Kidd v. Pearson

Decision Date22 October 1888
Citation32 L.Ed. 346,9 S.Ct. 6,128 U.S. 1
PartiesKIDD v. PEARSON et al. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of Iowa, allowed by the chief justice thereof, upon the ground that the judgment in the case affirmed the validity of a statute of that state, which the plaintiff in error claimed to be in conflict with the federal constitution. The case arose upon a petition in equity, filed December 24, 1885, in the circuit court of Polk county, Iowa, by defendants in error, I. E. Pearson and S. J. Loughran, against the plaintiff in error, J. S. Kidd, praying that a certain distillery, erected and used by said Kidd for the unlawful manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, be abated as a nuisance, and that the said Kidd be perpetually enjoined from the manufacture therein of all intoxicating liquors. The provisions of the law under which these proceedings were instituted are found in chapter 6, tit. 11, Code Iowa, amended by chapter 143 of the acts of the general assembly in 1884. The sections necessary to be quoted for the purposes of this decision are as follows: Section 1523 provides: "No person shall manufacture or sell by himself, his clerk, steward, or agent, directly or indirectly, any intoxicating liquors, except as hereinafter provided; and the keeping of intoxicating liquors, with intent on the part of the owner thereof, or any person acting under his authority or by his permission, to sell the same within this state, contrary to the provisions of this chapter, is hereby prohibited; and the intoxicating liquor so kept, together with the vessels in which it is contained, is declared a nuisance, and shall be forfeited and dealt with as hereinafter provided." Section 1524 provides: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to forbid the sale by the importer thereof of foreign intoxicating liquor imported under the authority of the laws of the United States regarding the importation of such liquors and in accordance of [with] such laws, provided that the said liquor, at the time of said sale by said importer remains in the original casks or packages and in said quantities only; and nothing contained in this law shall prevent any persons from manufacturing in this state liquors for the purpose of being sold according to the provisions of this chapter, to be used for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, or sacramental purposes." Section 1525 prescribes a penalty for a violation of the law by manufacturers, as follows: "Every person who shall manufacture any intoxicating liquors as in this chapter prohibited, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon his first conviction for said offense shall pay a fine of two hundred dollars and costs of prosecution, or be imprisoned in the county jail not to exceed six months; and on his second and every subsequent conviction for said offense he shall pay a fine of not less that five hundred dollars, nor more than one thousand dollars, and costs of prosecution, and be imprisoned in the county jail one year." Section 1526 defines who may be permitted to manufacture under the law, and for what purpose the manufacture may be carried on, as follows: "Any citizen of the state, except hotel keepers, keepers of saloons, eating houses, grocery keepers, and confectioners, is hereby permitted, within the county of his residence, to manufacture or buy and sell intoxicating liquors for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, or sacramental purposes only, provided he shall first obtain permission from the board of supervisors of the county in which such business is conducted, as follows." Sections 1527 and 1529 provide for the manner of obtaining the permit, and section 1530 sets out the conditions under which it may be granted. It is as follows: "At such final hearing any resident of the county may appear and show cause why such permit should not be granted; and the same shall be refused, unless the board shall be fully satisfied that all the requirements of the law have, in all respects, been fully complied with; that the applicant is a person of good moral character; and that, taking into consideration the wants of the locality and the number of permits already granted, such permit would be necessary and proper for the accommodation of the neighborhood."

The manufacturer, like the seller, is required to make monthly reports to the county auditor, the evident purpose of the requirement being to show whether or not the holder of a permit was manufacturing or selling in compliance with the law. Section 1543 provides for proceedings in equity to abate and enjoin unlawful manufacture. The averments of the petition are, in substance, that the distillery described therein was erected by said J. S. Kidd for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, contrary to the statute of Iowa; that said Kidd had been, ever since the 4th of July, 1884, and is still, engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, upon the premises aforesaid, for other than mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes; with the concluding averment 'that the defendant manufactures, keeps for sale, and sells within this state, and at the place aforesaid, intoxicating liquors, to be taken out of that state, and there used as a beverage, and for other purposes than for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes, contrary to the statute of Iowa.' Kidd in his answer specifically pleaded that he is now, and has been ever since the 4th of July, 1884, authorized by the board of supervisors to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors, except as prohibited by law, and that in the manufacture and sale of liquors this defendant has at all times complied with the requirements of the law in that behalf. Upon the trial it was proved by undisputed evidence that Kidd held each year, from July 4, 1884, a permit, regularly issued from the board of supervisors of Polk county, covering the period of the alleged violations of law, authorizing him to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes; that his monthly reports, made on oath, in compliance with the requirements of the law, show that there were no sales for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental, or any other purpose, in the state of Iowa; and that all the manufactured liquors were for exportation, and were sold outside of the state of Iowa. A decree was rendered against Kidd, ordering that the said dis- tillery be abated as a nuisance, according to the prayer of the petitioner, and enjoining said Kidd from the manufacture therein of any and all intoxicating liquors. On appeal to the supreme court of Iowa this decree was affirmed by that court. Hence this writ of error.

Benjamin H. Brewster and F. W. Lehman, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 5-15 intentionally omitted] C. C. Cole, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice LAMAR, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The supreme court of Iowa, in its opinion, a copy of which, duly authenticated, is found in the record, having been transmitted according to our eighth rule of practice, held the sections in question to mean: (1) That foreign intoxicating liquors might be imported into the state, and there kept for sale by the importer in the original packages, or for transportation in such packages and sale beyond the limits of the state; (2) that intoxicating liquors might be manufactured and sold within the state for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes, but for no other—not even for the purpose of transportation beyond the limits of the state; (3) that the statute, thus construed, raised no conflict with the constitution of the United States, and was therefore valid. As the record presents none of the exceptional conditions which sometimes impel this court to disregard inadmissible constructions given by state courts to even their own state statutes and state constitutions, we shall adopt the construction of the statute of Iowa under consideration which has been given it by the supreme court of that state. The questions, then, for this court to determine are: (1) Does the statute as thus construed conflict with section 8, article 1, of the constitution of the United States, by undertaking to regulate commerce between the states; and (2) does it conflict with the fourteenth amendment to that constitution, by depriving the owners of the distillery of their property therein without 'due process of law.' All of the assignments of error offered are but variant statements of one or the other of these two propositions. The second of the propositions has been disposed of by this court in the case of Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273, wherein this very question was raised upon a statute similar, in all essential respects, to the provisions of the Iowa Code whose validity is contested. The court decided that a state has the right to prohibit or restrict the manufacture of intoxicating liquors within her limits; to prohibit all sale and traffic in them in said state; to inflict penalties for such manufacture and sale, and to provide regulations for the abatement as a common nuisance of the property used for such forbidden purposes; and that such legislation by a state is a clear exercise of her undisputed police power, which does not abridge the liberties or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deprive any person of property without due process of law; nor in any way contravenes any provisions of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Upon the authority of that case and of the numerous cases cited in the opinion of the court, we concur in the decision of the Iowa courts that the provisions here in question are not in conflict with the said amendment. The only question before us, therefore, is as to the relation of the Iowa statutes to the regulation of commerce among the states.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
411 cases
  • U.S. v. Myers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 9 Diciembre 2008
    ...346 U.S. at 446, 74 S.Ct. 190 (plurality opinion); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. at 350, 34 S.Ct. 833; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 15-16, 9 S.Ct. 6, 32 L.Ed. 346 (1888); The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557, 563, 19 L.Ed. 999 (1870); Veazie v. Moor, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 568, 573, 14 L.Ed......
  • Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 9 Marzo 1920
    ...Mutual Loan Company v. Martel, 222 U.S. 225, 56 L.Ed. 175; Austin v. Tennessee. Speaking on the subject the court said: Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 120, 32 L.Ed. 345; Salvage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 56 L.Ed. Stockfood Company v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540, 56 L.Ed. 1182; Railroad Company v. Wharton......
  • State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 14 Enero 1918
    ......92; People v. Walker, 17 N.Y. 502; Recent cases going not less far are Lemieux, v. Young, 211 U.S. 489, 53 L. Ed., 295, 29 Sup. 174;. Kidd D. & P. Co. v. Musselman Gro. Co., 217 U.S. 461, 54 L.Ed. 839, 30 Sup, Ct. Rep. 606; State ex rel. Goodsill v. Woodmansee, 1 N.D. 246, 11 L. R. A. ...Chicago, 177 U.S. 183, 44 L.Ed. 725, 20 S.Ct. 633; Barbier v. Conolly,. 113 U.S. 27, 28 L.Ed. 923, 5 S.Ct. 357; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 32 L.Ed. 346; 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232, 9 S.Ct. 6; State ex rel. Milwaukee Medical College. v. Chittenden, 127 Wis. 468, 107 N.W. 500; ......
  • George Simpson v. David Shepard No 291 George Simpson v. Emma Kennedy No 292 George Simpson v. William Shillaber No 293
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 9 Junio 1913
    ...volume of articles transported into or out of the state. It was an objection of this sort that was urged and overruled in Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 346, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6, to the law of Iowa prohibiting the manufacture and sale of liquor within the sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...1531 Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987), 960, 974, 984 Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 6, 32 L.Ed. 346 (1888), Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1880), 838 Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 120......
  • A case of unconstitutional immigration: the importation of England's national curriculum to the United States.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 34 No. 2, March 2001
    • 1 Marzo 2001
    ...nation politically and economically). (358.) See ELY, supra note 43, at 97-98 (discussing the Supreme Court's holding in Kidd v. Pearon, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), which supports the states' power under the Commerce Clause to regulate manufacturing, mining, and (359.) The early 1900s marked the beg......
  • More on the Origins of the Fuller Court's Jurisprudence: Reexamining the Scope of Federal Power Over Commerce and Manufacturing in Nineteenth-Century Constitutional Law
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 49-2, June 1996
    • 1 Junio 1996
    ...the State of their origin to that of theirdestination&dquo; (cf: Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 [1827]). Similarly, in Kiddv. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 20-22 (1888), a unanimous Court ruled that statescould prohibit the manufacturing of liquor that was earmarked for shipmentsin interstate comm......
  • Locating the boundaries: the scope of Congress's power to regulate Commerce.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 25 No. 3, June 2002
    • 22 Junio 2002
    ...25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419, 446 (1827). (2.) EDWARD C. BANFIELD, HERE THE PEOPLE RULE 35 (1991). (3.) Id. at 24. (4.) Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 21 (5.) See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (Stevens, J., plurality opinion). (6.) Compare Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 531 U.......
  • 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