Dimmig v. Mann
| Decision Date | 07 July 1938 |
| Citation | 120 N.J.L. 442,200 A. 545 |
| Parties | DIMMIG v. MANN, Recorder, et al. WIEGHORST v. SAME. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Wilmer Dimmig and Thomas Wieghorst were convicted of violating an ordinance of the Borough of Dunellen, of which John J. Mann is the recorder, making it unlawful for peddlers and transient merchants to sell goods within borough without obtaining a license and paying license fee, and they bring certiorari.
Convictions set aside.
Argued May term, 1938, before BROGAN, C. J., and BODINE and HEHER, JJ.
Smith & Smith and Sylvester C. Smith, Jr., all of Phillipsburg, for prosecutors. Henry Handelman, of Dunellen, and Robert I. Kuritsky, of Plainfield, for defendants.
>
The writ brings up for review the conviction of the two prosecutors under an ordinance of the borough of Dunellen. The ordinance in question provides as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any peddler, transient merchant, transient merchant peddler, solicitor, nonprofit making vendor and new merchant to sell or dispose of, or to offer to sell or dispose of, any goods, wares or merchandise within this Municipality of the Borough of Dunellen without first obtaining a license and having paid the license fee hereinafter prescribed for the first, second or third class of licenses." The defendants were employees of the George F. Hellick Coffee Company, of Easton, Pennsylvania. Their instructions were to take orders in this state for coffee and other articles, which were then forwarded to the home office of the company. The orders, when filled, were shipped by truck to the prosecutor Dimmig in North Plainfield. He and the other prosecutor were making deliveries to their customers, of the articles previously ordered, when arrested.
Municipalities have power to regulate various public servants, "Cartmen, expressmen, baggagemen, porters, common criers, hawkers, peddlers, employment agencies, pawnbrokers, junk shop keepers, junk dealers, motor vehicle junk dealers, street sprinklers, bill posters, bill tackers, sweeps, scavengers, itinerant vendors of merchandise, medicines and remedies; and the places and premises in which or at which the different kinds of business or occupation mentioned herein are conducted and carried on." R.S. 40:52-1.
Apparently there is no legislative authority to regulate those who solicit, in one state, orders for the sale of goods in another state. The reason the legislature has not so provided is apparent. The state and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moyant v. Borough of Paramus
...728 (1950); Annotation, 162 A.L.R. 857; 5 McQuillin, ibid., § 19.72, p. 661. Any suggestion to the contrary in Dimmig v. Mann, 120 N.J.L. 442, 200 A. 545 (Sup.Ct.1938) does not represent the modern law. Plaintiff conceded at oral argument that, assuming local authority to regulate solicitor......
-
Mount Holly Tp. v. Omar
...people of all the states that are affected.' The defendant also cites New Jersey cases, one of which is the case of Dimmig v. Mann, 120 N.J.L. 442, 200 A. 545, 546 (1938), in which our former Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Bodine, held as follows: 'Apparently there is no legislativ......
-
State v. Kromer, 3--628
...to regulate commerce among the several states. See United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8. In the case of Dimmig v. Mann, 120 N.J.L. 442, 200 A. 545 (Sup.Ct.1938), orders for goods were solicited in this State by agents of a corporation of another state, which orders were forwarde......
- Campanella v. Bono, 423.