Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was pursuing the business of a milk dealer. It did not enter the business until 1933. P was granted a license under the Milk Control Act of March 31, 1933, but was denied a license under an amended act, effective April 1, 1934. D claimed the New York Milk Control Act, as amended effective April 1, 1934, discriminates between milk dealers without well-advertised trade names who were in the business before April 10, 1933, and those in that class who entered it later, by granting to the former and denying to the latter the privilege of selling milk in New York City at a price one cent below the minimum binding on competitors with well-advertised trade names. P’s application was denied. P had not a well-advertised trade name. The reason for refusing it a license was that though it had not been continuously in the business of dealing in milk since April 10, 1933 it had sold and was selling to stores milk at a price a cent below the established minimum price. The question is whether the provision denying the benefit of the differential to all who embark in the business after April 10, 1933, works a discrimination which has no foundation in the circumstances of those engaging in the milk business in New York City, and is therefore so unreasonable as to deny appellant the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co