United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

[JoeP]

I couldn't make this up. (Yes, now I'm claiming credit for thread titles ripped, via Wikipedia, from real life!)

Legal types (I think has one or two), is this fer real?

United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265 (1916), was a case under the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. At issue was whether the Coca-Cola company had adulterated the product by adding artificial caffeine, and whether Coca-Cola was misbranded because both coca and cola, originally the two main "medicinal" ingredients, had been all but removed from the product at that time.

Just asking.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Yes, UNITED STATES V. COCA COLA CO. OF ATLANTA was a real case. You can read the opinion here.

[maddog]

Certain kinds of actions are deemed "in rem" i.e., a cause of action held against the physical object itself instead of against a person. Forfeiture cases and some maritime cases are like that.

See, e.g., People v. One 1941 Cadillac Club Coupe (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 418
People v. $48,715 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1507
People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1




#2040

[JoeP]

ms_ann, you title the case as being against Coca Cola (a legal entity). But maddog, you say it's in rem. What's the intended outcome of such a case? Does the prosecution want to find the object guilty of a specific crime and imprison it for the remainder of its natural life, or whatever? Could the court issue an injunction against the object coming within 500ft of a prospective customer?

Surely there would always be a legal entity as defendant?

[ms_ann_thrope]

In an in rem action (as opposed to an in personam action), the existence of the thing itself (in this case, the Coca Cola syrup) is the issue/problem, not who the owner or creator is (in this case, the Coca Cola Company). So at the beginning of this action, the government's complaint was against the 40 barrels and 20 kegs of syrup. The Coca Cola Company entity became a party when it stepped up to defend its product.

But yeah, basically in an in rem action, the government wants to remove the thing from circulation via its confiscation/forfeiture/seizure/etc.

Forgive me, my legal knowledge is nascent. maddog might come by to explain it better.