the manufacture and sale of two-quart hampers could not constitute a criminal offense under the statute, establishing that criminal statutes must be strictly construed and cannot be extended to cases not plainly covered by their express language.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellees were indicted for violations of the Act of May 21, 1928, 45 Stat. 685, 15 U. S. C. §§ 257-2571 In No. 62, the indictment is in four counts, each of which charges that defendants sold for fruits and vegetables two-quart metal hampers which did not comply with the Act in that they were not of any standard size authorized by the Act and did not come within any tolerance established by the Secretary of Agriculture. In No. 63, the indictment is in two counts. The first charges that defendant manufactured two-quart metal hampers that were not of any authorized size or within prescribed tolerances, without having submitted dimension specifications to the Secretary. The second charges sale of them. In each case, the aecused demurred upon the ground that the facts alleged are not sufficient to constitute a violation of the Act. The court sustained the demurrers and discharged the defendants. The United States appealed. 18 U. S. C., § 682.
Section 1 of the Act declares: “That the standard hampers ... for fruits and vegetables shall be of the following capacities,” and specifies nine sizes based upon a bushel of 2150.42 cubic inches. The sizes so defined are one-eighth, one-fourth, one-half, five-eighths, three-fourths, one bushel, one and one-fourth, one and one-half, and two bushels. Computed according to the standard fixed, the capacity of a two-quart hamper is 134.4 cubic inches. Section 3 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe such tolerances as he may find necessary to allow in the capacities set forth in § 1. Section 4 commands: “That no manufacturer shall manufacture hampers . . . unless the dimension specifications . . . shall have been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, who is hereby directed to approve such specifications if he finds that hampers . . . made in accordance therewith would not be deceptive in appearance and would comply with” section 1. Section 5 makes it “unlawful to manufacture for sale . . . [or] to sell . . . hampers ... for fruits or vegetables . . . that do not comply with this Act . . Anyone “that violates this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.”
The question is whether the provisions of the Act are effective to make the manufacture or sale of two-quart hampers punishable as a crime. The nine sizes standardized in § 1 are the only ones within § 4. The Secretary was not authorized by § 3 to prescribe tolerances in respect of two-quart hampers, and has not attempted tb do so. The indictments must be construed to charge merely manufacture and sale of hampers each of capacity of two quarts, one-sixteenth of a bushel, 134.4 cubic inches. They do not charge that any such hamper purported to be of any size defined by § 1, or was in any respect likely to deceive. It follows that, unless the clause of § 5 which forbids manufacture or sale of containers “that do not comply with this Act” makes criminal the manufacture or sale of two-quart hampers, the facts alleged do not constitute any offense.
Statutes creating crimes are to be strictly construed in favor of the accused; they may not be held to extend to cases not covered by the words used. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95. Fasulo v. United States, 272 U. S. 620, 628. The clause just quoted is crucial; its words are plain and, having regard to the connection in which they are used, must be given the meaning naturally attributable to them. It is obvious that they do not extend to hampers other than the nine classes defined in § 1. The Act applies to none of capacity less than four quarts. Pacific States Box Co. v. White, 296 U. S. 176, 183. It expresses no condemnation of two-quart hampers. Before one may be punished, it must appear that his case is plainly within the statute; there are no constructive offenses. United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 628. United States v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255, 261. Fasulo v. United States, supra, 629. As in absence of governmental regulation the making and selling of containers is untrammeled, failure expressly to permit is not to prohibit. Mere standardization of a bushel container at 2150.42 cubic inches would not make criminal the manufacture or sale of a half-bushel container having capacity of 1075.21 cubic inches. The prescribing of capacities of containers described in § 1 does not prohibit manufacture or sale of the two-quart hampers described in these indictments.
The judgments sustaining the demurrers and discharging the accused must be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
United States v. Hark, 320 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1944)…o control, an appeal taken April 30 would be out of time. In the federal courts an opinion is not a part of the record proper, England v. Gebhardt, 112 U. S. 502, 506; and in some jurisdictions the docket entries are not. United States v. Resnick, 299 U. S. 207; United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co., 306 U. S. 161. Compare United States v. Swift & Co., 318 U. S. 442, 446. United States v. Stevenson, 215 U. S. 190; United States v. Winslow, 227 U. S. 202; United States v. Foster, 233 U. S. 515; Unite…
-
Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1948)…would take an extremely narrow reading of the Act to hold that these drugs were not misbranded. A criminal [*349] law is not to be read expansively to include what is not plainly embraced within the language of the statute (United States v. Resnick, 299 U. S. 207; Kraus & Bros. v. United States, 327 U. S. 614, 621-622), since the purpose fairly to apprise men of the boundaries of the prohibited action would then be defeated. United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 689, 693; Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507. B…
-
United States v. Raynor, 302 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1938)…ot to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the lawmaker, nevertheless — “Before one may be punished, it must appear that his case is plainly within the statute; there are no constructive offenses.” United States v. Resnick, 299 U. S. 207, 210. We think the opinion just handed down, undertakes to import a meaning into the pertinent statute at war with its words. That statute requires the existence of four distinct elements before the accused can be held guilty of violating it: (1) t…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76 (U.S. 1820)
- Pac. States BOX & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1935)
- United States v. Chase, 135 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1890)
- Fasulo v. United States, 272 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1926)
- United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1890)