{
  "id": 5166871,
  "name": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pacific Wine Company, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad v. Pacific Wine Co.",
  "decision_date": "1957-01-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 46,935",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "539",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 2d 535"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "9 Ill.2d 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5320504
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "427"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/9/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 Ill. App. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3385121
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/313/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 F.2d 66",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1727074
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/25/0066-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 369,
    "char_count": 5529,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15593573216044643
    },
    "sha256": "bae049d7904de36119c1678cc2ce094fb62324e3707df06314769b68760662e2",
    "simhash": "1:fb946c383995504e",
    "word_count": 847
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:16.519843+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "FEINBERGr, P. J. and LEWE, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pacific Wine Company, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUDGE KILEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff Railroad sued defendant Wine Company, on three counts, to recover balances claimed to be due for freight rates upon three separate shipments of sparkling wine delivered by the Railroad. The Court, without a jury, found, and entered judgment, for defendant on all counts and the Railroad has appealed.\nThe facts are stipulated. The shipments were made November 29, 1948, December 10, 1948, and November 3,1950. In 1948 the lawful freight rates, under the published tariff, were:\n\u201cWine (Except champagne)... .$1.51 per 100 pounds.\nChampagne ..................$3.38 per 100 pounds.\u201d\nThe freight rates for 1950 were $1.65 and $2.60 respectively. The Wine Company accepted the shipments and paid the lower rates. The Railroad demanded the higher rates and has sued for the difference between the lower rates and higher rates.\nThe parties concede that plaintiff has the duty to collect the lawful rate (Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 25 F.2d 66) so that no consideration of estoppel is relevant. There is no dispute either about the rule that the designation, for sales purposes, of the commodity .shipped determines the applicable rate. (Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. California Wine Co., 313 Ill. App. 498.) The question is whether the court correctly interpreted the manufacturer\u2019s designation of the sparkling wine in this case.\nThe bills of lading described the shipments as \u201cSparkling Wine.\u201d The manufacturer\u2019s invoices described them as \u201cSaratoga Champagne.\u201d Every bottle in the three shipments was labelled:\n\u201cSparkling Wine\nCalifornia Champagne\nNaturally Fermented \u2014 Bulk Process\u201d\nAt the time of the shipments there were in effect Sections 3223-3224 of Regulation 124 promulgated under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, governing the production, sale, labelling and advertising of all alcoholic liquor products sold in the United States. These sections contained definitions of \u201cClass 2. Sparkling Grape Wine\u201d and of \u201c(b) Champagne.\u201d Authorization was given in Regulation (c) for the designation of a \u201csparkling white wine\u201d as \u201cSparkling Wine \u2014 -California Champagne \u2014 Bulk Process.\u201d\nThe authorized designation (c) is the important provision in the instant case. The wine described in that provision is not champagne as defined in (b), since the secondary fermentation in the former may take place in \u201ca closed container, tank or bottle,\u201d while in champague proper (b), the secondary fermentation must take place \u201csolely . . . within glass containers of not greater than one gallon capacity.\u201d The wine subject of the suit was fermented secondarily in vats and is therefore not champagne. But the controlling factor is the manufacturer\u2019s designation.\nThe authorization to designate sparkling light wine as California Champagne was qualified in that the words added to the general designation \u201cSparkling Light Wine\u201d were required to be \u201cequally conspicuous . . . and in lettering approximately one-half the size of the words \u2018sparkling wine.\u2019 \u201d The label in the record discloses the words \u201cSparkling Wine\u201d in block letters about one-eighth inch in height. Directly beneath in script are the words \u201cCalifornia Champagne,\u201d the capital letters being about seven-sixteenths of an inch high. Beneath these are the words \u201cNaturally Fermented \u2014 Bulk Process,\u201d with the capital letters about one-fourth inch tall and the small letters a little less than one-eighth inch tall. Thus the label did not meet the qualifications in the provision authorizing the designation \u201cCalifornia Champagne.\u201d\nThere is undisputed testimony that all labels intended for bottles of alcoholic liquor must be approved by the Federal Alcohol Administration; that a preliminary approval of a sketch of the label is first obtained and thereafter the label is submitted; that if approved a stamp of approval is given and the label returned to the manufacturer; and that the manufacturer is subject to fine for having in possession an unapproved label. We will not presume that the manufacturer violated the law (Robinson, Admx. v. Workman, 9 Ill.2d 420, 427), but in the absence of a showing to the contrary we presume that the label used was given approval. The Federal approval necessarily was for California Champagne, bulk-processed, and not for true champagne. This fact distinguishes Cream of Wheat Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 911. C. C. 45, where cereals labelled as such were shipped as wheat grits. The fact also distinguishes other cases where commodities were not truthfully designated. Finally, the Federal agency\u2019s approval overrides the failure to meet the qualifications for lettering on the label and establishes the manufacturer\u2019s designation which controls the applicable rate. The approval indicated that the agency considered the designation sufficient although the label did not strictly conform to the requirements of the Regulation.\nWe think it follows that the manufacturer\u2019s designation was not for champagne and that the defendant was entitled to have the lower rate applied to the shipments. It is our opinion that the trial court\u2019s decision was right and it is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nFEINBERGr, P. J. and LEWE, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUDGE KILEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. L. Houts, and E. D. Curlee, of Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Schultz & Biro, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pacific Wine Company, Defendant-Appellee.\nGen. No. 46,935.\nFirst District, Third Division.\nJanuary 16, 1957.\nReleased for publication March 5, 1957.\nO. L. Houts, and E. D. Curlee, of Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.\nSchultz & Biro, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 547,
  "last_page_order": 551
}