Brimmer v. Rebman
| Decision Date | 19 January 1891 |
| Citation | 11 S.Ct. 213,34 L.Ed. 862,138 U.S. 78 |
| Parties | BRIMMER v. REBMAN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
R. Taylor Scott, Atty. Gen. Va., and R. M. Hughes, for appellant.
Wm. J. Campbell, Albert, H. Vieder, and W. C. Goudy, for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
William Rebman was tried and convicted before a justice of the peace in Norfolk, Va., 'a city of fifteen thousand inhabitants or more,' of the offense of having wrongfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sold and offered for sale 'eighteen pounds of fresh meat, to-wit, fresh, uncured beef, the same being the property of Armour & Co., citizens of the state of Illinois, and a part of an animal that had been slaughtered in the county of Cook and state of Illinois, a distance of one hundred miles and over from the said city of Norfolk in the state of Virginia, without having first applied to and had the said fresh meat inspected by the fresh meat inspectors of the said city of Norfolk, he, the said Rebman, then and there well knowing that the said fresh meat was required to be inspected under the laws of Virginia, and that the same had not been so inspected and approved as required by the act of the general assembly of Virginia entitled 'An act to prevent the selling of unwholesome meat,' approved February 18, 1890.' He was adjudged to pay a fine of $50 for the use of the commonwealth of Virginia, and $3.75 costs; and, failing to pay these sums, he was, by order of the justice, committed to jail, there to be safely kept until the fine and costs were paid, or until he was otherwise discharged by due course of law.
He sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia upon the ground that he was restrained of his liberty in violation of the constitution of the United States. Upon the hearing of the petition for the writ he was discharged, upon grounds set forth in an elaborate opinion by Judge HUGHES, holding the circuit court. In re Rebman, 41 Fed. Rep. 867. The case is here upon appeal by the officer having the prisoner in custody.
The sole question to be determined is whether the statute under which Rebman was arrested and tried is repugnant to the constitution of the United States. The statute is as follows:
'Whereas, it is believed that unwholesome meats are being offered for sale in this commonwealth; therefore,
'(1) Be it enacted by the general assembly of Virginia, that it shall not be lawful to offer for sale, within the limits of this state, any fresh meats (beef, veal, or mutton) which shall have been slaughtered one hundred miles or over from the place at which it is offered for sale, until and except it has been inspected and approved as hereinafter provided.
'(2) The county court of each county and the corporation court of each city of this state shall, in their respective counties and cities, appoint one or more inspectors of fresh meats on the petition of not less than twenty citizens; and it shall be the duty of said inspectors to inspect and approve or condemn all fresh meats offered for sale in this state which has been transported one hundred miles or more from the place at which it was slaughtered.
'(3) And for all fresh meat so inspected said inspector shall receive as his compensation one cent per pound, to be paid by the owner of the meat.
'(4) It shall be the duty of any and all persons, firms, or corporations, before offering for sale, in this state, fresh meats, which under the provisions of this act are required to be inspected, to apply to the fresh meat inspector of the county or city where the same is proposed to be sold and have said meat inspected; and for a failure so to do, or for offering to sell any fresh meats condemned by said inspector, the person, firm or corporation so selling or offering to sell shall be fined not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars for each offense, to be recovered before any justice of the peace of the county or city where the violation occurs; provided, that in cities of fifteen thousand inhabitants or more one-half of the fees of inspectors shall be paid into the state treasury; and provided, further, that nothing in this act shall apply to the counties of Accomac and Northampton.
'(5) The said inspectors, before discharging the duties herein imposed, shall take and subscribe an oath before the court appointing them to faithfully discharge said duties, and the several courts are respectively empowered to remove, for cause, any inspector and to appoint another or others instead.
'(6) This act shall be in force from and after the first day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety.' Acts Va. 1889-90, p. 63, c. 80.
The recital in the preamble...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bixman
...against the products and industries of other states in favor of its own products and industries, among which are Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 11 Sup. Ct. 213, 35 L. Ed. 862, and Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455, the judgments in these cases are referabl......
-
Hale v. State
... ... purpose. Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313, 10 S.Ct ... 862, 34 L.Ed. 455, 3 Interst.Com.Rep. 185; Brimmer v ... Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, 11 S.Ct. 213, 34 L.Ed. 862, 3 ... Interst.Com.Rep. 485. The court looks beyond the mere letter ... of the law in such ... ...
-
Continental Life Ins. & Inv. Co. v. Hattabaugh
... ... 45, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133, ... 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 ... U.S. 313, 10 S.Ct. 862, 34 L.Ed. 455; Brimmer v ... Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, 11 S.Ct. 213, 35 L.Ed. 862; ... Yick W o v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 ... L.Ed. 220; Ritchie v ... ...
-
State v. Bayer
... ... into operation, and not from their proclaimed purpose. ( ... Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313, 10 S.Ct. 862, 34 ... L.Ed. 455; Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, 11 S.Ct ... 213, 34 L.Ed. 862.) The court looks beyond the mere letter of ... the law in such cases. (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, ... ...
-
Congress, the courts, and solid waste transport: good fences don't always make good neighbors.
...340 U.S. 349 (1951) (holding invalid a city ordinance barring milk not inspected within five miles of city limits); Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891) (invalidating a state law that imposed fees on meat inspected over 100 miles from point of sale). (34) 112 S. Ct at 2024-26. (35) Id. at ......
-
Nebraska's Corporate-farming Law and Discriminatory Effects Under the Dormant Commerce Clause
...Inc. v. Mich. Dep't of Natural Res., 504 U.S. 353 (1992); Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951); Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 69. Jones II, 470 F.3d at 1267 ("We do not think that an interstate commerce claim is precluded by the absence of an express prohibition on non-res......
-
The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
...The License Cases, supra note 12; ThePassenger Cases, 7 How. 283.16 Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How.299.17 E.g., Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78(inspection law).18 E.g., Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 (grainelevator regulation).19 Wilson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co.,2 Pet. 245; Gilman v......