Booth v. People

Citation57 N.E. 798,186 Ill. 43
PartiesBOOTH v. PEOPLE.
Decision Date21 June 1900
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error from criminal court, Cook county; A. N. Waterman, Judge.

Alfred V. Booth was convicted of entering into a contract for the purchase of an option on corn for future delivery, and brings error. Affirmed.

Lee D. Mathias, for plaintiff in error.

Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty., Albert C. Barnes, Asst. State's Atty., and E. C. Akin, Atty. Gen. (W. E. Caylor, of counsel), for the People.

BOGGS, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted and adjudged to pay a fine of $100 under an indictment which charged that he, on the 16th day of August, 1899, in said county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, aforesaid, unlawfully did contract in writing with the Weare Commission Company, a corporation, to then and there have to himself, to wit, to said Alfred V. Booth, a certain option to buy at a future time, to wit, on or before the 26th day of August, 1899, a certain commodity, to wit, grain, to wit, 10,000 bushels of corn, from the said Weare Commission Company, a corporation as aforesaid, which said contract is in the words and figures as follows, to wit:

Alfred V. Booth, Grain and Provision Broker.

‘Chicago, Aug. 16, 1899.

‘Sep. Corn, 1899.

10 Weare Com. Co. C 31 1/2 Paid.

‘Good till close of change, Sat., Aug. 26, 1899.

Weare C. Co.

‘J. J. C.’

-contrary to the statute, and against the peace and dignity of the same people of the state of Illinois. The evidence explained the writing set out in the indictment to constitute an agreement giving defendant the option to buy 10,000 bushels of corn, at 31 1/2 cents per bushel, from the Weare Commission Company, at any time within 10 days after the 16th day of August, 1899. The allegations of fact set forth in the indictment were fully established by the evidence.

Counsel for plaintiff in error contends it did not appear from the proof the plaintiff in error entered into the contract with any other than the bona fide intention to accept the corn if he desired to avail himself of the benefit of the contract, or that he had any intent, when the contract was executed, to accept compliance with the contract merely by way of the payment to him of the difference between the contract price and the market price of the corn at the time of the maturity of the contract, and further contends it appeared from the evidence that the contract was in fact consummated by the actual delivery of the grain to him. Counsel for defendant in error do not question the position thus taken by counsel for plaintiff in error as to the facts proven on the hearing. Counsel for plaintiff in error admits the facts so charged in the indictment, and established by the evidence in support thereof, justified the conviction, under the provisions of section 130 of the Criminal Code, as interpreted by this court in Schneider v. Turner, 130 Ill. 28, 22 N. E. 497,6 L. R. A. 164, but insists-First, said section 130 is in contravention of the provision incorporated in the constitution of the United States, and also in the constitution of the state of Illinois, that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law’; and, second, that said section is violative of the provision of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, which provides that no state shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ We will consider these points in order as made by counsel.

1. Liberty and property, as used in said constitutional provisions, include the right to acquire property, and that means and includes the privilege of contracting and making and enforcing contracts. Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171, 31 N. E. 395,16 L. R. A. 492. A citizen cannot be deprived of an attribute of property, like the right to make a reasonable contract with reference to property, without ‘due process of law.’ Due process of law is a general public law of the land. Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294, 7 N. E. 631;Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N. E. 454,29 L. R. A. 79. The general assembly of the state of Illinois possesses full plenary power of legislation, except in so far as its powers are limited by the state or federal constitution. The state inherently possesses, and the general assembly may lawfully exercise, such power of restraint upon private rights as may be found to be necessary and appropriate to promote the health, comfort, safety, and welfare of society. This power is known as the ‘police power’ of the state. In the exercise of this power the general assembly may, by valid enactments, i. e. ‘due process of law,’ prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society, even though the prohibition invade the right of liberty or property of an individual. 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 739, 740; Town of Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery Co., 70 Ill. 191. An enactment, to have that effect and be valid, must be an appropriate measure for the promotion of the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It must be, in fact, a police regulation. Courts are authorized to interfere and declare a statute unconstitutional, or not the ‘law of the land,’ if it conflicts with the constitutional rights of the individual, and does not relate to, or is not an appropriate measure for, the promotion of the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. Ritchie v. People, supra. With the wisdom, policy, or necessity for such an enactment courts have nothing to do. But what are the subjects of police powers, and what are reasonable regulations, are judicial questions, and the courts may declare enactments which, under the guise of the police power, go beyond the great principle of securing the safety or welfare of the public, to be invalid.

Laws for the suppression of all forms of gambling have, without exception, so far as we are advised, been regarded by the courts and law writers as a proper exercise of the police power. This is conceded by counsel for plaintiff in error, but his contention is the contract for entering into which the plaintiff in error was convicted is neither illegal nor within itself immoral, is neither void nor voidable, under principles of the common law; that this court so declared in Schneider v. Turner, supra; and that it is not within the power of the state, in virtue of the police power, to deprive a citizen of the right guarantied by the constitutions of the United States and of the state of Illinois to enter into a contract which is not within itself harmful, immoral, or injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the public. The proposition is that a contract which within itself is not harmful, immoral, or illegal, and which constitutes a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • The State v. Brodnax
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1910
    ...as a police regulation. Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 609. Optional sales in grain were entirely prohibited by statute in Illinois. Booth v. People, 186 Ill. 43; Booth Illinois, 184 U.S. 425. We wish to keep before the court our contention that the excise tax of twenty-five cents provided for by......
  • Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2008
    ...promote the general welfare "even though the prohibition invade the right of liberty or property of an individual." Booth v. People, 186 Ill. 43, 48-49, 57 N.E. 798 (1900). Booth explained that for such an enactment to be valid, it must be an "appropriate measure for the promotion of the co......
  • People v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1934
    ...such regulation, restraint, or prohibition interferes with the liberty or property of an individual. Booth v. People, 186 Ill. 43, 57 N. E. 798,50 L. R. A. 762, 78 Am. St. Rep. 229, affirmed in 184 U. S. 425, 22 S. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623;People v. Robertson, 302 Ill. 422, 134 N. E. 815, 22 ......
  • People v. Jermaine Ross
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 11, 2011
    ...N.E.2d 787] Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill.2d 296, 310, 322 Ill.Dec. 548, 891 N.E.2d 839 (2008) (quoting Booth v. People, 186 Ill. 43, 48–49, 57 N.E. 798 (1900)). In conclusion, we find that the armed habitual criminal statute is a constitutionally permissible restriction of the s......
  • 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