Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1911 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseFood and Drug Regulationinterstate commerceFood and Drugs Actadulterated foodoriginal packagesin rem forfeiture

Facts

The United States brought libel proceedings against fifty cans of preserved whole eggs prepared by the Hipolite Egg Company. The eggs had been owned by Thomas & Clark, an Illinois bakery business, stored in St. Louis for about five months, then shipped from Missouri to Peoria, Illinois, to be used in baking rather than sold in the original packages. After receipt, Thomas & Clark placed the cans in their storeroom with other bakery supplies, and the goods remained in the original sealed cans except for one can sold to an inspector for analysis. The eggs contained about two percent boric acid, which the court found to be a deleterious ingredient and therefore adulterated within the meaning of the Act.

Issue

Does § 10 of the Food and Drugs Act permit federal in rem condemnation of adulterated food that was shipped interstate for use as raw material rather than for resale, and that had already been delivered to the consignee before seizure? The case also asked whether the court could assess costs personally against the claimant Egg Company.

Rule

Under the Food and Drugs Act, adulterated food transported in interstate commerce may be seized and condemned at its destination while it remains in the original, unbroken packages, even if it was not shipped for resale in those packages and even after delivery to the consignee. Such articles are treated as contraband of law, and Congress may use seizure and confiscation as appropriate means to effectuate its power to bar adulterated goods from interstate commerce. A claimant who voluntarily appears to defend the property may be subjected to costs.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Pantry, a bakery supplier in Milwaukee, shipped 80 sealed tins of cooking glaze to Nora Patel's bakery in Des Moines. Federal inspectors discovered that the glaze contained a harmful preservative banned as an adulterant, and seized the tins from Nora's storeroom two days after delivery while every tin remained sealed as shipped.

Is the federal seizure and condemnation most likely valid?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress may authorize confiscation of adulterated food at its destination so long as it remains in the original, unbroken packages. Delivery to the consignee does not defeat federal power. The Court treated such goods as contraband of law and rejected the argument that they become immune merely because they have arrived and been stored.