Aicardi v. the State
Citation | 19 Wall. 635,86 U.S. 635,22 L.Ed. 215 |
Parties | AICARDI v. THE STATE |
Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
The Revised Code of Alabama, section 3621, in force before and in the year 1868, enacts that,
'Any person who keeps or exhibits, or is interested or concerned in keeping or exhibiting, any table for gaming, of whatsoever name, kind, or description, not regularly licensed under the laws of the State, must, on conviction, be fined not less than $100,' &c.
This section of the code being in force, the legislature, on the 31st of December, 1868, passed an act which enacted,
&c.
Under this act J. C. Moses & Co. formed a partnership, which gave to one Aicardi its authority to keep or exhibit what was clearly a roulette-table, or 'a table for gaming.'
On the 8th of March, 1871, the legislature repealed the above-quoted act.
Moses & Co., however, still paid the $1000 a year, and kept the table open to the public.
Aicardi being now indicted under the section of the code already quoted, set up an authority under the license from Moses & Co., and that the act of the 8th of March, 1871, which he alleged gave Moses & Co. the right to keep such a table as he did, was void, as violating the obligation of contracts. The court in which he was indicted held that it was not thus void, and Aicardi was there convicted.
The Supreme Court of the State affirmed that judgment on the authority of Mayor, Aldermen, and Council of Mobile v. Clifton Moses et al., a case decided at the same term.
In that case the said court held the act of 31st of December, 1868, unconstitutional and void under the constitution of the State; moreover that it did not authorize a gaming-table. Aicardi now brought the case here on error.
Messrs. J. A. Elmore and S. F. Rice, for the plaintiff in error, contended that the legislature had full power to take away either by general law or otherwise all indictable quality from gambling; that they had here done so, so far as Moses & Co. were concerned; and that as to them the section 3621 of the code had been repealed for a valuable consideration paid to the State. That if the act of December, 1868, was valid, it was impossible to argue that its broad language did not confer upon Moses & Co. the franchise or privilege to do everything which Aicardi did, and to select any mode they deemed best for the distribution of awards and prizes; that the act of 1871 plainly impaired the obligation of the contract made with Moses & Co., and liberally paid for by them.
Mr. P. Phillips, contra, argued that no question was before this court as to whether the repealing act of 1871 violated the obligation of contracts; that the decision by the Supreme Court of Alabama, on its own constitution and statutes, had obviated the necessity of question here on that point, and was beyond the revisory power of this court.
Reply: This court will decide for itself whether there was a contract to be impaired, what were its terms, and what its obligations, even though the contract have been a legislative contract, or one which arises from the acceptance of the provisions of an act of a State legislature.1 State courts are not permitted to evade or elude the jurisdiction of this court, by deciding that to be no contract which this court knows to be a contract, or by any other mistake or device.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE recapitulated the facts of the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.
The record discloses, so far as is necessary to state it, the following case:
The plaintiff in error was indicted for keeping a gaming-table.
The legislature of Alabama passed an act, approved December 31st, 1868, entitled 'An act to establish the Mobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State ex Informatione Crow v. Lincoln Trust Co.
...corporation was organized, when such change of corporate business is prohibited by law. Mo. Const. 1875, art. XII, sec. 7; 64 N.C. 604; 19 Wall. 635; 4 Thompson on Corp., 5671; 25 N.J.Eq. 217; 20 N.J.Eq. 296; R. S. 1889, sec. 2508; Matthews v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 329; 56 Pa. St. 15. Burgess, J.......
-
United States v. Fox
...9 Wheat. 565; Boyce v. City of St. Louis, 29 Barb. 650; White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144; Levy v. Levy, 33 id. 123, 136, 137; Aicardi v. The State, 19 Wall. 635. The statute under consideration regulates the transmission of lands in New York, and in effect declares that they shall be devised o......