City of St. Louis v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 24 December 1904
• Citation: City of St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 84 S.W. 914 (Mo. 1904)
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. MEYER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

84 S.W. 914

185 Mo. 583

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v.MEYER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 24, 1904.

PEDDLERS — LICENSE—CITY ORDINANCE—FARMERS —SALE OF PRODUCE.

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, and2108, of the Municipal Code of the city of St. Louis.The city attorney's statement was as follows: "State of Missouri, City of St. Louis—ss. City of St. Louis, Missouri, Dec. 17, A.D. 1903.Henry Meyer, to the City of St. Louis, Dr. To five hundred dollars for the violation of an ordinance of said city, entitled `An ordinance in revision of the General Ordinances of the City of St. Louis,' being ordinance number 19,991, sections 2097,2098,2099, and2108, approved April 3, 1900.In this, to wit: In the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, on the 12th day of September, 1903, and on divers other days and times prior thereto, the said Henry Meyer did then and there cause a large amount of fruit, vegetables, poultry and other articles of food to be drawn in a wagon by horses from place to place along the public streets of the city aforesaid, and while being so drawn the said Henry Meyer did offer the same for sale, by outcry, along said route and by soliciting the residents of said streets to purchase said goods from the wagon aforesaid, and did sell vegetables from same, without first having procured a license from the license collector of aforesaid city so to do; contrary to the ordinance in such case made and provided."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:

"The defendant is a resident of St. Louis county, Missouri, and is now, and for many years has been, cultivating a farm in said county as its proprietor.Upon this farm he has for many years past continuously raised apples, potatoes, tomatoes, grapes, and like fruits and vegetables.He has also raised chickens and kept milk cows thereon.He has also continuously during this period made it a practice of selling the fruits and vegetables so grown by him, also poultry, and eggs, and his milk and butter and cheese, the product of his cows, within the city limits of the city of St. Louis, by loading said products so produced or raised by him into his wagon, hauling them either in person or by employé into said city, and passing along the streets of said city, and selling or offering to sell such products in small quantities from his wagon, either from place to place or by outcry, to whomsoever would buy.He would continue so selling his products on any trip made in said city until the contents of his load had been disposed of.He was in the habit of coming with or sending his products for sale in the manner aforesaid to the city several days each week during a period of about six months each year.Some of the sales made by defendant as aforesaid were made to regular customers, but without previous specific orders therefor; and in some instances his products were delivered upon previous orders.Defendant, on the 1st day of September, 1903, drove his wagon into the city of St. Louis, Missouri, loaded with the products of his farm in St. Louis county, Missouri, consisting of vegetables, fruits, berries, milk, and butter, all produced by himself on said farm, for sale; all of which products he sold in small quantities to various persons, householders in said city, for private consumption, along the streets in the First District of said city, and from place to place, by delivering the produce as sold from his wagon.Defendant, on the 3d day of September, 1903, drove his wagon into the city of St. Louis, Missouri, with the products of his farm in St. Louis county, Missouri, consisting of vegetables, fruits, berries, milk, and butter, all produced by himself on said farm, for sale; all of which produce he sold in small quantities to various persons, householders in said city, for private consumption, along the streets of the First District of said city, and from place to place, by outcry, delivering the produce as sold from his wagon.Defendant, on the 5th day of September, 1903, drove his wagon into the city of St. Louis, Missouri, loaded with the products of his farm in St. Louis county, Missouri, consisting of vegetables, fruits, berries, milk, and butter, all produced by himself on said farm, for sale; all of which produce he, in small quantities, sold to various persons, householders in said city, for private consumption, and delivered the same from his wagon, stationed on Broadway, in the First District of said city of St. Louis, as customers demanded said products at said wagon.Defendant, on the 7th day of September, 1903, drove his wagon into the city of St. Louis, Missouri, loaded with the products of his farm in St. Louis county, Missouri, consisting of vegetables, fruit, and berries, all produced by himself on said farm, for sale; all of which produce he sold in quantities of a bushel or more, to various grocers and butchers, dealers in farm produce, at various points within the First District of said city of St. Louis, delivering said products as sold from said wagon.Defendant, on the 9th day of September, 1903, drove his wagon into the city of St. Louis, Missouri, loaded with the products of his farm in St. Louis county, Missouri, all produced by himself, consisting of vegetables, fruit, berries, milk, and butter; all of which products he sold and delivered in small quantities to various persons resident in said city, upon previous orders given him therefor.Patrick J. Clifford was at the time of said acts of defendant license collector for said city of St. Louis, duly elected and qualified as such, and for more than a year prior thereto had been such license collector; and that defendant had no license as a peddler or hawker issued to him by said Clifford, as such license collector, at the time of the performance of the acts by the defendant aforesaid; that said defendant had at no time mentioned in this agreed statement of facts applied for or secured a license as required by the ordinances pleaded.

"The plaintiff also offered in evidence sections 2097,2098,2099, and2108 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of St. Louis, which are in words and figures as follows, to wit:

"`Sec. 2097.License Required.—It shall not be lawful for any person to carry on the business of a peddler or hawker without obtaining a license therefor, and any person who shall so carry on the business of peddler or hawker without first having obtained a license, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall pay a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars.'Ordinance 19,703, amendment.

"`Sec. 2098.Peddlers Defined.—Every person who shall deal in the selling of patent, or other medicines, goods, wares and merchandise, except books, charts, maps, and stationery, is declared to be a peddler.'R. O. 1892, § 1526.

"`Sec. 2099.Hawkers Defined.—Any person who sells or offers for sale in any wagon, vehicle or other conveyance, drawn by hand or otherwise, in streets, alleys or other thoroughfares, or public places by outcry, or by going from place to place in the city, any fruit, vegetables, poultry, game, and icecream, or other articles of food, is hereby declared to be a hawker.'Ord. 19,329, amendment.

"`Sec. 2108. Penalty.—Any violation of any section of this article, for which a penalty is not provided [for], shall be deemed...