Fruit and Vegetable Labels

[Ghost BEP]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Rikki Gins]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/tn-wknd-et-bradford-house-20170420-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._S._Bradford_House
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

A. S. Bradford House, 136 Palm Circle, Placentia, California. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
By Cbl62 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19457378

[Ghost BEP]

Great find! I have trouble finding good history on a lot of the good lables that I see.

[Ghost BEP]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Rikki Gins]

Great find! I have trouble finding good history on a lot of the good lables that I see.

Thanks, @BartEllProducer.  Yes, it's kind of a roll of the dice on whether certain info can be found regarding these labels.  Usually a packing company name, or it's owner will lead to something but also might be too generic in nature and will only match up with newer packing houses, etc.  Also, a lot of my searches lead right back to the label itself, haha.  In the case of the American Fruit Growers, Inc. label below, I got lucky and found a picture of (I'm assuming) their main office bldg. or a packing house, plus a couple of court cases that they were involved in.  That's one thing about these fruit growers, they were often involved in lawsuits.  I'm no Perry Mason, but I do enjoy reading the judges decisions regarding some of these cases.  Some of them I don't quite understand and I'm hoping that mr. @albrecht will read them and give us the court's outcome in layman's terms.   I think one of those court decisions below (American Fruit Growers v. Parker) involved an apples/oranges lawsuit.  Only in this case, it was an orange/grapefruit court battle.

[Rikki Gins]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Photo of American Fruit Growers, Inc. building: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mrg.04638/
Lawsuit: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/283/1.html
Another lawsuit: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/american-fruit-growers-v-parker-25500

[albrecht]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

https://businesswiki.info/company/wa/397008708/perham-fruit-corporation
https://www.goodfruit.com/last-bite-13/
https://www.leagle.com/decision/194943884fsupp3541351

A quick scan, basically the Fruit Company was suing Cunard over spoilage etc and Cunard was claiming Washington State was not the proper jurisdiction because they were only soliciting business there; not actually operating there. But they had an office in Seattle. Both sides gave their arguments and case law and it was decided that it was proper for Cunard to be sued in Washington State courts and wasn't an undue burden etc. And so Cunard motion to dismiss was denied, as was the other motion to dismiss in the other pending case, and so the case(s) continue....

[albrecht]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Photo of American Fruit Growers, Inc. building: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mrg.04638/
Lawsuit: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/283/1.html
Another lawsuit: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/american-fruit-growers-v-parker-25500

A brief read is that the court said basically their washing process is not patent-able because it is not materially improving, changing, reforming, etc the fruit. After the borax process (or whatever) you still end up with a lemon, or whatever, fruit.

[Ghost BEP]

Thanks, @BartEllProducer.  Yes, it's kind of a roll of the dice on whether certain info can be found regarding these labels.  Usually a packing company name, or it's owner will lead to something but also might be too generic in nature and will only match up with newer packing houses, etc.  Also, a lot of my searches lead right back to the label itself, haha.  In the case of the American Fruit Growers, Inc. label below, I got lucky and found a picture of (I'm assuming) their main office bldg. or a packing house, plus a couple of court cases that they were involved in.  That's one thing about these fruit growers, they were often involved in lawsuits.  I'm no Perry Mason, but I do enjoy reading the judges decisions regarding some of these cases.  Some of them I don't quite understand and I'm hoping that mr. @albrecht will read them and give us the court's outcome in layman's terms.   I think one of those court decisions below (American Fruit Growers v. Parker) involved an apples/oranges lawsuit.  Only in this case, it was an orange/grapefruit court battle.

Always very interesting reads when you can find information about them.

[Ghost BEP]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Maybe more suitable for melons but who am I to judge. Where can I buy these grapes!

[Rikki Gins]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Maybe more suitable for melons but who am I to judge. Where can I buy these grapes!

Ha.  I certainly do love some of these illustrated 'beauty' labels.

[Rikki Gins]

Thanks for the court decision interpretations mr. @albrecht.  I surprised myself by reading the entire 'soaking oranges in borax is a process, not an invention' case.  It took me like twenty minutes to get through it.  I noticed that before the decision, American Fruit Growers were forbidden to use the process on their oranges.  Also I liked how the Supreme Court judges brought forth information from previous trials.  In fact, one of them was from an Anheuser-Busch Brewing case.

And in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. United States, 207 U.S. 556, 562 , 28 S. Ct. 204, 206, where it was claimed that corks for bottles which had undergone special treatment after importation thereby became articles manufactured in the United States, this Court said: 'Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labor, and manipulation. But something more is necessary, as set forth and illustrated in Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. [283 U.S. 1, 13]   609, 7 S. Ct. 1240. There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge 'having a distinctive name, character, or use."

   
Did you see the familiar name in that American Fruit Growers v. Parker case? 

COUNSEL:  Earl Warren, Attorney General, Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, Walter L. Bowers, Deputy Attorney General, Ivan G. McDaniel and George C. Lyon for Appellants.

[Rikki Gins]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[albrecht]

Thanks for the court decision interpretations mr. @albrecht.  I surprised myself by reading the entire 'soaking oranges in borax is a process, not an invention' case.  It took me like twenty minutes to get through it.  I noticed that before the decision, American Fruit Growers were forbidden to use the process on their oranges.  Also I liked how the Supreme Court judges brought forth information from previous trials.  In fact, one of them was from an Anheuser-Busch Brewing case.   
Did you see the familiar name in that American Fruit Growers v. Parker case?

@Rikki Gins
An interesting up-bringing and distinguished and interesting career. Among other things- and since it is Veteran's Day, let us note that he tried to sign up but the Army wouldn't take him due to hemorrhoids! Too much sitting around as a lawyer?    But he had an operation and was able to join up but soon after Armistice Day happened, so never in the field. But note the differences between back then and some more recent times. Trying, even getting procedures, so that you COULD join up for a war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

[Ghost BEP]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login