Pierce Butler, Jones v. Union Guano Company — Opinion of the Court
“ We think it plain that actions to recover damages to crops resulting from the use of fertilizers may reasonably be distinguished from other damage suits. Crops depend on the kind and condition of the soil, the vitality of seeds sown or plants set out, the cultivation and care given, the weather and many other things, as well as the kind and amount of the fertilizer applied. ”
Pierce Butler, Jones v. Union Guano Company — Opinion of the Court
“ The contention is that the act arbitrarily substitutes the determination of an executive department for a judicial inquiry, and has the effect of abolishing all remedies against manufacturers of fertilizer for damages caused by the use of inferior or deleterious fertilizer, and is therefore repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment.The act does not deprive purchasers of any right or cause of action. On the contrary, it gives additional rights and remedies to one who purchases for his own use fertilizer below the guaranteed value in plant food. ”
Pierce Butler, Jones v. Union Guano Company — Opinion of the Court
“ To attempt to establish the kind or quality of fertilizer applied to the land by an inspection of the crop growing thereon, or by the result of the season's planting and effort is to indulge in speculation and conjecture. A state has power to provide for and require a more definite method of ascertaining the essential facts and a better basis upon which judicial determinations may be made. ”
