People of the State of New York Simon Lieberman v. John Van De Carr

Decision Date11 December 1905
Docket NumberNo. 71,71
PartiesPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. SIMON LIEBERMAN, Plff. in Err. , v. JOHN E. VAN DE CARR, Warden, etc., Deft. in Err
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Frank Moss for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 552-553 intentionally omitted] Mr. Theodore Connoly for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 553-557 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

Simon Lieberman was arrested and held for trial by a magistrate of the city of New York, charged with violating § 66 of the sanitary code of New York city. After being committed to the custody of the warden of the city prison, plaintiff in error sued out a writ of habeas corpus.

At the hearing before a justice of the supreme court at special term, the writ was dismissed, and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the warden. Upon appeal to the appellate division of the supreme court, the order of the special term was affirmed. This judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals of the state of New York (175 N. Y. 440, 67 N. E. 913), and the case remitted to the supreme court, where judgment was entered on the remittitur. The case was then brought here by writ of error.

The section of the sanitary code complained of is as follows:

'Sec. 66. No milk shall be received, held, kept, either for sale or delivered in the city of New York, without a permit in writing from the board of health, and subject to the conditions thereof.'

The violation of the sanitary code is made a misdemeanor. That the board of health had power to pass the sanitary code, which includes this section, is not open to question here, as it has been affirmatively decided in the state court. The objections on Federal grounds for our consideration are two-fold First, that the section under consideration devolves upon the board of health absolute and despotic power to grant or withhold permits to milk dealers, and is, therefore, not due process of law; second, that singling out the milk business for regulation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws to people engaged therein.

The record discloses that the plaintiff in error, engaged in selling milk in the city of New York before his arrest, had a permit, which was revoked by the board of health. He was thereafter found engaged through an agent in selling milk without a permit. In the testimony it appears, in a conversation between the plaintiff in error and an inspector in the department of health, the latter admitted that Lieberman's milk 'stood well.'

The right of the state to regulate certain occupations which may become unsafe or dangerous when unrestrained, in the exercise of the police power, with a view to protect the public health and welfare, has been so often and so recently before this court that it is only necessary to refer to some of the cases which sustain the proposition that the state has a right, by reasonable regulations, to protect the public health and safety. Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, L. ed. 989; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light & H. P. & Mfg. Co. 115 U. S. 650, 29 L. ed. 516, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 252; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 34 L. ed. 620, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 49 L. ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358; California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U. S. 306, 50 L. ed. ——, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100; Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U. S. 325, 50 L. ed. ——, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106.

The contention of counsel for plaintiff in error is not that a business so directly affecting the health of the inhabitants of the city as the furnishing of milk may not be the subject of regulation under the authority of the state, but that the court of appeals of New York has sustained this right of regulation to the extent of authorizing the board of health to exercise arbitrary power in the selection of those it may see fit to permit to sell milk under the section quoted; and, thus construed, it works the deprivation of the plaintiff in error's liberty and property without due process of law. We do not so understand the decision of the highest court of New York. As we read it, the authority sustained is the grant of power to issue or withhold permits in the honest exercise of a reasonable discretion. In the opinion of the appellate division, whose judgment was affirmed in the court of appeals, it was said:

'Such regulations, however, should be uniform, and the board should not act arbitrarily; and if this section of the sanitary code vested in them arbitrary power to license one dealer [in a lawful commodity] and refuse a license to another similarly situated, undoubtedly it would be invalid (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 44 L. ed. 725, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 633; Noel v. People, 187 Ill. 587, 52 L. R. A. 287, 79 Am. St. Rep. 238, 58 N. E. 616; Dunham v. Rochester, 5 Cow. 462; Brooklyn v. Breslin, 57 N. Y. 591); but such was not its purpose, nor is that its fair construction. It is unnecessary now to determine whether the action of the board in refusing or rovoking such a permit would be judicial, and thus reviewable by mandamus or certiorari, or whether, if the authority should be arbitrarily or improperly exercised, the only remedy would be an application for the removal of the officers; for those are questions that may arise in the administration of the law, but do not go to its validity. The section, properly construed, does not permit unjust discrimination, and, therefore, it is valid.' [81 App. Div. 132, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1108.]

The court of appeals, affirming the decision of the appellate division, did not speak with equal emphasis upon this point, but it leaves no doubt that it sustained the statute as authorizing the exercise of a reasonable discretion. While that court held that the discretion to grant or withhold permits might be vested in a board of health with opportunities to know and investigate local conditions and surroundings, it is further said:

'In the case before us the requirement of § 66 of the sanitary code, that the relator should not sell milk without a permit, is reasonable, and violates neither Federal nor state Constitution, is in accordance with law and long-established precedent.

'In the argument of this case several questions have been discussed that are not presented by the appeal. It is, for instance, argued that, even conceding a permit to be necessary, the provision that the holder is to be 'subject to the conditions thereof' cannot be sustained for a variety of reasons suggested.

'It is a complete answer that the form of the permit is not in the record; it does not appear that it has attached to it conditions reasonable or otherwise. We consequently express no opinion on the subject.

'What we have already said applies with equal force to the argument that the permit might be loaded with conditions, the nature of which is not limited or stated; that it may be used to build up monopoly, to help a favored few as opposed to the many; that there is no other statute which presents such possibilities for blackmail and oppression. These and many other like criticisms are indulged in by appellant.

'If the question was before us, the wellsettled canon of construction permits of no such argument.

'It is presumed that public officials will discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with the rules of law.'

We do not think that this language leaves any question as to the disposition of the highest court of New York to prevent the oppression of the citizen, or the deprivation of his rights, by an arbitrary and oppressive exercise of the power conferred. That this court will not interfere because the states have seen fit to give administrative discretion to local boards to grant or withhold licenses or permits to carry on trades or occupations, or perform acts which are properly the subject of regulation in the exercise of the reserved power of the states to protect the health and safety of its people, there can be no doubt. In Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43, 42 L. ed. 71, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 731, an ordinance of the city of Boston, providing that no person shall make any public address in or upon the public grounds, except in accordance with a permit from the mayor, was held not in conflict with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In Wilson v. Eureka City, 173 U. S. 32, 43 L. ed. 603, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep....

To continue reading

Request your trial
161 cases
  • Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 1965
    ...Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (smallpox vaccination); Lieberman v. Van de Carr, 199 U.S. 552, 26 S.Ct. 144, 50 L.Ed. 305 (milk delivery permit).11 § 10-308 of NIMLO Model empowers the Chief or Police to issue an alternate permit, i. e., f......
  • State v. Packer Corp.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1931
    ... ... effects, particularly upon young people, has ... become very general, and that ... Coach Co. v. New ... York, 221 U.S. 467, 55 L.Ed. 815, 31 S.Ct. 709; Com ... had; Lieberman v. Van De Carr , 199 U.S ... 552, 26 S.Ct ... ...
  • Johnson v. Board of Com'rs of Reno County
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1938
    ... ... enacted by state. Const.U.S. Amend. 14 ... That ... construed to deny others retained by people. Laws 1937, c ... 214, § 2; Const.U.S. Amend ... 253]; Stokes v. City of New York, 14 Wend. [(N.Y.) ... 87] 88; Mobile v ... New York ... ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 199 U.S. 552, 26 ... S.Ct. 144, ... ...
  • Doe v. Zucker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • February 17, 2021
    ...law" (citing Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco , 216 U.S. 358, 30 S.Ct. 301, 54 L.Ed. 515 (1910) ; Lieberman v. Van de Carr , 199 U.S. 552, 26 S.Ct. 144, 50 L.Ed. 305 (1905) )).The Court therefore concludes that it is within the legislature's authority to pass regulations defining the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • New York City Health Code: Introductory Notes [Details]
    • United States
    • Rules of the City of New York 2023 Edition Title 24. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene New York City Health Code: Introductory Notes
    • January 1, 2023
    ...Ct. 1877), aff'd, 73 N.Y. 65 (1878); People ex rel. Lieberman v. Vandecarr, 175 N.Y. 440, 67 N.E. 913 (1903), aff'd on other grounds, 199 U.S. 552, 26 S. Ct. 144, 50 L. Ed. 305 (1905). More recently, in a number of cases, a new attempt was made to revive this issue of delegation of legislat......

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