Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MILK CONTROL COMMISSION v. MCALLISTER DAIRY FARMS (03/13/56)

March 13, 1956

MILK CONTROL COMMISSION
v.
MCALLISTER DAIRY FARMS, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 18, May T., 1955, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 2082 Equity Docket, No. 128 Commonwealth Docket, 1953, in case of Milk Control Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. McAllister Dairy Farms, Inc. and Temple McAllister. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

John Y. Scott, with him J. Perry Eckels, for appellants.

Stephen B. Narin, Deputy Attorney General, with him Herbert B. Cohen, Attorney General, for Milk Control Commission, appellee.

Willis F. Daniels, with him Harold W. Swope, Donn L. Snyder, E. Lowry Humes, Daniels, Swope & First and Humes & Kiebort, for intervening appellees.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Arnold

[ 384 Pa. Page 461]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD

This is an appeal from the decree of the court below, sitting in equity, which adjudged corporate defendant guilty of contempt and decreed that it pay a fine.

Plaintiff, the Milk Control Commission, filed complaint seeking to restrain defendant, who operated out of Ohio, from selling milk in Pennsylvania below minimum prices established by the Commission and also from operating without a license. Preliminary injunction was granted, and, upon hearing, was continued until further order. Thereafter all parties stipulated not to seek dissolution of the order restraining sale below minimum prices, and that such order would remain in effect until determination of the case on its merits. The corporate defendant was then granted a license by the Commission and proceeded to sell milk, subject to the injunction.

Subsequently plaintiff filed a petition for a rule to show cause why defendants should not be adjudged in contempt of court, in that they had violated the injunction by selling milk below minimum prices. Hearing thereon established the following facts:

Corporate defendant owned and operated, through a single employe, a store in Meadville which was situate approximately one-quarter mile from an individual owned store known as "Test's filling station." Neither concern is far from the Ohio-Pennsylvania line.

A consumer's committee of Meadville arranged that Test redeem defendant's gallon jugs at 25› and one-half gallon jugs at 20›, although the consumer had paid a deposit of only 5› per jug at defendant's store, which store would redeem them only for like amount. The jugs were then taken into Ohio and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.