In re Kimmel
Decision Date | 28 March 1890 |
Citation | 41 F. 775 |
Parties | In re KIMMEL. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
H. P Camden, for petitioner.
John M Greenman, for City of Austin.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is presented by G. F Kimmel. The petitioner prays the court to inquire into the legality of his commitment to, and imprisonment in, the county jail, under an ordinance of the city of Austin, Mower county, in this district, which he alleges to be repugnant to the constitution of the United States. By the charter of the city of Austin, which was passed by the legislature of Minnesota, and approved February, 1887, the common council is authorized, inter alia, 'to license and regulate * * * peddlers and persons selling goods at retail by sample,' and, in terms, it provides that 'the power to regulate * * * shall extend to, and be considered to include, * * * the power to define who shall be considered * * *peddlers." The common council, acting under this provision of the city charter, passed the following ordinance; and for an alleged violation of it the prisoner was committed to jail. The ordinance reads as follows:
Section 3 provides how a license shall be obtained, and the amount to be paid for a license or special permit. Sections 4 and 5 provide for the arrest, fine, or imprisonment, on conviction of violating the provisions of the ordinance. The writ of habeas corpus was issued, and proper proceedings have been taken by return of the sheriff and traverse thereto.
The following statement of facts raises the question to be determined: The petitioner, G. F. Kimmel, is a resident of the state of Nebraska, and traveled on foot from house to house, offering to sell...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crenshaw v. State
...393; 132 Ill. 380; 55 N.J.L. 522; 69 N.H. 424; 5 La.Ann. 574; 74 S.W. 31; 50 S.E. 428; 49 P. 373; 130 N.C. 724; 41 S.E. 785; 140 N.Y. 187; 41 F. 775; 57 F. 496. If the act must be construed so to prohibit the course of dealing pursued by appellants, then it is unconstitutional. 120 U.S. 489......
-
Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Carthage
... ... 124; Text Book Co. v. Gillispie, 229 Mo. 397; ... Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622; ... Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U.S. 507; Brennan ... v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289; Robbins v. Taxing ... District, 120 U.S. 489; In re Spain, 47 F. 208; ... In re Nichols, 48 F. 164; In re Kimmel, 41 ... F. 775; In re Tyerman, 48 F. 167. The sales of ... merchandise made by the Jewel Tea Company from its stores in ... Chicago, Illinois, to the citizens of Carthage, Missouri, ... through the instrumentality of its co-plaintiff Martin, and ... its other agents, is, under the facts ... ...
-
Ex parte Martin
... ... be subserved. There are a number of cases not unlike this on ... the facts, where the federal courts have, in the exercise of ... their discretion, entertained jurisdiction to try and ... determine the main issue. Among them may be cited In re ... Kimmel (D.C.) 41 F. 775; In re White (C.C.) 43 ... F. 913, 11 L.R.A. 284; In re Spain (C.C.) 47 F. 208, ... 14 L.R.A. 97; In re Houston (C.C.) 47 F. 539, 14 ... L.R.A. 719; and In re Nichols (C.C.) 48 F. 164. It ... will be noticed that in these cases reference is had to one ... or more of ... [180 ... ...
-
In re Tinsman
...unnecessary. The following cases in the federal courts may, however, be referred to, as presenting different phases of the question: In re Kimmel, 41 F. 775; In White, 43 F. 913; In re Spain, 47 F. 108; In re Houston, 47 F. 539; In re Nichols, 48 F. 164; In re Tyerman, 48 F. 167; In re Sand......