Benjamin Rosenthal v. People of the State of New York

Decision Date02 December 1912
Docket NumberNo. 28,28
Citation57 L.Ed. 212,226 U.S. 260,33 S.Ct. 27
PartiesBENJAMIN ROSENTHAL, Plff. in Err., v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Percival DeWitt Oviatt for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 261-264 intentionally omitted] Mr. Freeman f. zimmerman for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with 'the crime of criminally receiving stolen property,' in that he, being a dealer in and collector of junk, metals, and secondhand materials, did feloniously buy and receive, from persons named, certain copper wire, 'the same then and there consisting of copper wire used by and belonging to a telephone company, to wit, used by and being the goods, chattels, and personal property of the Bell Telephone Company, of Buffalo, . . . then lately stolen, taken, and carried away from the possession of the said Bell Telephone Company, . . . without ascertaining by diligent inquiry that the said persons so selling and delivering the same had a legal right to do so.'

The indictment was founded upon chap. 326 of the Laws of 1903 of the state of New York, amending § 550 of the Penal Code. The section, as amended, reads as follows:

'Sec. 550. Criminally receiving property.—A person who buys or receives any stolen property, or any property which has been wrongfully appropriated in such a manner as to constitute larceny according to this chapter, knowing the same to have been stolen or so dealt with, or who corruptly, for any money, property, reward, or promise, or agreement for the same, conceals, withholds, or aids in concealing or withholding, any property, knowing the same to have been stolen, or appropriated wrongfully in such a manner as to constitute larceny under the provisions of this chapter, if such misappropriation has been committed within the state, whether such property were so stolen or misappropriated within or without the state [or who, being a dealer in or collector of junk, metals, or secondhand materials, or the agent, employee, or representative of such dealer or collector, buys or receives any wire, cable, copper, lead, solder, iron, or brass used by or belonging to a railroad, telephone, telegraph, gas or electric light company without ascertaining by diligent inquiry that the person selling or delivering the same has a legal right to do so], is guilty of criminally receiving such property, and is punishable, by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than five years, or in a county jail for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $250, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

The words inclosed in brackets were added by the amendment of 1903, which made no other change in the section. The section as amended was re-enacted in the Penal Law as § 1308.

Having pleaded guilty, the plaintiff in error moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the amendment of 1903, and this motion having been denied, sentence of fine and imprisonment was imposed, whereupon he took an appeal to the appellate division, and from an adverse ruling in that court he appealed to the court of appeals, which court sustained the statute against the constitutional objections, and affirmed the judgment of conviction. 197 N. Y. 394, ——L.R.A.(N.S.) ——, 90 N. E. 991.

The record having been remitted to the county court, the present writ of error was taken. The errors relied upon are that the courts of the state of New York erred, because they ought to have decided that the amendment of 1903 to § 550 of the Penal Code was in conflict with the 14th Amendment, in that (a) it abridged the privileges and immunities of the plaintiff in error; (b) deprived him of his liberty and property without due process of law; and (c) denied to him the equal protection of the laws.

No serious argument was made to support the contention that the act in any way abridged the privileges or immunities of the plaintiff in error as a citizen of the United States. This part of the prohibition of the 14th Amendment refers only to such privileges and immunities as pertain to citizenship of the United States, as distinguished from state citizenship. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74, 80, 21 L. ed. 394, 408, 409. We are unable to see that the statute under consideration, or its enforcement in the case at hand, even if the act be fairly open to any or all of the criticisms that are made upon it, abridges in the least any privilege or immunity that arises out of the national citizenship of the plaintiff in error.

The argument is thus narrowed to a consideration of the statute in the light of the 'due process of law' and 'equal protection' clauses.

The New York court of appeals in the present case construed the amendment of 1903 as applying only to stolen property, and as putting upon the dealer in junk, metal, or secondhand materials, not the burden of ascertaining at his peril that the person selling or delivering the wire or other property specified has a legal right to do so, but only the duty of making diligent inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether the person selling or delivering it has such legal right.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error argues, first, that the act in question is unconstitutional even as thus interpreted; and this on the grounds that the previous laws relating to criminally receiving stolen property were adequate to protect against the evils involved, and that the act of 1903 is unreasonable and oppressive, and an undue interference with the liberty of contract; that since the act applies only to dealers in metals, etc., it is class legislation, based upon arbitrary distinctions; and that the statute protects the property only of railroad, telephone, gas, and electric companies, and for this reason likewise is based upon arbitrary distinctions.

In support of this argument, counsel points out that, without the amendment of 1903, the Penal Code provides that anyone who buys or receives property, knowing it to be stolen, is guilty of a felony; that anyone who conceals or withholds or aids in the concealment or withholding of such property is guilty of a felony; that the decisions of the courts of New York hold that actual knowledge of the fact that the property is stolen is unnecessary, and that anything in the circumstances that would put an honest or prudent man upon inquiry is sufficient to war- rant a conviction. People v. Dowling, 84 N. Y. 478, 485; People v. Wilson, 151 N. Y. 403, 45 N. E. 862. It is also pointed out that chapter 308 of the Laws of 1903 compels every junk dealer (except in cities of the first class) to obtain a license, provides that when such a dealer purchases any pig iron, pig metal, copper wire, or brass car journals, he shall cause a statement to be subscribed by the seller as to when, where, and from whom he obtained the property, which statement must be filed with the chief of police; and that when a junk dealer purchases the property described, he must keep such purchase absolutely separate and distinct, without change or mutilation, for a period of five days after the purchase, and must tag it with a tag bearing the particulars of the purchase. And that all cities of the first class have dealt with the subject-matter through the means of local ordinances at least as comprehensive as the statute just mentioned.

Counsel, indeed, concedes the abundant right of the legislature to regulate the junk business, and admits that such regulations as those just referred to are quite within the legislative power of the state.

This concession is, we think, very properly made; and, this being so, there is little ground left for an attack upon the amendment of 1903...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • In re Application of Crane
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1915
    ... ... the police power of the state ... 2. The ... object of the title of an act is ... 693, 32 L. R. A. 738, and cases cited; ... People of New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 ... U.S. 31, ... v. Lynch, supra; ... Rosenthal v. People, 226 U.S. 260, Ann. Cas. 1914B, ... 71, 33 ... ...
  • State Ex Rel. Fulton v. Ives
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1936
    ... ... prosperity of the people so that it is within the power of ... the Legislature to regulate and ... Chicago, 226 U.S. 578, 33 S.Ct. 182, 57 L.Ed. 364; ... Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U.S. 260, 33 S.Ct. 27, 57 ... L.Ed. 212, Ann.Cas.1914B, ... ...
  • Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1914
    ... ... exercise of the state's police power to establish ... regulations that are ... 217 U.S. 524, 30 S.Ct. 594, 54 L.Ed. 868; Rosenthal v ... People of State of New York, 226 U.S. 260, 33 S.Ct ... ...
  • State ex rel. Jordan, Dist. Atty. v. Gilmer Grocery Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1930
    ... ... of people, and that its laws are aimed at conditions ... understood by them, ... 356, 30 L.Ed ... 220; Henderson v. May, etc., of New York, 92 U.S ... 259, 23 L.Ed. 450; and Ex parte Va., 100 U.S. 339, 25 L.Ed ... single law. See Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U.S. 260, ... 33 S.Ct. 27, 57 L.Ed. 212 ... ...
  • 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