Western Turf Assoclation v. Hyman Greenberg

• Decision Date: 25 February 1907
• Docket Number: No. 189,189
• Parties: WESTERN TURF ASSOCLATION, Plff. in Err., v. HYMAN GREENBERG
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

204 U.S. 359

27 S.Ct. 384

51 L.Ed. 520

WESTERN TURF ASSOCLATION, Plff. in Err.,

v HYMAN GREENBERG.

No. 189.

Submitted January 29, 1907.

Decided February 25, 1907.

Mr. William S. Goodfellow for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 360 intentionally omitted] Mr. William G. Burke for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 360 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error is a corporation of California, and the lessee, in possession, of a race course kept as a place of public entertainment and amusement, and to which it was accustomed to issue tickets of admission. The defendant in error, Greenberg, purchased one of such tickets, and was admitted to the race course. After being admitted he was ejected from the premises against his will by police officers, acting, it was alleged in the complaint, by the direction of the defendant. The defendant denied responsibility for the acts of those officers. It was sued by Greenberg in one of the courts of California, and there was a verdict and judgment against the association for the sum of $1,000. The case was taken to the supreme court of the state and the judgment was affirmed. 148 Cal. 126, 82 Pac. 684.

At the trial a question was raised as to the applicability to this case of a statute of California relating to the admission of persons holding tickets of admission to places of public entertainment and amusement. That statute is as follows: 'It shall be unlawful for any corporation, person, or association, or the proprietor, lessee, or the agents of either, of any opera house, theater, melodeon, museum, circus, caravan, race course, fair, or other place of public amusement or entertainment, to refuse admittance to any person over the age of twenty-one years who presents a ticket of admission acquired by purchase, and who demands admission to such place, provided that any person under the influence of liquor, or who is guilty of boisterous conduct, or any person of lewd or immoral character, may be excluded from any such place of amusement. § 2. Any person who is refused admission to any place of amusement, contrary to the provisions of this act, is entitled to recover from the proprietors, lessees, or their agents, or from any person, association, corporation, or the directors thereof, his actual damage and $100 in addition thereto.'

1. The record sufficiently shows that in the supreme court of the state the defendant questioned the validity of the statute in question under the 14th Amendment, in that it 'seeks to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and to deprive them of liberty and property without due process of law, and to deny to them, being within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.' By the judgment below the validity of the statute was sustained, the court holding that it was a legitimate exertion of the police power of the state. The contention that this court is without jurisdiction to review that judgment is, therefore, overruled.

2. The supreme court of the state, in a previous decision between the same parties,—Greenberg v. Western Turf Asso. 140 Cal. 357, 360, 73 Pac. 1050,—held the statute to be constitutional as a valid regulation imposed by the state in its exercise of police power. That decision, we assume, from the opinion of the court, had reference only to the Constitution of California. But ...