Georgia Packing Co. v. City of Macon

Decision Date02 August 1893
Citation60 F. 774
PartiesGEORGIA PACKING CO. et al. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF MACON.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

The complainants are wholesale and retail butchers in the city of Macon, in this district. They supply meats to the people of Macon and the surrounding country, dealing exclusively in dressed meats. They do not slaughter. Five-sixths of the meats they furnish their customers are cattle reared in western states, killed and dressed there, and shipped in refrigerator cars to Macon. These are of a better quality than the meats obtained in the country contiguous to Macon and, for that reason, the complainants state, would naturally be regarded with more favor by the public, if the complainants had the equal protection of the laws. But complainants insist that this is not the case, for the mayor and council of the city of Macon are depriving them of the equal protection of the laws, and of due process of law, and of the right they have to conduct their business conformably to law. The gravamen of the complaint is that on the 2d day of June, 1888, certain market regulations were enacted for Macon. Market hours were prescribed, as follows: In winter from daylight until 10 o'clock. In summer, from 3 a. m. to 9 a. m. By the municipal law, winter begins October 1st and summer April 1st; but on Saturdays the market house is open from 3 o'clock p. m. to 8 o'clock p. m. in winter, and 9 o'clock in summer. These regulations further provide that it is unlawful to sell or offer for sale any meats on the streets or elsewhere in the city of Macon during said market hours, and heavy penalties are prescribed for a violation of this rule. Stalls are rented in the market, but none for a sum less than $150 per annum, but although a butcher may rent a stall, yet his business is practically destroyed, for the ordinance provides that no person shall be permitted to buy more at the market than is necessary for the use of his or her family, except during the last hour of the market hours; and, further, that no person shall sell, or contract to sell, to any one, any article of produce or meat which is to be delivered outside of the market building, after market hours. Not only, therefore, is complainants' business cut off elsewhere during the market hours, but even as renters of stalls they claim they are so hindered and limited as to prevent them from selling meats in any considerable amount to those who are willing to buy. It is further provided by the market ordinances that all persons not renting a stall at the market for the sale of meat, and who shall sell any kind of meat on the streets of the city of Macon, at any time during the day or night, shall pay a license tax of $500 per annum, said license to be paid in advance, provided this section 'shall not apply to farmers bringing into the city for the purpose of sale the flesh of any animal raised by themselves, after market hours.' By this last clause we may safely presume that it is meant it shall not apply to farmers bringing into the city, for the purpose of sale after market hours, the flesh of any animal raised by themselves. It is further provided that after the expiration of market hours every person having any product or article for sale shall remove the same from the market place. On account of this last provision the complainants complain that they are forced to haul their meats to and from the market at great trouble, expense, and annoyance; that, on account of the restrictions and hindrances above mentioned, although the market hours constitute the principal portion of the day, when the people have ordinarily been accustomed to make their purchases of meat, yet the sales at the market do not constitute one-half of the sales at retail made after market hours at the complainants' respective places of business elsewhere in the town, so that a large part of their capital and time is wasted during market hours; that the ordinance further provides that a license shall be imposed on butchers or others who have no stall in the market, and who shall sell from any shop or wagon (other than nonresidents selling meat of their own raising), and no license shall be issued for less than $500. This, it is alleged, is a discrimination in favor of the producers of meat raised in the country tributary to Macon, and against meat producers who market their products in the western markets, and ship them for sale to Georgia.

The license tax, exclusive of the market ordinance, for the year 1893, upon wholesale dealers in meat, selling to the trade only, is $25. Complainants aver that the wholesale meat trade in Macon handles western meats only. There is not enough meat produced in the country around Macon to create a wholesale business, and the tax operates to put a burden upon interstate commerce, and to give an undue advantage to dealers in meats raised near Macon. If the complainants should not rent a stall in the market house, under these ordinances they must pay a license of $500, even though they sell only after the market hours are over; while farmers from the surrounding country may retail meats brought into the city without any license whatever. The market ordinance, so far from undertaking to prevent the sale of meat on the streets of the city of Macon outside of market hours, expressly recognizes such sales. It is not, therefore, an ordinance intended to prevent the selling of meats on any particular street or in any particular locality. Nor does it provide for the inspection of meats elsewhere than at the market, and in point of fact the bill alleges the officials of the city have at no time undertaken to inspect meats elsewhere than in the market house. It is, then, not an ordinance, made for the protection of health, or for the inspection of meats, or for compelling the sale of meats in any particular locality, which, it is conceded, might be done under the exercise of the police power, but that, under the guise of police regulation, it is an ordinance wholly for the collection of a revenue. That, as such, it is in violation of the constitution of the state of Georgia and of the United States, in that it prescribes a cheaper license tax for those who sell in the market, and at their regular places of business, than for those who sell at their regular places of business, and no tax at all for farmers selling in the city after market hours, while handlers of western meats, not stall holders, must pay a tax of $500 to sell in the city after market hours. The constitution of the state of Georgia provides that 'all taxation shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects.' The constitution of the United States provides that 'the citizens of the different states shall be entitled to the equal protection of the laws.'

One of the complainants, W. L. Henry, has already been arrested for offering wholesome western meats for sale at his place of business, and selling during market hours, and was tried before the recorder of the city of Macon on the charge that he had sold meat at his place of business during the market hours, and was fined $25 and costs. This was appealed to the supreme court of the state, which court held that the ordinance was valid. 18 S.E. 143. The mayor and council of the city of Macon threaten to continue to arrest and fine complainants every time they undertake to sell or offer for sale, during market hours, any meats, at their said places of business. Complainants further aver that they will each be damaged in very large amounts, exceeding the sum or value of $2,000, exclusive of costs. The bill prays that the court will grant a writ of injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining the defendants, their clerks, attorneys, agents, servants, and employes from enforcing or endeavoring to enforce against complainants any penalty provided in said ordinances for selling or offering for sale any of said meats at their respective places of business or elsewhere in the city of Macon otherwise than at said market house, or from selling their meats at any time during said market hours; and be further enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect the license fee fixed by said ordinances for the sale of meats elsewhere than in said market house; and, further, from interfering with complaints for selling at any time during market hours such meats as they may have to offer for sale to all persons who may there desire to buy, and that said market ordinances may be decreed to be unconstitutional and void. They ask for a provisional injunction pendente lite.

The mayor and council of the city of Macon demur to the bill for want of jurisdiction in this court upon the ground that all the parties are citizens of the state of Georgia, and further because it does not appear that a question is raised depending upon the violation of any part of the constitution of the United States; and they answer that they have the right to regulate the selling of meat in the city of Macon and to confine the sales thereof to the market house in said city during market hours. They further answer that they have the right to fix a license for the sale of meats and other articles in said city. They deny that the effect of the licenses so fixed by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Butterfield Live Stock Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 Diciembre 1909
    ... ... Harden, 135 U.S. 100, 10 S.Ct ... 681, 34 L. ed. 128; Harmon v. City of Chicago, 147 ... U.S. 396, 13 S.Ct. 306, 37 L. ed. 216; Bridge Co. v ... 345, 18 S.Ct. 862, 43 L.Ed. 191, 52 F ... 690; Georgia Packing Co. v. Mayor etc., 60 F. 774, ... 22 L. R. A. 775; Vines v ... ...
  • City of Bessemer v. Bessemer Waterworks
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1907
    ... ... Co. v. Berry, 93 Ky ... 43, 18 S.W. 1026, 15 L. R. A. 604, 40 Am. St. Rep. 161; ... Georgia Packing Co. v. Macon (C. C.) 60 F. 774, 22 ... L. R. A. 775; Deems v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164, 30 ... ...
  • Ex parte Snyder
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 3 Marzo 1905
    ...under discussion, yet there is much more reason for holding that the ordinance in the case at bar cannot be enforced than there was in the Macon case. It that the city of Macon had by ordinance protected people engaged in trade in that city by requiring anyone who desired to engage in teami......
  • Thompson v. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 14 Abril 1894
    ... ... Wisconsin, the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway ... Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT