Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Weeds, Inc. v. United States

Weeds, Inc. v. United States, 255 U.S. 109 (1921)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1921-02-28
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reversing conviction for conspiracy to violate Food Control Act
  • “In the absence of a statutory definition of, or method of determining, standard prices . . . the natural standard . . . is . . . the standard of fair market value . . . . So construed, I regard this provision as clearly constitutional.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Weeds, Inc. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Nondelegation Doctrine Section 4 of the Food Control Act is unconstitutional for uncertainty in the clause penalizing sales of necessaries at "unjust or unreasonable rates or charges," as held in United States v. Cohen Grocery Co. 255 U.S. 109 (citing United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., ante, 81)
  2. Constitutional Law — Vagueness The clause of section 4 of the Food Control Act penalizing a conspiracy to exact "excessive prices" is equally wanting in a standard of criminality and equally vague as the provision penalizing unjust and unreasonable rates and charges, and therefore cannot be distinguished from the holding of United States v. Cohen Grocery Co.; the charge furnishes no sufficient standard and does not inform the accused of the accusation against him. 255 U.S. 109
  3. Statutory Interpretation — Separability Under section 22 of the Act of August 10, 1917, Congress conclusively declared that the various provisions of the Act are separable, so that the invalidity of one clause does not carry with it the invalidity of another provision of the same statute. 255 U.S. 109 (concurring opinion of Pitney, J.)
  4. Constitutional Law — Vagueness In the absence of a statutory definition of, or method for determining, standard prices, the natural standard by which a prohibition on conspiracies to exact excessive prices for necessaries should be interpreted is the standard of fair market value — the price prevailing under current conditions of supply and demand, uninfluenced by manipulation — and so construed the provision is not unconstitutionally indefinite. 255 U.S. 109 (concurring opinion of Pitney, J., citing Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 377)
  5. Constitutional Law — Vagueness A statute fixing a standard by fair market value under fair competition and normal market conditions may satisfy the requirement of definiteness, but a statute is unconstitutional where it does not apply that standard and instead calls for an estimate of what prices would have been under non-existent and imaginary conditions. 255 U.S. 109 (concurring opinion of Pitney, J., citing International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221-223, and Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638)
  6. Criminal Law & Procedure — Right to Present Evidence Where the trial court repeatedly rejects testimony offered by the defendants to show the market value of the goods at times material to the controversy, the defendants are deprived of the benefit of the standard by which the jury might have determined whether the prices they agreed to exact were excessive, and the conviction cannot stand. 255 U.S. 109 (concurring opinion of Pitney, J.)
  7. Statutory Interpretation — Construction — Scope of Prohibition A statute declaring it unlawful "to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any necessaries" does not reach or include the exaction of an excessive price for merchandise sold. 255 U.S. 109 (concurring opinion of Pitney, J.)
WEEDS, INC.,v. UNITED STATES,255 U.S. 109(1921)
41 S.Ct. 306
WEEDS, INC., ET AL.v. UNITED STATES.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK.
No. 558.
Argued October 19, 20, 1920.
Decided February 28, 1921.
Section 4 of the Food Control Act is unconstitutional, because of its uncertainty, not only in the clause penalizing sales of necessaries at "unjust or unreasonable rates or charges" (United Statesv.Cohen Grocery Co., ante, 81), but also in the clause penalizing conspiracies to exact "excessive prices." Reversed.
PLAINTIFFS in error were convicted, under § 4 of the Food
Control Act, of conspiracy to exact excessive prices for wearing
apparel, and, in furtherance of the conspiracy, of putting on
sale in a store various articles of clothing at prices varying
from 110 to 194 per cent. in advance of cost; and also of making
sales of various suits of clothes at unreasonable prices.
Mr. Charles E. Hughes, with whomMr. Harvey D. Hinman, Mr.Thomas B. KattellandMr. Charles E. Hughes, Jr., were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error.Page 110The Solicitor Generalfor the United States.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiffs in error, having been convicted and sentenced under an indictment containing eight counts, one of which, the sixth, was eliminated at the trial, prosecute this direct writ of error. All the counts charged violations of the fourth section of the Lever Act, the first, a conspiracy under the section to exact and to aid and abet in exacting excessive prices for certain necessaries, that is, articles of wearing apparel; and each of the others a specific sale of such an article at an unjust and unreasonable rate or charge.

The indictment was demurred to because of its repugnancy to the Constitution upon these grounds: (1) Want of power in Congress because of a state of peace; (2) that the provisions in question were so vague and wanting in standard of criminality as to constitute a mere delegation by Congress of legislative power in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and, furthermore, because, by virtue of the exemptions which they contained, they denied to defendants the equal protection of the laws. The demurrer was overruled and, at the trial which followed, the grounds of demurrer were again held to be without merit and the questions which it presented were saved and are pressed in the argument at bar as grounds for reversal.

As the only difference between the charges in theCohenGrocery Co. Case, ante, 81, and those in this is the fact that here, in one of the counts, there was a charge of conspiracy to exact excessive prices, it follows that the ruling in theCohenCaseis decisive here unless the provision as to conspiracy to exact excessive prices is sufficiently specific to create a standard and to inform thePage 111accused of the accusation against him, and thus make it not amenable to the ruling in theCohen Case. But, as we are of the opinion that there is no ground for such distinction, but, on the contrary, that the charge as to conspiracy to exact excessive prices is equally as wanting in standard and equally as vague as the provision as to unjust and unreasonable rates and charges dealt with in theCohen Case, it follows, for reasons stated in that case, that the judgment in this must be reversed and the case remanded with directions to set aside the sentence and quash the indictment.Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE DAY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE PITNEY and MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS concurred in the result, the former delivering the following opinion, in which the latter concurred.
In this case, as in No. 324,United Statesv.Cohen GroceryCo., ante, 81, while concurring in the judgment of the court, I am unable to yield assent to the grounds upon which it is based.

Most of the counts in the indictment upon which plaintiffs in error were convicted allege specific violations of that provision of the Act of October 22, 1919 (c. 80, § 2,41 Stat. 297, 298, amending § 4 of the Act of August 10, 1917, c. 53,40 Stat. 276, 277), which declares it unlawful "to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any necessaries"; the alleged offenses having consisted in the sale of specific articles of merchandise at excessive prices. Respecting these, my views are expressed in the concurring opinion in theCohen Grocery Co. Case.Page 112

The remaining count alleges a conspiracy to exact, and to aid and abet in exacting, excessive prices for certain specified necessaries. I see no unconstitutional lack of definiteness in the prohibition of a conspiracy to exact excessive prices for necessaries. In the absence of a statutory definition of, or method of determining, standard prices, with which to compare the prices alleged to be excessive, the natural standard, according to which this provision of the act ought to be interpreted, is that adopted in the ordinary transactions of men, and adhered to by the common law time out of mind — the standard of fair market value: the price prevailing under current conditions of supply and demand, uninfluenced by manipulation. So construed, I regard this provision as clearly constitutional, and need only refer toNashv.United States,229 U.S. 373,377.InternationalHarvester Co. v.Kentucky,234 U.S. 216,221-223, is distinguishable. In that case it was conceded,arguendo, that a standard fixed by market value under fair competition and normal market conditions was admissible; and the statute was denounced only because in truth it did not apply this standard, but called for an estimate of what prices would have been under non-existent and imaginary conditions. To the same effect,Collinsv.Kentucky,234 U.S. 634,638.

I assume (as the court has this day held) that the provision declaring it unlawful "to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any necessaries" is unconstitutional for want of a definite standard; but this does not carry with it the provision now in question, since by § 22 of the Act of August 10, 1917,40 Stat. 283, it is declared that if any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of the act be adjudged to be invalid, this shall not affect or invalidate the remainder, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, etc., directly involved — a conclusive declarationPage 113by Congress that the various provisions of this complicated statute shall be regarded as separable.

The record shows, however, that the trial court repeatedly rejected testimony offered by defendants for the purpose of showing the market value of the goods in question at times material to the controversy, and that exceptions were duly allowed. The effect of the rulings was to deprive defendants of the benefit of this standard, by which the jury might have determined whether the prices defendants agreed to exact for the merchandise were excessive; and for this reason only I concur in the reversal of the judgment of conviction as to this count. As to the other counts, I concur in the reversal upon the ground that the statute, in declaring it unlawful "to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with any necessaries," does not include the exaction of an excessive price for merchandise sold.