City of St. Louis v. Meyer
Citation | 84 S.W. 914,185 Mo. 583 |
Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. MEYER. |
Decision Date | 24 December 1904 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
1. Const. art. 9, § 23, declares that the charter of municipal corporations shall be subject to the laws of the state. St. Louis City Charter, art. 3, § 26, gives the city power, not inconsistent with the laws of the state, to levy and collect licenses and taxes. Rev. St. 1899, § 6258, provides that a municipal corporation shall confine the passage of ordinances to conformity with the state law on the same subject. Section 8861 provides that whoever shall deal in selling patent rights, excepting agricultural products, by going about from place to place, is a peddler. An ordinance of the city of St. Louis made it a misdemeanor for one to carry on the business of a hawker or peddler without a license, defined a peddler as one dealing in the selling of goods and merchandise, and defined a hawker as one selling, by going from place to place, any vegetables or articles of food. Held that, though section 8861 was enacted subsequent to the charter, a farmer selling his produce through the streets of the city could not be required to take out a license, the city having no authority to include him in the definition of hawker or peddler.
2. A farmer who takes his farm products to a city and sells them from place to place is not a hawker or peddler within the understood meaning of such terms.
3. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 6146, providing that no city shall levy any tax or license on any farmer for the sale of produce raised by him when sold from his vehicle in the city, a city had no authority to enact an ordinance requiring a farmer to obtain a license as a condition precedent to his right to sell his produce through the streets of the city.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Hiram N. Moore, Judge.
Henry Meyer was convicted of peddling without a license, and he appeals. Reversed.
This was a proceeding instituted by the city attorney of the city of St. Louis against the defendant under the provisions of sections 2097, 2098, 2099, and 2108, of the Municipal Code of the city of St. Louis. The city attorney's statement was as follows: This suit was begun before the police justice for the First District of said city, who fined the defendant $25. The defendant appealed to the St. Louis court of criminal correction, where the case was tried upon the 7th day of January, 1904, and the defendant was fined $25. The defendant filed his motion for a new trial on the same day that he was fined, and the same was then overruled by the court, and defendant then tendered his bill of exceptions, which was approved, signed, and filed on said day, and defendant filed his affidavit for an appeal, and was allowed an appeal to this court.
This cause was submitted in the St. Louis court of criminal correction upon the following agreed statement of facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peterson v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.
...is commended by good sense, and is too well established to require the citation of authorities." The case of the City of St. Louis v. Meyer. 185 Mo. 583, 84 S. W. 914, is directly in point, that is, as far as principle is concerned. The defendant, a farmer, was arrested for not having a lic......
-
State ex rel. v. City of St. Louis
...862; State ex rel. v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.W. 191, 200 (holding a provision in the Scheme repealed by the Police Act); St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 84 S.W. 914; State ex rel. v. Police Commissioners, supra; Badgley v. St. Louis, 149 Mo. 122, 50 S.W. 817 (declaring a charter provisio......
-
State ex rel. Zoolog. Board v. City of St. Louis
...9 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Mo. & Kan. Tel. Co., 189 Mo. 83; State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 141 Mo. 45; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583; State ex rel. v. Owsley, 122 Mo. 78; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64; Peterson v. Railroad, 265 Mo. 462. (c) It does not violate Section......
-
Campbell Baking Co. v. City of Harrisonville, Mo.
...carrying merchandise about from place to place for sale, as opposed to traders who sell at established shops" (St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 595, 84 S. W. 914, 918) or "an itinerant or traveling trader who carries goods about in order to sell them, and who actually sells them to purchase......