134 U.S. 31 (1890), Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth County

Citation134 U.S. 31, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801
Party NameEILENBECKER et al. v. DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH COUNTY. [1]
Case DateMarch 03, 1890
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 31

134 U.S. 31 (1890)

10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801

EILENBECKER et al.

v.

DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH COUNTY. 1

United States Supreme Court.

March 3, 1890

COUNSEL

Page 32

[10 S.Ct. 424] Wm. A. McKenney, for plaintiffs in error.

I. S. Struble and A. J. Baker, for defendant in error.

OPINION

MILLER, J.

This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of Iowa. The judgment which we are called upon to review is one affirming the judgment of the district court of Plymouth county in that state. This judgment imposed a fine of $500 and costs on each of the six plaintiffs in error in this case, and imprisonment in the jail of Plymouth county for a period of three months; but they were to be released from confinement if the fine imposed was [10 S.Ct. 425] paid within 30 days from the date of the judgment. This sentence was pronounced by the court as a punishment for contempt in refusing to obey a writ of injunction, issued by that court, enjoining and restraining each of the defendants from selling, or keeping for sale, any intoxicating liquors, including ale, wine, and beer, in Plymouth county; and the sentence was imposed upon a hearing by the court, without a jury, and upon evidence in the form of affidavits. It appears that on the 11th day of June, 1885, separate petitions in equity were filed in the district court of Plymouth county against each of these plaintiffs in error, praying that they should be enjoined from selling, or keeping for sale, intoxicating liquors, including ale, wine, and beer, in that county. On the 6th of July the court ordered the issue of preliminary injunctions as prayed. On the 7th of July the writs were

Page 33

served on each of the defendants in each proceeding by the sheriff of Plymouth county. On the 24th of October, complaints were filed, alleging that these plaintiffs in error had violated this injunction by selling intoxicating liquors contrary to the law, and the terms of the injunction served on them, and asking that they be required to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court. A rule was granted accordingly, and the court, having no personal knowledge of the facts charged, ordered that a hearing be had at the next term of the court, upon affidavits; and on the 8th day of March, 1886, it being at the regular term of said district court, separate trials were had upon evidence in the form of affidavits, by the court without a jury, upon which the plaintiffs were found guilty of a violation of the writs of injunction issued in said cause, and a sentence of fine and imprisonment, as already stated, entered against them. Each plaintiff obtained from the supreme court of the state of Iowa, upon petition, a writ of certiorari, in which it was alleged that the district court of Plymouth county had acted without jurisdiction, and illegally, in rendering this judgment; and, by agreement of counsel and with the consent of the supreme court of Iowa, the cases of the six appellants in this court were submitted together, and tried on one transcript of record. That court affirmed the judgment of the district court of Plymouth county, and to that judgment of affirmance this writ of error is prosecuted.

The errors assigned here are that the supreme court of Iowa failed to give effect to clause 3, § 2, art. 3, of the constitution of the United States, which provides that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and also to the provisions of article 6 of the amendments to the constitution, which provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The second assignment is that the supreme court of Iowa erred in holding that plaintiffs could be fined and imprisoned without first being presented by a grand jury, and could be tried on ex parte affidavits, which decision, it is said, is in conflict

Page 34

with, and contrary to, the provisions of both articles 5 and 6 of the amendments to the constitution of the United States,--the latter of which provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him. The fourth assignment is that the supreme court erred in not holding that section 12 of chapter 143 of the Acts of the 20th General Assembly of Iowa is in conflict with article 8 of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, which provides that excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punish ments inflicted. These three assignments, as will be presently seen, may be disposed of together. The third assignment is that the supreme court of Iowa erred in not holding that said chapter 143 of the Acts of the 20th General Assembly of Iowa, and especially section 12 of said chapter, is void, and in conflict with section 1 of article 14 of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, in this, that it deprives persons charged with selling intoxicating liquors of the equal protection of the laws, and it prejudices the rights and privileges of that particular class of persons, and denies to them the right of trial by jury, while in all other prosecutions the accused must first be presented by indictment, and then have the benefit of trial by a jury of his peers.

The first three of these assignments of error, as we have stated them, being the first and second and fourth of the assignments as numbered in the brief of the plaintiffs in error, are disposed of at once by the principle often decided by this court, that the first eight articles of the amendments to the constitution have reference to powers exercised by the government of the United States, and not to those of the states. Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542; Walker v. Sauvinet, Id. 90; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580. The limitation, therefore, of articles 5, 6, and 8

Page 35

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
186 practice notes
  • 78 S.W. 770 (Ark. 1905), Kirkland v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 30, 1905
    ...Ark. 17); suits in equity to abate a public nuisance (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 31 L.Ed. 205, 8 S.Ct. 273; Eilenbecker v. District, 134 U.S. 31, 33 L.Ed. 801, 10 S.Ct. 424; Littleton v. Fritz, 65 Iowa 488, 22 N.W. 641); other suits of an equitable nature (Hinkle v. Hinkle, 55 Ark. 583......
  • 86 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. 1955), 18850, Bibb County v. Hancock
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia
    • March 14, 1955
    ...in the Federal courts. Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81(2), 48 S.Ct. 468, 72 L.Ed. 793; Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth County, 134 U.S. 31, 34, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801; Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731(1c), 82 S.E. 228; Lewis v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 162 Ga. 263, 266......
  • 248 S.W. 591 (Mo. 1923), State ex rel. Burns v. Shain
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 3, 1923
    ...Rhodes v. Saunders, 18 L. R. A. 646; State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 726; Balch v. Glenn, 119 P. 67; Eilenbecker v. Dist. Ct. of Plymouth Co., 134 U.S. 31. (a) The Congress has no power to pass a statute except when such power be granted by the Constitution of the United States. To the contrary,......
  • 233 So.2d 116 (Miss. 1970), 45743, Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 9, 1970
    ...is not entitled to apply for a change of venue on the ground of the bias and prejudice of the judge. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U.S. 31, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801 (1890); Bessette v. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 24 S.Ct. 665, 48 L.Ed. 997; Fleming v. United States (C.C.A.) 279 F. 613......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
184 cases
  • 78 S.W. 770 (Ark. 1905), Kirkland v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 30, 1905
    ...Ark. 17); suits in equity to abate a public nuisance (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 31 L.Ed. 205, 8 S.Ct. 273; Eilenbecker v. District, 134 U.S. 31, 33 L.Ed. 801, 10 S.Ct. 424; Littleton v. Fritz, 65 Iowa 488, 22 N.W. 641); other suits of an equitable nature (Hinkle v. Hinkle, 55 Ark. 583......
  • 86 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. 1955), 18850, Bibb County v. Hancock
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia
    • March 14, 1955
    ...in the Federal courts. Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81(2), 48 S.Ct. 468, 72 L.Ed. 793; Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth County, 134 U.S. 31, 34, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801; Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731(1c), 82 S.E. 228; Lewis v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 162 Ga. 263, 266......
  • 248 S.W. 591 (Mo. 1923), State ex rel. Burns v. Shain
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 3, 1923
    ...Rhodes v. Saunders, 18 L. R. A. 646; State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 726; Balch v. Glenn, 119 P. 67; Eilenbecker v. Dist. Ct. of Plymouth Co., 134 U.S. 31. (a) The Congress has no power to pass a statute except when such power be granted by the Constitution of the United States. To the contrary,......
  • 233 So.2d 116 (Miss. 1970), 45743, Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 9, 1970
    ...is not entitled to apply for a change of venue on the ground of the bias and prejudice of the judge. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U.S. 31, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801 (1890); Bessette v. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 24 S.Ct. 665, 48 L.Ed. 997; Fleming v. United States (C.C.A.) 279 F. 613......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The jurisprudence of dignity.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 160 Nbr. 1, December 2011
    • December 1, 2011
    ...of vindicating its dignity, of enforcing its orders, of protecting itself from insult....'" (quoting Eilenbecker v. Dist. Court, 134 U.S. 31, 36 (1890))); Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 30 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (contending that Cooke states the proper justification......
  • Setting incorporationism straight: a reinterpretation of the Slaughter-House Cases.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 109 Nbr. 4, January 2000
    • January 1, 2000
    ...1874) (No. 14, 897). (379.) Id. at 714. (380.) Slaughter-House, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) at 79-80. (381.) 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 321 (1869). (382.) 134 U.S. 31 (1890). (383.) 110 U.S. 516 (1884). (384.) Twitchell, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) at 325. (385.) U.S. CONST. amend. VI. (386.) 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (183......