State v. Edwards

Decision Date19 December 1893
Citation29 A. 947,86 Me. 102
PartiesSTATE v. EDWARDS et al.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Exceptions from superior court, Aroostook county.

Herbert A. Edwards and another, having been convicted of receiving excessive tolls for grinding grain, and for refusing to grind grain tendered for that purpose, bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

This was a complaint under the statutes, charging two offenses—First, for refusing to receive complainant's grain to be ground; and, second, for taking excessive tolls for grain received and ground by the defendants.

The case was heard by a trial justice, and was brought on appeal by the defendants into the superior court of Aroostook county, where the defendants offered to prove that, on tendering the grain mentioned in the first charge, they refused to grind it unless the complainant would pay a toll in excess of one-sixteenth part, whereupon he took the grain away to another mill.

In defense to the second offense, the defendants offered to prove that a contract had been entered into between them and the complainant whereby he had agreed to pay them one-eleventh part of the grain, as toll for grinding the same; that thereupon they had received the grain, and ground, and charged, according to the contract, one-eleventh, and no more, for grinding the grain.

The presiding justice ruled that, under the statutes, the defendants were bound to receive the grists of grain offered, and grind it for the toll specified by statute. He also ruled that the contract relied on by defendants, under the second count in the complaint, was void.

Under these rulings, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendants took exceptions.

Charles F. Daggett, Co. Atty., for the State. Louis C. Stearns, for defendants.

HASKELL, J. The defendants were convicted under Rev. St. c. 57, §§ 5, 6, as amended by the act of 1885, chapter 332, on two several counts—First of refusing to receive grain at their gristmill, there tendered to be ground; second, of taking excessive toll. The defendants have excepted to the ruling of the court that they were bound to receive the grists of grain offered, and grind the same for the toll specified by the statute, and that an agreement for toll in excess of that fixed by statute would be no defense.

The case does not show what kind of a mill the defendants operated, nor whether it was a public or private mill, nor whether it was a water mill, steam mill, or wind mill. It assumes, however, that it was a gristmill, used for grinding grain for the public.

Exceptions must show sufficient facts to make the ruling erroneous. Reed v. Reed, 70 Me. 504. In this case, therefore, if the ruling excepted to be correct, and the statute under which the conviction was had be constitutional when applied to any kind of a gristmill, judgment must be entered on the verdict. And it may be assumed that defendants' mill was a public gristmill, propelled by a head of water obtained under authority of the mill act. Rev. St. c. 92.

Assuming the mill to be a public mill, and the statute under which the conviction was had to be valid, an agreement, between the owner of the grain and the defendants, for coll in excess of the statute quantity, can be no defense. The act of the defendants in taking excessive toll was just as much in defiance and violation of the statute, when taken by agreement with the owner of the grist, as if taken without his consent. The defendants' act is prohibited by the statute. They were required to run their public mill, for statute toll, with equal dispatch for all the patrons of their mill. They were required to receive grists and grind them in their turn, without motive for unequal dispatch to those willing to pay an extra price for it. The taking of usury by agreement with the borrower of money is analogous. Freedom from blame on the part of the lender is not a bar to the borrower's right to recover back the usury. Houghton v. Stowell, 28 Me. 215. The statute under which the conviction was had imposes no such condition.

But it is stoutly asserted that the statute is unconstitutional, as an invasion of the private right of enjoyment of property. The mill act of Maine applies to all water mills; and whether its validity results from the exercise of eminent domain, as supposed by many cases (Jordan v. Woodward, 40 Me. 317; Manufacturing Co. v. Fernald, 47 N. H. 444; Olmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. 532; and others cited by Gould, Waters, § 253; and by the supreme court in Head v. Manufacturing C6., 113 U. S. 9, 5 Sup. Ct 441), or from the proper regulation of the rights of riparian owners, so as to best serve the public welfare, having due regard to the interests of all, as held in Head v. Manufacturing Co., supra, and in Murdock v. Stickney, 8 Cush. 113, and remarked by the court in Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 466,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Tyson Bro United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1927
    ...for regulating all trades and callings. Such are those of the keepers of inns, cabs, and gristmills. State v. Edwards, 86 Me. 102 (29 A. 947, 25 L. R. A. 504, 41 Am. St. Rep. 528); Terminal taxicab Co. v. District of Columbia, 241 U. S. 252, 254 (36 S. Ct. 583, 60 L. Ed. 984, Ann. Cas. 1916......
  • New State Ice Co v. Liebmann
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1932
    ...kinds of mills. Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co., 113 U. S. 9, 16-19, 5 S. Ct. 441, 28 L. Ed. 889; State v. Edwards, 86 Me. 102, 104-106, 29 A. 947, 25 L. R. A. 504, 41 Am. St. Rep. 528. The mills were usually operated by the use of water power, but this method of operation has been said ......
  • Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1938
    ... ... Suit by ... the Miami Laundry Company against the Florida Dry Cleaning & ... Laundry Board, an official board of the state of Florida, ... challenging the constitutional validity of the act designed ... to regulate the cleaning, dyeing, pressing, and laundry ... and callings. Such are those of the keepers of inns, cabs, ... [183 So. 779] ... grist mills. State v. Edwards, 86 Me. 102, 29 A ... 947, 25 L.R.A. 504, 41 Am.St.Rep. 528; Terminal Taxicab ... Co. v. Kutz, Com'r of District of Columbia, 241 U.S ... ...
  • State v. Goldstein
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 13, 1922
    ... ... in crude and irregular times, are inconsistent with ... constitutional liberty." People v. Budd, supra, ... 117 N.Y. 15, 22 N.E. 675, 5 L. R. A. 566, 15 Am. St. Rep ... 470, 471 ... The ... same distinctions and limitations are noted in State v ... Edwards, 86 Me. 102, 105, 29 A. 947, 948, 25 L. R. A ... 504, 505, 41 Am. St. Rep. 528, 530, where the court said: ... "The public is interested to be well and reasonably ... served at the store of the tradesman, the shop of the ... mechanic and the office of the professional man, and yet, all ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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