Walling v. People of the State of Michigan
Decision Date | 18 January 1886 |
Citation | 6 S.Ct. 454,116 U.S. 446,29 L.Ed. 691 |
Parties | WALLING v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. Filed |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In 1875 the legislature of the state of Michigan passed an act relating to the sale of liquors in that state to be shipped into the state by persons not residing therein, known as act No. 226 of the Session Laws of 1875, of which the following is a copy: 'An act to impose a tax on the business of selling spirituous and intoxicating, malt, brewed, and fermented liquors in the state of Michigan, to be shipped from without this state.
In addition to the foregoing act there was another independent law in operation in Michigan in 1883, being an act passed May 31, 1879, entitled 'An act to provide for the taxation of the business of manufacturing and selling spirituous and intoxicating, malt, brewed, or fermented liquors,' and to repeal a previous act for the same purpose, passed in 1875. Sess. Laws 1879, p. 293. The act of 1879 was amended by an act passed May 19, 1881. How. Ann. St. § 1281. As amended it reads as follows:
'(Sec. 1281.) Section 1. In all townships, cities, and villages of this state there shall be paid annually the following tax upon the business of manufacturing, selling, or keeping for sale, by all persons whose business, in whole or in part, consists in selling or keeping for sale or manufacturing distilled or malt liquors, or mixed liquors, as follows: Upon the business of selling or offering for sale spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or mixed liquors, by retail, or any mixture or compound, excepting proprietary patent medicines, which in whole or in part consists of spirituous or intoxicating liquors, the sum of three hundred dollars per annum; upon the business of selling or offering for sale, by retail, any malt, brewed, or fermented liquors, two hundred dollars per annum; upon the business of selling brewed or malt liquors at wholesale, or at wholesale and retail, two hundred dollars per annum; upon the business of selling spirituous or intoxicating liquors at wholesale, or at wholesale and retail, five hundred dollars per annum; upon the business of manufacturing brewed or malt liquors for sale, if the quantity manufactured be less than fifteen hundred barrels, sixty-five dollars per annum, and twenty-five dollars upon each additional thousand barrels, or part thereof; upon the business of manufacturing for sale spirituous or intoxicating liquors, five hundred dollars per annum. No person paying a tax on spirituous or intoxicating liquors, under this act shall be liable to pay any tax on the sale of malt, brewed, or fermented liquors. No person paying a manufacturer's tax on brewed or malt liquors, under this act, shall be liable to pay a wholesale dealer's tax on the same. How. Ann. St. Mich. 378.
It is not contended that this act alters or affects the act of 1875, on which the prosecution against Walling is based, except so far as it may have the effect of removing the discrimination against the citizens or products of other states, which would be produced by the act of 1875 standing alone. The counsel for the state contend that the effect of the act of 1881 is not only to annul any such discrimination, but to create a discrimination against the citizens and products of Michigan in favor of the citizens and products of other states. Whether this is so is a question to be discussed further on.
In June, 1883, Walling, the plaintiff in error, was prosecuted under the act of 1875, No. 226, being charged in one count of the complaint with selling at wholesale without license, and in another count with soliciting and taking orders for the sale, without license, and at wholesale, of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, to be shipped from out of the state, to-wit, from Chicago, in the state of Illinois, into the state of Michigan, and furnished and supplied to citizens and residents of said state by Cavanaugh & Co., a firm doing business in Chicago, not residents of Michigan, and not having its principal place of business therein. The prosecution was instituted in the police court of Grand Rapids, and Walling was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine, and to be imprisoned in default of payment. He appealed to the county circuit court, in which the case was tried by a jury, who, under the charge of the court, rendered a verdict of guilty. Exceptions being taken, the case was carried to the supreme court of Michigan, which adjudged that there was no error in the proceedings, and directed judgment to be entered against the respondent. The decision of the supreme court is brought here by writ of error, and is now before us for consideration.
By the bill of exceptions it appears that one Chapin Pease was called as a witness for the prosecution, and was asked what business the respondent (Walling ) was engaged in. The respondent objected to the giving of testimony under the complaint, on the ground that the act of 1875 is repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and therefore void; that it is in conflict with paragraph 3, § 8, art. 1, giving congress power to regulate commerce, etc.; paragraph 2, § 10, art. 1, prohibiting ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligation of contracts; and paragraph 1, § 2, art. 4, which declares that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' The defendant also objected to the admission of any testimony, because the law referred to is in conflict with the state constitution. All the objections were overruled, and exceptions were duly taken. The witness then testified that Walling, on June 1, 1883, and before and since that time, was engaged as a traveling salesman for the firm of Cavanaugh & Co., of Chicago, Illinois, (shown to be wholesale liquor merchants residing in Chicago,) and that his business was that of selling liquor at wholesale for that firm; that the place of business of Cavanaugh & Co. was in Chicago, and that the firm had no place of business in Michigan; that on the first of June, 1883, Walling solicited the witness' order for a barrel of whisky to be shipped to him by Cavanaugh & Co. from the city of Chicago, and from without the state of Michigan; that witness gave his order for a barrel of whisky, and the same was shipped to him by said firm from Chicago, and he paid for the same, and that Walling exhibited to witness no receipt from the auditor general of Michigan to show that he had paid the tax required by the statute. It was also shown that Walling had never paid any such tax nor received any such receipt. The evidence being closed, the respondent, on the ground of the alleged conflict of the law with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Crawford
... ... plaintiffs in error it is admitted that the petition did not ... state a cause of action independently of the provisions of ... that act. By the ... Mass. 153; Commonwealth v. Bearse, 132 Mass. 542; People v ... West, 106 N.Y. 293; Wynhamer v. People, 20 Barb., 567; Mangan ... O. Gas ... Light Co. v. Light & Heat, etc., Co., 115 U.S. 650; Walling ... v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446; State v. Railway Co., 68 Minn ... 381; ... ...
-
Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
...Commerce Clause prevented States from discriminating "against the citizens and products of other States," Walling v. Michigan , 116 U.S. 446, 460, 6 S.Ct. 454, 29 L.Ed. 691 (1886). See also Scott v. Donald , 165 U.S. 58, 17 S.Ct. 265, 41 L.Ed. 632 (1897) ; Tiernan v. Rinker , 102 U.S. 123, ......
-
Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
... ... 2007-- 1 to ... 2007-- 2)), reducing passenger fares within the state about ... 33 1/3 per cent., and of April 18, 1907 (Gen. Laws 1907, c ... the people to the nation in the Constitution, is exclusive, ... may be exercised to ... [184 F. 770] ... 31 ... L.Ed. 700; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446, 455, ... 456, 6 Sup.Ct. 454, 29 L.Ed. 691; ... ...
-
Haskell v. Cowham
... ... highways of that state to transport such gas out of the ... state, violates the Constitution of ... W. F. Cowham, a citizen of the state of Michigan, upon this ... state of facts: He is the owner of gas wells of great ... these contentions disregard the fundamental grant by the ... people to the nation of the power to regulate commerce among ... the states and ... Houston, 114 U.S. 622, 631, 5 Sup.Ct. 1091, ... 29 L.Ed. 257; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446, ... 455-456, 6 Sup.Ct. 454, 29 L.Ed. 691; Case ... ...
-
Using Law and Policy to Address Chemical Exposures: Examining Federal and State Approaches
.... . . by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446, 455 (1886) (“A [state] tax . . . operating to the disadvantage of the products of other States when introduced into the first . . . State, is......
-
Missouri's Hangover: Wine-ing about Direct-to-Consumer Prohibition: Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt.
...that required all liquor importers to have a permit) (Iowa responded by banning the sale of all imported liquor); Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446, 445 (1886) (invalidating a Michigan tax that discriminated against liquor imported from other states while exempting the sale of local product......
-
ENDING THE FEDERAL CANNABIS PROHIBITION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL REGULATIONS, TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE.
...argument had 'great force'" (citation omitted) (quoting Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 209 (1824))). (148.) Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 460 (1886); see also Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 100 (1897); Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123, 124 (149.) See, e.g., Bowman v. Chi. &......
-
The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
...91 U. S. 275; Wardv. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; Guy v. Baltimore,100 U. S. 434; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S.123; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446;Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62.42 Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313.43 See supra note 75for the first time, referred to Marshall’sgreat decision ......