Joseph Lemieux v. James Young
Citation | 211 U.S. 489,29 S.Ct. 174,53 L.Ed. 295 |
Decision Date | 04 January 1909 |
Docket Number | No. 48,48 |
Parties | JOSEPH A. LEMIEUX, Plff. in Err., v. JAMES M. YOUNG, Trustee |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. John J. Phelan and Charles F. Thayer for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 489 intentionally omitted] Mr. Donald G. Perkins for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 490 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
Whether the following provisions of the general laws of Connecticut are repugnant to the 14th Amendment because wanting in due process of law and denying the equal protection of the laws is the question for decision:
The controversy thus arose. Philip E. Hendrick conducted a retail drug store at Taftville, Connecticut. While engaged in such business, in August, 1904, he sold his stock in bulk to Joseph A. Lemieux, his clerk, for a small cash payment and his personal negotiable notes. The sale was made without compliance with the requirements of the statute above quoted. Subsequently Hendricks was adjudicated a bankrupt, and the trustee of his estate commenced this action against Lemieux and replevied the stock of goods. Among other grounds the trustee based his right to recover upon the noncompliance with the statutory requirements in question. In the trial one of the grounds upon which Lemieux relied was the assertion that the statute was void for repugnancy to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because wanting in due process of law and denying the equal protection of the laws. The trial court adjudged in favor of the trustee, and his action in so doing was affirmed by the supreme court of errors of Connecticut, to which the case was taken on appeal. 79 Conn. 434, 65 Atl. 436, 600, 8 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 452. The cause was then brought to this court.
The supreme court of errors, in upholding the validity of the statute, decided that the subject with which it dealt was within the police power of the state, as the statute alone sought to regulate the manner of disposing of a stock in trade outside of the regular course of business, by methods which, if uncontrolled, were often resorted to for the consummation of fraud, to the injury of innocent creditors. In considering whether the requirements of the statute were so onerous and restrictive as to be repugnant to the 14th Amendment, the court said:
That the court below was right in holding that the subject with which the statute dealt was within the lawful scope of the police authority of the state, we think is too clear to require discussion. As pointed out by Vann, J., in a dissenting opinion delivered by him in Wright v. Hart, 182 N. Y. 350, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 338, 75 N. E. 404, 3 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 263, the subject has been, with great unanimity, considered not only to be within the police power, but as requiring an exertion of such power. He said:
. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Clausen
... ... 502. Recent cases ... going not less far are Lemieux v. Young, 211 U.S ... 489, 496 [29 S.Ct. 174, 53 L.Ed. 295]; ... ...
-
Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins
... ... Sturgis, 222 ... U.S. 113, 56, L.Ed. 215; Lemieux v. Young, 211 U.S ... 489, 53 L.Ed. 285; Cincinnati R. R. Co. v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.
... ... Walker, 17 N.Y ... 502; Recent cases going not less far are Lemieux, v ... Young, 211 U.S. 489, 53 L. Ed., 295, 29 Sup. 174; ... Kidd D. & ... ...
-
Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 531
...240 U.S. 510, 36 S.Ct. 440, 60 L.Ed. 771, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 548; regulating sales in bulk of a stock in trade, Lemieux v. Young, 211 U.S. 489, 29 S.Ct. 174, 53 L.Ed. 295; Kidd, Dater & Price Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co., 217 U.S. 461, 30 S.Ct. 606, 54 L.Ed. 839; sales of stocks and bonds, Hal......