Hood & Sons, Inc. v. DuMond. The Hood Company was a Massachusetts company that had three milk receiving stations in New York. Milk from these facilities was distributed to Boston, Massachusetts. Hood wanted to obtain a license for another receiving station in New York, so he went to Du Mond and asked for permission. Du Mond claimed that Hood could not have this license because a New York law stated that licenses could not be granted unless the Commissioner, Du Mond, was “satisfied that the matter would serve the public interest and would not cause a destructive competition in a market”. already adequately served” (“HP Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond.”). Basically, DuMond believed that expanding Hood's facilities would reduce the local supply of milk and give rise to destructive competition ("Hood & Sons Inc. v. DuMond."). Hood claimed that it was an unconstitutional “burden on interstate commerce” (“HP Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond.”). When the case reached the Supreme Court, it was decided that a restriction imposed by a state law is invalid under the Commerce Clause if the purpose of the state law is to reduce the volume of interstate commerce to benefit the local economy. A local embargo is invalid under the Commerce Clause, Hood's denial of the license was inconsistent with the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, and New York law represented a burden on interstate commerce for the respective states.