City of Elgin v. Winchester
| Decision Date | 22 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 14162.,14162. |
| Citation | 300 Ill. 214,133 N.E. 205 |
| Parties | CITY OF ELGIN v. WINCHESTER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James F. Winchester was convicted of violation of an ordinance of the city of Elgin, prohibiting the distribution of advertisements without obtaining a license, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Appeal from City Court of Elgin; Frank E. Shopen, Judge.
Andrew B. Gilfillan, of Buffalo, N. Y., and Maclay Hoyne, of Chicago, for appellant.
Pierce C. Tyrrell, of Elgin, for appellee.
Appellant was arrested and fined $5 and costs in a police court of the city of Elgin for the violation of an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of advertisements without first having obtained a license from the city to do so. On appeal to the city court of Elgin a trial de novo was had, and a fine of the same amount was entered against the appellant for violating the ordinance in question. The judge of the city court certified that the public interest required that an appeal be allowed directly to this court, and that the validity of the ordinance involved questions of rederal law as to the applicability of the ordinance to this case and its construction and constitutionality as an alleged interference with interstate commerce, and the case is here for review.
We find no controversy in the briefs or record as to the facts. Section 1 of the ordinance in question reads as follows:
‘It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute or carry for the purpose of distributing, or to post or to carry for the purpose of displaying the same, any handbill or advertisement or advertising material of any kind within the city of Elgin without a license so to do.’
The city of Elgin is a municipal corporation, and is operating under a special charter adopted as provided by law. Appellant is a nonresident, and is a citizen of New York in the employ as traveling salesman of the Genesee Pure Food Company, a New York corporation; its factory, principal place of business, and all officers being nonresident. That company manufactures Jell-O and Jell-O Ice Cream Powder, which products are sold to Illinois merchants on orders solicited by salesmen, and as an inducement for the sale the company agrees with the merchants purchasing said products to distribute to the various residents of the city in which the sale is being made-in this case to the residents of Elgin-pamphlets showing the practical use of the company's products, and it was in pursuance of this understanding that appellant was going from house to house distributing said pamphlets, which were shipped to him from New York for that purpose. It is admitted by all the parties that the products thus sold and advertised comply with the pure food regulations of the United States and Illinois, and are wholesomearticles of food, and are not harmful or injurious to the health of persons.
In order to procure a license as required by section 1 of the ordinance above quoted, the applicant was required to file an application in writing therefor and furnish a bond of $300, with surety to be approved by the city clerk. Section 3 provided (regardless of the license) against posting, throwing, or distributing handbills or advertisements in any street or alley or on any sidewalk or upon any doorstep, porch, or grassplot. Fees were provided by other sections for distributing handbills or posters of different character and for different purposes. The fee provided for the distribution of the pamphlets in question was $2 per day for each person so employed. Section 13 provided:
‘No license shall be required hereunder for the purpose of advertising home entertainments or sales by citizens of the city of Elgin if the person desiring the same shall first obtain a permit from the mayor so to do.’
The penalty for violation of the ordinance was from $1 to $150.
Appellant contends that the ordinance is discriminatory and therefore void; that it is also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Insurance Co., of America v. Ham, State Insurance Commissioner
... ... Only ... material allegations of the petition are admitted by the ... demurrer. Edwards v. City of Cheyenne, 19 Wyo. 110; ... State v. Irvine, 14 Wyo. 318; Ricketts v ... Crewdson, 13 Wyo ... The legislature was not opposed ... to a participating policy. Sec. 57-422, R. S.; Elgin v ... Winchester, 133 N.E. 205; State v. Insurance ... Company, 134 So. 858; Annotations in 77 ... ...
-
Nafziger Baking Co. v. City of Salisbury
... ... Campbell Baking Co. v. City of Maryville, 31 F.2d ... 466; Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 48 S.Ct ... 423; City of Elgin v. Winchester, 22 A. L. R. 1481, ... 300 Ill. 214, 133 N.E. 205; Ward Baking Co. et al. v ... City of Fernandina, 29 F.2d 789; Chalker v ... ...
- Whipple v. City of S. Milwaukee
-
Jell-O Co. v. Brown
... ... Western Union Telegraph Co. v. New Hope, 187 U. S. 419, 23 S. Ct. 204, 47 L. Ed. 240. The city is not required to supervise the distribution at its own expense, but may assess a reasonable fee ... Ct. 298, 57 L. Ed. 569; Ineichen v. City of Anniston, 10 Ala. App. 605, 65 So. 710; City of Elgin v. Winchester, 300 Ill. 214, 133 N. E. 205, 22 A. L. R. 1481. City of Pueblo v. Lukins, 63 Colo ... ...