Mathias Schmidinger v. City of Chicago
Decision Date | 13 January 1913 |
Docket Number | No. 115,115 |
Citation | 57 L.Ed. 364,226 U.S. 578,33 S.Ct. 182 |
Parties | MATHIAS SCHMIDINGER, Plff. in Err., v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Illinois |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Harry Rubens and Benjamin F. Ninde for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 579-581 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Joseph F. Grossman and William H. Sexton for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 581-583 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
The city of Chicago instituted suit against the plaintiff in error in the circuit court of Cook county, Illinois, to recover penalties for certain violations of an ordinance of that city. The violations alleged in the declaration which are material here consisted in the making and selling of loaves of bread differing in weight from the weights prescribed by the ordinance. Upon the first trial in the cir- cuit court judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, then defendant. The judgment was reversed upon appeal to the supreme court of Illinois, and the case remanded to the circuit court (243 Ill. 167, ——L.R.A.(N.S.) ——, 90 N. E. 369, 17 Ann. Cas. 614). That court, following the decision of the supreme court of Illinois, rendered judgment for certain penalties against the plaintiff in error. The case was again appealed to the supreme court of Illinois, and the judgment affirmed in a per curiam opinion, following 243. Ill. supra (245 Ill. 317, 92 N. E. 244). The case was then brought here on writ of error.
The ordinance in question, passed January 6, 1908, undertakes to regulate the sale of bread in the loaf within the city of Chicago, and the parts pertinent to the present case provide:
The objections of a Federal character arise from alleged violations of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff in error avers that the due process clause of that Amendment is violated in that the ordinance is an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the police power, and constitutes an unlawful interference with the freedom of contract included in the protection secured to the individual under that Amendment. In the supreme court of Illinois error was also assigned because of the violation of the clause of the 14th Amendment guarantying equal protection of the laws. That insistence does not appear to be made here, and the right of the legislature or municipal corporation, under legislative authority, to regulate one trade, and not another, is too well settled to require further consideration.
At the hearing the plaintiff in error introduced testimony which tended to establish the following facts: There are between 800 and 1,000 bakers in the city of Chicago, together making about 50 per cent of the bread consumed in that city. Bread is sold in Chicago in large quantities at certain prices per loaf, 95 per cent of the bread made by the bakers, outside of the restaurant business, consisting of loaves sold for 5 cents or multiples thereof, and 85 per cent of such bread being sold for 5 cents a loaf. The 5-cent loaf weighs about 14 ounces when baked, and the weight of the bread in the loaf varies and is adjusted in accordance with the fluctuations in the price of raw material, labor, and other elements of expense of production, and the different qualities of bread, and as a result of competition. There is a considerable demand in Chicago, especially in the restaurant trade, for bread in weights differing from those fixed by the ordinance. In some parts of the city bread weighing 7 pounds is commonly sold. The moisture in the bread after it leaves the oven causes very appreciable shrinkage in weight, the extent of which depends upon the quality and size of the loaf, the atmospheric condition, and the dryness and temperature of the place where kept. It appears that, in order to insure bread of the standard weight of 16 ounces, it is necessary to scale the dough before baking at about 20 ounces.
The record also shows that although the price of bread sold by the loaf in Chicago...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Ex Rel. Fulton v. Ives
... ... practicing barber in the City of Jacksonville, Florida.' ... Fulton ... thereupon in August, ... of the public welfare.' Refer to Schmidinger v ... Chicago, 226 U.S. 578, 33 S.Ct. 182, 57 L.Ed. 364; ... ...
-
Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest
... ... 139, 33 S.Ct. 1033, 57 L.Ed. 1427; ... Bradley v. City of Richmond, 227 U.S. 477, 33 S.Ct ... 318, 57 L.Ed. 603; Barrett v ... Fuller, 229 U.S. 322, 33 S.Ct ... 833, 57 L.Ed. 1206; Chicago Dock & Canal Co. v ... Fraley, 228 U.S. 680, 33 S.Ct. 715, 57 L.Ed ... Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59, 32 S.Ct. 192, 56 L.Ed. 350; ... Schmidinger v. City of Chicago, 226 U.S. 578, 33 ... S.Ct. 182, 57 L.Ed. 364; Laurel ... ...
-
Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 531
...v. Missouri, 248 U.S. 365, 39 S.Ct. 114, 63 L.Ed. 300; regulating the size and weight of loaves of bread, Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U.S. 578, 33 S.Ct. 182, 57 L.Ed. 364; Petersen Baking Co. v. Bryan, 290 U.S. 570, 54 S.Ct. 277, 78 L.Ed. 505, decided Jan. 8, 1934; (continued on p. 527) reg......
-
San Francisco S. News Co. v. City of So. San Francisco
...of municipalities within the state should be followed by the federal courts." The appellees also cite Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 33 S. Ct. 182, 57 L. Ed. 364. Examination of that decision, however, discloses the important limitation that the Supreme Court there tacitly recognize......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192, 204 (1912). (252.) Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 430-31 (1902). (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. 1962) (allowing a prosecution for baking commercial bread in pan......
-
CHAPTER 1
...563 (1910); Muller v. State of Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908); Mut. Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U.S. 225 (1911); Schmidinger v. City of Chicago, 226 U.S. 578 (1913); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 (1911); Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104 (1911). Complainant feels the ne......