Barbier v. Connolly
| Decision Date | 01 October 1884 |
| Citation | 5 S.Ct. 357,28 L.Ed. 923,113 U.S. 27 |
| Parties | BARBIER v. CONNOLLY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On the eighth of April, 1884, the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, the legislative authority of that municipality, passed an ordinance reciting that the indiscriminate establishment of public laundries and wash-houses, where clothes and other articles were cleansed for hire, endangered the public health and the public safety, prejudiced the well-being and comfort of the community, and depreciated the value of property in their neighborhood; and then ordaining, pursuant to authority alleged to be vested in the board under provisions of the state constitution, and of the act of April 19, 1856, consolidating the government of the city and county, that after its passage it should be unlawful for any person to establish, maintain, or carry on the business of a public laundry or of a public wash-house within certain designated limits of the city and county without first having obtained a certificate, signed by the health officer of the municipality, that the premises were properly and sufficiently drained, and that all proper arrangements were made to carry on the business without injury to the sanitary condition of the neighborhood; also a certificate, signed by the board of fire-wardens of the municipality, that the stoves, washing and drying apparatus, and the appliances for heating smoothing-irons were in good condition, and that their use was not dangerous to the surrounding property from fire, and that all proper precautions were taken to comply with the provisions of the ordinance defining the fire limits of the city and county, and making regulations concerning the erection and use of buildings therein.
The ordinance requires the health officer and board of fire-wardens, upon application of any one to open or conduct the business of a public laundry, to inspect the premises in which it is proposed to carry on the business, in order to ascertain whether they are provided with proper drainage and sanitary appliances, and whether the provisions of the fire ordinance have been complied with; and, if found satisfactory in all respects, to issue to the applicant the required certificates without charge for the services rendered. Its fourth section declares that no person owning or employed in a public laundry or a public wash-house, within the prescribed limits, shall wash or iron clothes between the hours of 10 in the evening and 6 in the morning, or upon any portion of Sunday; and its fifth section, that no person engaged in the laundry business within those limits shall permit any one suffering from an infectious or contagious disease to lodge, sleep, or remain upon the premises. The violation of any of these several provisions is declared to be a misdemeanor, and penalties are prescribed differing in degree according to the nature of the offense. The establishing, maintaining, or carrying on the business, without obtaining the certificates, is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment of not more than six months, or by both. Carrying on the business outside of the hours prescribed, or permitting persons with contagious diseases on the premises, is punishable by a fine of not less than $5 or more than $50, or by imprisonment of not more than one month, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The petitioner in the court below, the plaintiff in error here, was convicted in the police judge's court of the city and county of San Francisco, under the fourth section of the ordinance, of washing and ironing clothes in a public laundry, within the prescribed limits, between the hours of 10 o'clock in the evening of May 1, 1884, and 6 o'clock in the morning of the following day, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for five days, and was accordingly committed, in execution of the sentence, to the custody of the sheriff of the city and county, who was keeper of the county jail. That court had jurisdiction to try him for the alleged offense if the ordinance was valid and binding. But alleging that his arrest and imprisonment were illegal, he obtained from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bixman
......Barbier" v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 238, 10 Sup. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892. . \xC2"......
-
Colgate v. Harvey
......S. 232, 10 S. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892, 895; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 12 S. Ct. 250, 35 L. Ed. 1035, 1039; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 S. Ct 357, 23 L. Ed. 923, 925. Exemptions, diversity of taxation, both as to the amount imposed and the species of ......
-
In re Application of Crane
...... constitution was adopted. But this court has declared, upon. full consideration, in Barbier v. Connolly , 113 U.S. 27, 31, 5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923, that the fourteenth. amendment has no such effect. After observing, among other. things, ......
-
Mumpower v. Housing Authority
...... "Barbier Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 5 S.Ct. 357 , 28 L.Ed. 923, 924, quoted in the same case states thus: . "`But neither the amendment ......
-
Table of Cases
...1208 (11th Cir. 2004), 1420 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 83 S.Ct. 631, 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963), 1395 Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923 (1885), 1106, 1162, 1212 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), 1025 Barlow v. Collins,......
-
Liberty interests in the preventive state: procedural due process and sex offender community notification laws.
...the State's capacity to enact laws "promot[ing] the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people." Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885). See also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 (1987) ("There is no doubt that preventing danger to the community is a legi......
-
Bias and Immigration: a New Factors Test to Examine Extrinsic Evidence of Animus in Immigration Cases
...and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown, 117 HARV. L. REV. 1470, 1472-73 (2004). 66. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885) (stating that the doctrine of Equal Protection ensures that similarly situated people "are treated alike[,] are subject to the same r......
-
ARBITRARY PROPERTY INTERFERENCE DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND BEYOND.
...544 U.S. at 548. (145.) See id. at 540. (146.) See id. at 543. (147.) See id. (148.) See id. (149.) See, e.g., Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1884) (noting that the "[t]he fourteenth amendment" prohibited the "arbitrary spoliation of property"), cited in Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 62......