City of Marshalltown v. Blum

• Decision Date: 21 April 1882
• Citation: 12 N.W. 266,58 Iowa 184
• Parties: CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN v. BLUM.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

58 Iowa 184

12 N.W. 266

CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN

v.BLUM.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 21, 1882.

Appeal from Marshall district court.

Upon an information filed in the mayor's court in the city of Marshalltown, defendant was fined for peddling goods within the city without a license, as prescribed by the city ordinance. Upon an appeal to the district court a trial was had without a jury and judgment was rendered against defendant, from which he appeals to this court.Louis J. Blum, for appellant.

B. L. Burritt, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. Three cases bearing the same title, all appealed from the Marshall district court, and involving the same facts and questions of law, are submitted for our decision together. This opinion will be applicable to each case, and like judgments will be entered in all. An ordinance of the city of Marshalltown, concerning licences, contains the following provisions: “Section 29. Any person, except as provided in the foregoing sections, whose business it is to sell at retail any goods, wares, or merchandise along or upon the public streets or grounds, or from house to house, within the city, shall pay not less than one nor more than twenty-five dollars for a fixed time, in the discretion of the mayor: provided, that no person shall sell from or keep any stand upon any street, alley, or sidewalk without the consent of the owner or occupant of the premises adjoining and nearest to said stand; and said occupant must also have a permit from the mayor. This action shall not be construed so as to require license of persons selling agricultural or horticultural products, nor of persons in their employ, nor to any person selling by sample at wholesale; neither shall it apply to any sale under a process of law, nor to persons retailing their own productions, or of their own manufacture, if they rcside in and the goods are manufactured in Marshall county.”

The defendant, failing to take out license under this ordinance, was fined in each of the three cases. Upon these appeals he insists, among other objections to the judgment, that the ordinance of the city under which he was prosecuted is in conflict with article 1, § 8, constitution of the United States, which bestows upon congress power to regulate commerce between the states. The defendant was a resident of the state of Illinois, and the goods which he sold were not manufactured in Marshall county.

2. The provision of the ordinance in question exempting from its operation residents of Marshall county, selling...