People v. Perretta

• Decision Date: 08 April 1930
• Citation: 253 N.Y. 305,171 N.E. 72
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PERRETTA.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

253 N.Y. 305

171 N.E. 72

PEOPLE

v.PERRETTA.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 8, 1930.

Action by the People against Antonio Perretta. Judgment of the Trial Term (134 Misc. Rep. 652, 236 N. Y. S. 293) entered upon an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was affirmed by the Appellate Division (228 App. Div. 420, 239 N. Y. S. 63), and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, and motion to dismiss complaint denied.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.

Hamilton Ward, Atty. Gen. (George L. Flanders, of Albany, Louis B. Shay, of Brockport, and Samuel H. King, of Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Nicholas G. Powers, of Utica, for respondent.

POUND, J.

The actions are each brought to recover a penalty of $100 on the ground that defendant carried on the business of conducting a milk gathering station or plant without a license, in violation of section 252 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (Consol. Laws, c. 69).

Each complaint states a cause of action in proper form, but the defendant challenges the constitutionality of the law requiring him to obtain a license on the ground that it denies to him the equal protection of the law, and deprives him of his liberty without due process of law, contrary to the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The act in question prohibits any person or corporation from operating a milk gathering station, manufactory, or plant where milk or cream is received or purchased from producers for sale or resale, or for manufacture, unless licensed by the commissioner of agriculture and markets. The section requires that an applicant for license shall satisfy the commissioner of his character, financial responsibility, and good faith in seeking to operate a milk gathering station or plant, and shall pay a license fee of ten dollars. No license shall be issued unless the applicant shall execute and file with the application a bond, or be relieved from filing the same, as provided in the next section. Section 253 of the same act provides that the security required shall be a surety company bond in an amount approved by the commissioner, and shall be conditioned ‘for the faithful compliance by the licensee with the provisions of this chapter, and for the prompt payment of all amounts due to producers for milk or cream sold by them to such licensee, during the license year.’ Section 253 further provides that, upon default by the licensee in the payment of any money due for the purchase of milk or cream, the creditor may file with the commissioner a verified statement of his claim, and, if the same has been reduced to judgment, a transcript of said judgment. The section then provides: ‘Upon default by the licensee in any of the conditions of the bond an action upon the bond shall be brought by the commissioner. All moneys collected upon such bond shall be applied by the commissioner,first, to the payment ratably of all verified claims promptly filed with the commissioner after reasonable notice to present claims arising during the license period in connection with which the bond was given and the balance shall be paid into the state treasury.’ The bond is not required if the commissioner is satisfied from an investigation that the applicant is solvent and possessed of sufficient assets to reasonably assure compensation to probable creditors.

In brief, the law limits the right of persons or corporations to conduct milk gathering stations as defined by the act to those of approved character, financial responsibility, and good faith, licensed by the commissioner for the purpose, after giving an approved bond to secure the prompt payment of all amounts due to producers or, in lieu thereof, satisfying the commissioner of their ability to pay probable creditors.

This act is, in substance, the re-enactment of a former law which was before the court for consideration in People v. Beakes Dairy Co., 222 N. Y. 416, 119 N. E. 115, annotated, 3 A. L. R. 1271, and was there upheld as a proper regulation of the reserved power to amend the charters of domestic corporations, expressly reserving the question of the power of the Legislature thus to regulate the business of individuals. A corporation is a person and as such is entitled to the equal protection of the laws (Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U. S. 105, 49 S. Ct. 57, 73 L. Ed. 204), and if the legislation is a competent exercise of legislative power over corporations, it would seem that it is also a proper exercise of such power over individuals. Matter of Mount Sinai Hospital, 250 N. Y. 103, 164 N. E. 871, 62 A. L. R. 564.

The police power is ‘the least limitable of the powers of government.’ District of Columbia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138, 149, 29 S. Ct. 560, 563, 53 L. Ed. 941. It extends to all the great public needs. Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 17 S. Ct. 864, 42 L. Ed. 260. The validity of police regulations must depend on the circumstances of each case and the character of the regulation, whether arbitrary or reasonable. A legitimate public purpose may always be served without regard to the constitutional limitations of due process and equal protection. People ex rel. Durham Realty Co. v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 429, 130 N. E. 601, 16 A. L. R. 152;New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 49 S. Ct. 61, 73 L. Ed. 184, 62 A. L. R. 785.

The Legislature has a wide discretion in protecting the public from the dishonest or irresponsible. Roman v. Lobe, 243 N. Y. 51, 152 N. E. 461, 50 A. L. R. 1329;People v. Teuscher, 248 N. Y. 454, 162 N. E. 484. The question is how to apply the test. Is it a public evil to permit irresponsible persons and corporations to operate milk gathering stations, although they may engage in many other legal callings at will? If so, milk gatherers may be put into a particular class. New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, supra. In the Beakes Case, Kellogg, P. J., in a dissenting opinion in the Appellate Division (179 App. Div. 942, 166 N. Y. S. 209, 210), states the conditions which called forth the law as follows: ‘It is vital to the public welfare that the cities of the state be supplied with pure and wholesome milk. It is of the utmost importance to the public welfare that the farmers should be induced to produce milk for use in the cities, and that the persons purchasing and shipping milk for city use shall be responsible persons, so that the seller shall receive pay for his milk. It is a fact too well known to need discussion that the farming community has suffered great damage by irresponsible persons buying on credit their milk for shipment to the large cities without paying therefor. Such transactions naturally tend to convince the farmer that it is better for him to limit his production of milk, or take it to the home factory to be manufactured there, dealing with people whom he knows, rather than to sell it for city use. It is apparently recognized as impracticable that the payments should be made to the farmer upon the delivery of each sale of milk. When a person seeks to buy milk from the farmers of the state to ship to the cities of the state for use and consumption, his transactions affect the public interest, and the welfare of the farming community means that welfare of the public, and the state may properly protect the farmer from irresponsible dealers, who seek his milk for shipment to the cities. This law, as we have indicated, has more than one aspect. It naturally benefits the farmers, but it guarantees the city a supply of milk. The farmer is not naturally a financier, and when he produces the milk he should be reasonably assured that he is to have its value, and the state may prevent irresponsible people from taking away his milk without giving some reasonable surety that it will be paid for. In the absence of some such provision, the shipment of milk to the cities would fall off and be greatly limited.’

The producer of milk for the city market desires to find a ready purchaser...