Alfred Booth v. People of the State of Illinois

Citation184 U.S. 425,46 L.Ed. 623,22 S.Ct. 425
Decision Date03 March 1902
Docket NumberNo. 201,201
PartiesALFRED BOOTH, Plff. in Err. , v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Charles H. Aldrich and Lee D. Mathias for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. H. J. Hamlin and Elbert S. Smith for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

By § 130 of the Criminal Code of Illinois it is provided that 'whoever contracts to have or give to himself or another the option to sell or buy, at a future time, any grain, or other commodity, stock of any railroad or other company, or gold, or forestalls the market by spreading false rumors to influence the price of commodities therein, or corners the market, or attempts to do so in relation to any of such commodities, shall be fined not less than $10 nor more than $1,000, or confined in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both; and all contracts made in violation of this section shall be considered gambling contracts, and shall be void.' Ill. Rev. Stat. Crim, Code, § 130.

The defendant was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county, Illinois, being charged with violating this statute so far as it related to options to buy grain or other commodities at a future time.

The memorandum of the option purchased by the defendant was as follows:

B. Al. V. Booth, Grain and Provision Broker.

Chicago, Aug. 16, 1899.

10 Weare Com. Co.

Sep. corn, 1899. C., 31 1/2. Paid.

Good till close of 'change, Sat., Aug. 26, 1899.

Weare C. Co.

J. C. C.

The defendant was found guilty and adjudged to pay a fine of $100 and the costs of the prosecution.

At the trial, by motions to quash the indictment, in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, the accused insisted that the statute under which he was prosecuted was repugnant to that clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declaring that no state shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' This contention was overruled both in the trial court and in the supreme court of Illinois. 186 Ill. 43, 50 L. R. A. 762, 57 N. E. 798.

There was no dispute as to the meaning of the above memorandum. It meant that on the 16th day of August, 1899, the defendant, a grain and provision broker, and the Weare Commission Company, made an agreement whereby, in consideration of the sum of $10 paid by Booth, he obtained from the company and was given the option of purchasing from it 10,000 bushels of corn at 31 1/2 cents a bushel,—the option to remain good until the close of business on the 26th day of August, 1899.

In Schneider v. Turner, 130 Ill. 28, 39, 6 L. R. A. 164, 166, 22 N. E. 497, 498, the question was whether the statute embraced an agreement in these words: 'Chicago, November 11, 1885. In consideration of one dollar and other valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby agree to sell to George Schenider, Walter L. Peck, and Fred W. Peck seventeen hundred and eighty-six shares of the capital stock of the North Chicago City Railway at six hundred dollars per share, if taken on or before the 15th day of December 1885. V. C. Turner.'

It was contended that that agreement was not prohibited by the statute; that the legislature only intended to make such option contracts unlawful as were gambling contracts, that is, option contracts that did not contemplate the delivery or acceptance of any property and which only required a settlement by 'differences;' whereas it was insisted, the option there in question had no element of gambling, being only one that entitled the parties obtaining it to elect on or before a named day whether they would buy the stock described in the agreement.

The supreme court of Illinois, in that case, observed that at common law all gambling contracts were void, and that an agreement for the sale of property was a mere wager or gambling contract and void, if made with the understanding of the parties that no property was to be delivered or accepted but could be satisfied by an adjustment simply on the basis of the difference between the contract and the market price. It said: 'It must be presumed that the object of the legislature was to declare that unlawful which theretofore had been lawful. Prior to this act it was lawful to contract to have or give an option to sell or buy, at a future time, grain or other commodity. Such contracts were neither void nor voidable at the common law. The statute makes them unlawful and void in Illinois.'

That such is the scope and effect of the statute in question was recognized by the supreme court of Illinois in the present case. Booth v. People, 186 Ill. 43, 50 L. R. A. 762, 57 N. E. 798.

Taking the statute to mean what the highest court of the state says it means, is it unconstitutional?

In support of the position that the statute is repugnant to the 14th Amendment, the learned counsel for the plaintiff advance many propositions that meet our entire approval. They cite, as in their judgment controlling, what this court said in Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 589, 41 L. ed. 832, 835, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, 431, namely, that the liberty mentioned in the 14th Amendment 'means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.'

These declarations state, in condensed form, principles which had been announced in previous cases, and which may be regarded as expressing the deliberate judgment of this court. But those declarations do not, in themselves, determine the question now presented. When it is said that the liberty of the citizen includes freedom to use his faculties 'in all lawful ways,' and to earn his living by any 'lawful calling,' the inquiry re- mains whether the particular calling or the particular way brought in question in a given case is lawful, that is, consistent with such rules of action as have been rightfully prescribed by the state.

It is, however, said that the statute of the state, as interpreted by its highest court, is not directed against gambling contracts relating to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
178 cases
  • Boreta Enterprises, Inc. v. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1969
    ...to bring about acts or conditions contrary to public welfare or morals. The United States Supreme Court in Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 429, 22 S.Ct. 425, 427, 46 L.Ed. 623, has said, "A calling may not in itself be immoral, and yet the tendency of what is generally or ordinarily or oft......
  • Comtronics, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • June 17, 1975
    ...U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915); Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606, 23 S.Ct. 168, 47 L.Ed. 323 (1903); Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 22 S.Ct. 425, 46 L.Ed. 623 (1902). Clearly, there is no constitutionally protected right to operate a given business in contravention of laws validl......
  • Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1977
    ...of Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 18 S.Ct. 383, 42 L.Ed. 780; Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 22 S.Ct. 425, 46 L.Ed. 623; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 544, 62 S.Ct. 1110......
  • B. C. Cotton, Inc. v. Voss
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 1995
    ...to that object, but is a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights secured by the fundamental law." (Booth v. Illinois (1902) 184 U.S. 425, 429, 22 S.Ct. 425, 427, 46 L.Ed. 623, 626.) Accordingly, in considering plaintiffs' argument we may not view their proposed activity in the abstract, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 4, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...help suppress the trade of alcoholic ones. See Purity Extract 8t Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192, 204 (1912). (252.) Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 430-31 (253.) Schmidinger v. City of Chicago, 226 U.S. 578, 587-88 (1913); see also State v. Hudson House, Inc., 371 P.2d 675, 685-86 (Or. 1......
  • Bioterrorism defense: are state mandated compulsory vaccination programs an infringement upon a citizen's constitutional rights?
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 17 No. 2, June 2002
    • June 22, 2002
    ...illustration that compulsory vaccinations are a proper use of police power). See, id. at 19. (202) Id. at 20, quoting, Booth v. Illinios, 184 U.S. 425 (1902); Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343 (1900); Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 659 (203) Id. at 24. (204) Id. (205) Id. (206) Jacob......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT