House v. Joel Mayes
| Decision Date | 09 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | No. 597,597 |
| Citation | House v. Joel Mayes, 219 U.S. 270, 31 S.Ct. 234, 55 L.Ed. 213 (1911) |
| Parties | R. J. HOUSE, Plff. in Err., v. JOEL B. MAYES, Marshal of Jackson County, Missouri, and Elliott W. Major, Attorney General |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Frank Hagerman and Kimbrough Stone for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 271-275 intentionally omitted]Messrs. Elliott W. Major and John M. Atkinson for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 275-277 intentionally omitted]Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff in error was proceeded against by information filed in the criminal court of Jackson county, Missouri, under a statute of Missouri, which was passed June 8th, 1909, and is entitled, 'An Act to Prevent Fraud in the Purchase and Sale of Grain and Other Commodities.'The statute reads: Mo. Sess. Acts 1909, p. 519;Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 11,969,11,970.
The information charged that the accused, on the 1st day of September, 1909, at the county of Jackson, state of Missouri, purchased from one James Anderson a car load of wheat, by weight, and unlawfully took and deducted from the actual weight 100 pounds, pretending and claiming the right to make such deduction, and to have and keep the said 100 pounds so deducted free of charge and cost to him, under and by virtue of a rule and custom of the board of trade of Kansas City, Missouri.
Having been arrested on a capias, and being held in custody by the defendant as marshal, the accused presented to the criminal court an application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was deprived of his liberty in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.The application was denied, but it was subsequently granted by the supreme court of the state.The latter court, upon final hearing, also denied the application, and ordered that the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the marshal.The case is now here for review, upon assignments of error which question the constitutional validity of the statute under the 14th Amendment.
The case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts, the parties reserving all questions as to the relevancy of any particular fact therein stated.As the case is of some importance, it will be appropriate to set forth the above statement in full, as follows: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
...and convenience stands upon the same ground as the power to protect the public health and the public morals. House v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270, 282, 31 Sup. Ct. 234, 55 L. Ed. 213; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 300, 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702; Thorpe v. Rutland R. Co., 2......
-
Albritton v. City of Winona
... ... Wilson ... v. Sanitary Trustees, 133 Ill. 445, 27 N.E. 203; In re ... House Roll No. 284, 31 Neb. 505, 48 N.W. 275; 1 ... Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2 ... 1330; Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S ... 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 502, 64 L.Ed. 878; House v ... Mayes, 219 U.S. 270, 31 S.Ct. 234, 55 L.Ed. 213; ... Jones v. Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S.Ct. 112, ... ...
-
Nebbia v. People of State of New York
...S.Ct. 610, 57 L.Ed. 971; regulating sales of grain by actual weight, and abrogating exchange rules to the contrary, House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270, 31 S.Ct. 234, 55 L.Ed. 213; subjecting state banks to assessments for a state depositors' guarantee fund, Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 1......
-
Hanson v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' As stated in House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270, 31 S.Ct. 234, 236, 55 L.Ed. 213: '* * * the government created by the Federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers, and cannot, by any of its agenci......