City and County of Denver v. Frueauff
Decision Date | 07 January 1907 |
Citation | 88 P. 389,39 Colo. 20 |
Parties | CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER v. FRUEAUFF. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to County Court, City and County of Denver; Ben B. Lindsey Judge.
H. D Frueauff was prosecuted for violating an ordinance of the city and county of Denver. From a judgment discharging the defendant, the city and county of Denver brings error. Affirmed.
The defendant in error, a merchant carrying on a legitimate business in the city of Denver, was charged with violating ordinance No. 62 of the series of 1904 entitled 'A bill for an ordinance to prohibit gift enterprises, defining the same, and providing penalties for the violations of said ordinance,' which said ordinance is in words and figures as follows, to wit:
'Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons partnership, association or corporation to engage in, aid abet, or patronize any 'Gift Enterprise' as herein defined.
'Sec. 2. A 'Gift Enterprise' as herein employed is defined to be and shall include the selling, giving, presenting or distributing of any stamp, trading stamp, coupon or other device which shall entitle the purchaser of property, goods, wares, or merchandise to demand or receive from any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation other than the vendor any article, property, goods, wares, merchandise or money other than that actually sold to the purchaser; or the delivery to any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation by any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation other than the vendor of any article, property, goods, wares, merchandise or money other than that actually sold, upon presentation of any such stamp, trading stamp, coupon or other device; or the issuing, selling, giving or distributing to any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation of any stamps, trading stamp, coupon or other device by any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation engaged in any trade, business or profession, with the promise expressed or implied that he, they or it will give to the person presenting to him, them or it, such stamp, trading stamp, coupon or other device any money or anything of value without receiving from such person the value thereof, or make to any such person, persons, partnership, association or corporation any concession or preference in any way on account of the presentation of such stamp, trading stamp, coupon, or other device; or the distributing or presenting by any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation engaged in any trade, business or profession to any person, persons, partnerhip, association or corporation dealing with him, them or it any such stamp, trading stamp, coupon or other device in consideration of any article or thing, purchased of or any service performed by him, them or it; or the selling or offering for sale of any real estate or article of merchandise of any description whatever, or any ticket of admission to any exhibition or performance or other place of amusement, with a promise expressed or implied to give or bestow or in any manner hold out the promise of the gift or bestowal of any article or thing for and in consideration or a purchase by any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation, of any other article or thing, whether the object shall be for individual gain or for any other purpose; and the term 'Gift Enterprise' shall also include the premium stamp, periodical ticket, trading stamp and similar schemes and devices wherein by means of stamps, checks, tickets or other device certain merchants, manufacturers and their customers are exploited.
The case was tried to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, which, so far as necessary to a decision of the case, is as follows:
books in lots of nine hundred and ninety (990) stamps, and according to law, collected in the manner prescribed and subject to the conditions in said books, and to use its best endeavors to promote the cash sales and trade of the party of the second part.
'That in accordance with the provisions of said contract, the said H. D. Frueauff did order and receive from the Sperry & Hutchinson Company pad or pads of green trading stamps, each pad containing not less than 5,000 stamps, as in said contract provided, and has for some months last past and is now engaged in supplying and giving out to customers said green trading stamps, in the following manner, to wit: To each customer one stamp for each and every 10 cents represented in retail price of merchandise for which cash is paid by said customer, and that on the 10th day of December, A. D. 1904, the said defendant was thus engaged, and did give out green trading stamps to each customer who called for the same, one stamp for each and every 10 cents represented in retail price of merchandise for which cash was paid, not only to one, but to numerous, customers of the said defendant's place of business on said day, and the said defendant has not disposed of the green trading stamps so purchased from said Sperry & Hutchinson Company in any other manner, and the said defendant has also displayed, and is now displaying, and did display...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garden Spot Market, Inc. v. Byrne
...Dresel, 147 Cal. 763, 82 P. 429, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 588 (1905); Ex parte West, 147 Cal. 774, 82 P. 434 (1905); Denver v. Frueauff, 39 Colo. 20, 88 P. 389, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 1131 (1906); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. City of Owensboro, 151 Ky. 389, 151 S.W. 932 (1912); O'Keeffe v. City of Somerville, ......
-
People v. Victor
...126 Cal. 429, 58 P. 916; Ex parte Drexel, 147 Cal. 763, 82 P. 429, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 588, 3 Ann.Cas. 878;Denver v. Frueauff, 39 Colo. 20, 88 P. 389, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 1131, 12 Ann.Cas. 521;Denver v. United Cigar Stores Co., 68 Colo. 363, 189 P. 848;United Cigar Stores Co. v. People, 68 Colo. 546,......
-
United States v. Mills, 2247.
...Cal. 763, 82 P. 429, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 588, 3 Ann. Cas. 878; Ex parte West, 147 Cal. 774, 82 P. 434; Denver v. Frueauff, 39 Colo. 20, 88 P. 389, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1131, 12 Ann. Cas. 521; Hewin v. Atlanta, 121 Ga. 723, 49 S. E. 765, 67 L. R. A. 795, 2 Ann. Cas. 296; United Cigar Stores Co.......
-
Olson v. Ross
... ... ANDREW ROSS, as Sheriff of Cass County, State of North Dakota, Respondent Supreme Court of North Dakota April ... 763; Ex parte ... Hutchinson, 137 F. 949; Denver v. Frueauff, 39 Colo ... 30; Lohman v. State, 81 Ind. 17; Sperry v ... 86; Holden v. Hardy, 169 ... U.S. 366; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U.S ... 238; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 ... ...