City of Hutchinson v. Beckham

• Decision Date: 27 October 1902
• Docket Number: 1,655.
• Citation: 118 F. 399
• Parties: CITY OF HUTCHINSON et al. v. BECKHAM et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

118 F. 399

CITY OF HUTCHINSON et al. v. BECKHAM et al.

No. 1,655.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

October 27, 1902

J. W Rose, for appellants.

C. F Hutchings (L. W. Keplinger, on the brief), for appellees.

On September 5, 1901, James H. Beckham and James G. McKnight the appellees, exhibited a bill of complaint against the city of Hutchinson, in the state of Kansas, et al., in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas, wherein they averred, in substance, that they were engaged in business at Kansas City, in the state of Missouri, of which latter state they were residents and citizens, as 'wholesalers and jobbers of groceries'; that their storerooms and offices were, and for a long time had been, located at Kansas City, Mo.; that they were engaged in interstate commerce, it having been their practice for a long time to sell groceries in many cities and towns in the state of Kansas and elsewhere, and particularly to retail grocers doing business in the city of Hutchinson, Kan., and in that vicinity; that in order to make a speedy delivery of goods sold in the latter city, after they were ordered, they had theretofore established and still continued to maintain a depot for the storage of groceries in original packages in the city of Hutchinson, which depot was in charge of an agent of the complainants, who represented them in said city and vicinity; that, by reason of its excellent railroad facilities and geographical situation, the city of Hutchinson was favorably situated for the location of a depot and warehouse for the distribution of the complainants' goods, and for that reason such a depot had been for a long time maintained by the complainants. The bill further averred, in substance, that the city of Hutchinson, acting by its mayor and councilmen, on June 25, 1900, had enacted a certain ordinance by the terms of which a license tax in the sum of $1,200 per annum was imposed upon the complainants as well as upon other jobbers who had goods stored in the city of Hutchinson for distribution to retail dealers, but who did not keep and maintain their principal office for the transaction of business in said city; that by the terms of said ordinance no persons engaged as jobbers of merchandise who did maintain their principal office in the city of Hutchinson, and did store goods therein for distribution to retail dealers, were required to pay said license tax, but were wholly exempt therefrom; that on August 1, 1900, the first section of said ordinance was amended so as to provide that licenses issued thereunder by the city should expire on the last day of June and the last day of December next after they were issued, and that the license fee should be at the rate of $1,200 per year, or $100 per month. It was further averred that, by the terms of said ordinance, nonresidents engaged in business as wholesalers and jobbers, who stored goods in said city of Hutchinson for distribution to retailers in Missouri or other states than Kansas, were not required to pay said license tax, but were exempt therefrom; that said ordinance applied only, and was intended to apply, so as to prevent the sale and speedy delivery of goods, to retail dealers in Kansas, by merchants and jobbers, like the complainants, who did business in other states than Kansas; and that by the enactment of said ordinance it was intended to hamper, burden, and prevent commercial transactions between citizens of the state of Kansas and citizens of other states, and to prevent the complainants from speedily delivering goods which they might sell to retail dealers residing in the city of Hutchinson and its vicinity. It was also averred that the aforesaid ordinance was enacted in pursuance of a conspiracy between merchants and jobbers who resided in Hutchinson and maintained their principal offices there, the purpose of the conspiracy being to harass the complainants and others in a like situation, and to render their business in the city of Hutchinson unprofitable, and to compel them to discontinue said business by discriminating against them and in favor of persons engaged in the same line of trade who were residents of the city of Hutchinson and maintained their principal offices in said city. It was further averred that the complainants were liable to be proceeded against and compelled to pay a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100, and to stand committed until the fine was paid, or to be confined in the city jail not less than 10 days nor more than 30 days, or to suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the police judge, if they failed to comply with the provisions of said ordinance; that,

by reason of the complainants' failure to comply with the provisions of said ordinance, the defendant city had instituted criminal proceedings against their agents, and caused them to be imprisoned, and had threatened and were about to institute a great number of other like prosecutions against them, and to daily apprehend and imprison the complainants' agents until they complied with the provisions of the ordinance. In view of the premises, the complainants charged that the aforesaid ordinance was wholly illegal and void, and ...