Rhodes v. State of Iowa
Decision Date | 09 May 1898 |
Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
Citation | 42 L.Ed. 1088,18 S.Ct. 664,170 U.S. 412 |
Parties | RHODES v. STATE OF IOWA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. W. Blythe, Thomas Hedge, and
Robert Mather, for plaintiff in error.
Milton Remley, for the State of Iowa.
The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company was, in 1891, a common carrier, incorporated under the law of Illinois, and operated among others, a line of railway from Dallas, Ill., to Burlington, Iowa, and beyond said point. The Burlington & Western Railway Company was, at the same date, a common carrier, incorporated under the law of Iowa, and operated a line of railway from Burlington, Iowa, to Oskaloosa, in that state, with stations at intervening points, one of which was Brighton, in Washington county. Both of these corporations had a depot at Burlington, which they jointly used. The two carriers had, at the time stated, and for years previous thereto, between themselves, joint freight tariffs, by which transportation under a single through waybill was given to merchandise from any station on either of the lines to any station on the line of the other.
In August, 1891, the Dallas Transportation Company delivered to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, at Dallas, Ill., a wooden box, stated to contain groceries, consigned to William Horn, Brighton, Iowa. It had been the habit of the agent of the Dallas Company before this date to ship intoxicating liquors over the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. The box in question was receipted for as through freight, and was billed through in accordance with the custom above stated, was taken to Burlington, Iowa, there delivered to the Burlington & Western Company, by who it was carried to Brighton. On its arrival there the package was placed by the trainmen on the station platform, and shortly afterwards the plaintiff in error, who was the station agent of the Burlington & Western, in the discharge of his duties, opened the door of the freight house, and moved the box into a freight warehouse, which was about six feet from the platform. In about an hour thereafter the box was seized by a constable under a search warrant, on the ground that it contained intoxicating liquors, which proved to be the truth, and subsequently the liquor was condemned, and ordered to be destroyed, and the order was executed. At the time of the seizure the freight charge due to the railways was unpaid. It was admitted that there was nothing on the package to notify the receiving railway of its contents, unless such knowledge can be imputed from the nature of the previous dealings of the Dallas Com- pany with the railway. There was, however, testimony showing that the railroad agent who moved the box from the freight platform to the warehouse had reason to know or suspect that it contained liquor, since it was proven that before the arrival of the box at Brighton a mail carrier called at the station, and asked for a package consigned to William Horn, stating that one was expected from Dallas, and that it would contain intoxicating liquor.
The plaintiff in error was proceeded against by information before a justice of the peace, charging him with the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors conveyed from Burlington to Brighton, Iowa. This prosecution was under the provisions of the statutes of the state of Iowa, to which we shall hereafter refer. He was convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100. An appeal from this sentence was taken to the district court, where it was affirmed, in which court, among other defenses, it was alleged that the package in question was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Iowa, because at the time of its removal from the platform to the freight warehouse it was in course of interstate commerce transportation. The district court having affirmed the conviction, an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the state of Iowa, where the judgment below was also affirmed. State v. Rhodes, 90 Iowa, 496, 58 N. W. 887. To this judgment of affirmance this writ of error is prosecuted.
The sole question presented for consideration is whether the statute of the state of Iowa can be held to apply to the box in question while it was in transit from its point of shipment, Dallas, Ill., to its delivery to the consignee at the point to which it was consigned; that is to say, whether the law of the state of Iowa can be made to apply to a shipment from the state of Illinois, before the arrival and delivery of the merchandise, without causing the Iowa law to be repugnant to the constitution of the United States.
In Bowman v. Railway Co. (1888) 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, this court was called upon to determine the validity of a statute of the state of Iowa, which it was asserted was repugnant to the third clause of section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States, because its provisions amounted to a regulation of interstate commerce. The facts upon which the controversy then presented arose were briefly as follows: Kegs of beer were offered in the state of Illinois to a common carrier operating a line of railway in the states of Illionis and Iowa. The beer was consigned to a point in Iowa, and the carrier refused to receive it, on the ground that the statute of Iowa made it unlawful to bring intoxicating liquors within the limits of that state, except when accompanied with a specified certificate, which the Iowa law provided should be granted under particular and exceptional conditions. The one by whom the beer was tendered to the carrier in the state of Illinois thereupon sued the railroad company for the damages claimed to have arisen from its refusal to receive and carry the merchad ise. The railway company defended on the ground that it was justified in its refusal because of the provision of the Iowa statute. This, on the other hand, was asserted not to be an adequate defense, because it was claimed that the Iowa statute was wholly void, as it constituted a regulation of interstate commerce. The sole issue arising therefrom was whether the Iowa law protected the refusing carrier, and thus involved determining whether the statute of the state was repugnant to the constitution of the United States. After great consideration, it was held that the law of the state of Iowa, in so far as it affected interstate commerce, was repugnant to the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, and was void. It was decided that the transportation of merchandise from one state into and across another was interstate commerce, and was protected from the operation of state laws from the moment of shipment while in transit and up to the ending of the journey by the delivery of the goods to the consignee at the place to which they were consigned. The court, in the course of its opinion, adverted to the question whether goods so shipped continued to be protected by the interstate commerce clause after their delivery to the consignee, and up to and including their sale in the original package by the one to whom they had been delivered, but did not decide the question, as it was not essential to do so. Referring to the subject, however, the court said (pages 499, 500):
Subsequently, in Leisy v. Hardin (1890) 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, the question which was thus reserved in the Bowman Case arose for adjudication, and it was held that the right to sell the imported merchandise in the original package free from inter- ference of state laws was protected by the constitution of the United States, as up to such sale the goods brought into the state were not commingled with the mass of property in the state. Summing up its conclusions, the court said (135 U. S. 124, 10 Sup. Ct. 689):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bixman
...and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise." Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 18 Sup. Ct. 664, 42 L. Ed. 1088; Act Aug. 8, 1890, c. 728 (26 Stat. 313); Rahrer's Case, 140 U. S. 545, 11 Sup. Ct. 865, 35 L. Ed. 572; Vance v. W. A. V......
-
Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
...8 S.Ct. 273 ).Despite Congress’s clear aim, the Wilson Act failed to relieve the dry States’ predicament. In Rhodes v. Iowa , 170 U.S. 412, 18 S.Ct. 664, 42 L.Ed. 1088 (1898), and Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co. , supra , the Court read the Act’s reference to the "arrival" of alcohol in a Sta......
-
William Austin v. State of Tennessee
...pounded in Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 34 L. ed. 128, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 36, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681, and Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 42 L. ed. 1088, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 664, and the authorities which are cited in the opinions of the court in both of those cases. If I thought either the o......
-
United States v. Colorado & N.W.R. Co.
... ... which operates entirely within a single state, independently ... of all other carriers ... The ... transportation of articles of ... continuous passage, unavoidably engages in interstate ... commerce. Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412, 418, 419, ... 426, 18 Sup.Ct. 664, 42 L.Ed. 1088; Kelley v ... Rhoads, ... ...
-
Old whine in a new battle: pragmatic approaches to balancing the Twenty-First Amendment, the dormant commerce clause, and the direct shipping of wine.
...Wilson Act, ch. 728, 26 Stat. 313 (1890) (current version at 27 U.S.C. [subsection] 121 (1988))). (59.) Id. at 172. (60.) Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412, 426 (61.) Id. at 422-23. (62.) Id. (63.) Spaeth, supra note 25, at 173. (64.) Rhodes, 170 U.S. at 424. (65.) Id. (66.) Id. (67.) Id. (68.) ......
-
Missouri's Hangover: Wine-ing about Direct-to-Consumer Prohibition: Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt.
...Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005). (59) Id. (60) See Granholm, 544 U.S. at 476 (citing multiple cases). (61) See Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412 (1898); Vance v. W.A. Vandercook Co., 170 U.S. 438 (1898); Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58 (1897); Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890) (allowing f......
-
ENDING THE FEDERAL CANNABIS PROHIBITION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL REGULATIONS, TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE.
...(2018)). (152.) Id. (153.) Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449, 2465 (2019). (154.) See Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412, 416-17 (1898); Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U.S. 438, 444 (155.) Pub. L. No. 62-398, 37 Stat. 699 (1913) (codified as amended at 27 U.S......
-
Dude, Where's My Wine? the Potential Effect of Granholm v. Heald on Georgia Direct Wine Shipment Regulations
...but not for foreign imported alcohol, unconstitutional against the Commerce Clause). 115. Granholm, 544 U.S. at 477. See Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412, 423 (1898). 116. See Granholm, 544 U.S. at 481-82. Taking a contextual approach, Justice Kennedy discusses his belief that the Webb-Kenyon A......