Kirmeyer v. State of Kansas
Decision Date | 01 March 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 145,145 |
Citation | 59 L.Ed. 721,236 U.S. 568,35 S.Ct. 419 |
Parties | M. KIRMEYER, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF KANSAS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. A. E. Dempsey and Frank Doster for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John S. Dawson, Attorney General of Kansas, for defendant in error.
The state of Kansas instituted this cause in a local court, September 29th, 1910. Kirmeyer was charged with carrying on a liquor business at Leavenworth in open and persistent violation of law, and thereby committing a nuisance. The relief sought was 'that he be enjoined from conducting said unlawful business; that he be enjoined from maintaining, using, and employing said wagons, vehicles, conveyances, horses, mules, telephones, and any other property in the said unlawful manner herein alleged; that upon the final determination of this action said injunction be made permanent; that said wagons, vehicles, conveyances, horses, mules, telephones, and other property used in said unlawful business be declared common nuisances, and that the same be abated.'
In the opinion of the trial court the transactions disclosed constituted a part of interstate commerce within the protection of the Constitution of the United States; and judgment was rendered for Kirmeyer. Upon appeal the supreme court of the state declared: 'The broad question here is whether the defendant was really engaged in commerce between the states of Missouri and Kansas, or was he only seeking by tricks and devices to evade the laws of his state,—doing by indirection that which could not lawfully be done by ordinary and direct methods?' Referring to numerous opinions of this court it further said they 'do not preclude a fair inquiry into methods and practices in order to determine whether transactions under investigation constitute legitimate interstate commerce or are colorable merely, and intended to evade and defeat the just operation of the Constitution and law of the state.' And the conclusion was: Accordingly the action of the district court was reversed, with instructions to grant the relief prayed for (88 Kan. 589, 128 Pac. 1114). Thereupon this writ of error was sued out.
The essential facts disclosed by the record are summarized in paragraphs (a) and (b) following.
(a) Rigorous statutes have long prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within the state of Kansas. The city of Leavenworth lies on the Missouri river; on the opposite bank in Missouri is Stillings, a village with one store, roundhouse, a few residences, eight or ten beer warehouses, and a freight depot without a regular agent, but no postoffice. For a long time plaintiff in error has resided in Leavenworth, and prior to 1907 he carried on there an illicit beer trade; for use in the same he there maintained a business place and warehouse and kept wagons and teams. In that year, alarmed by the activities of officials, he discontinued this office and warehouse and immediately opened others in Stillings, and connected them with the Leavenworth telephone exchange. He did not change his residence nor remove his wagons and teams from Leavenworth, but kept them in quarters connected by telephone with the local exchange, and continued to use them for hauling to and from the new warehouse and making deliveries. Thereafter he received at Stillings barrels, cases, and casks of beer in carload lots from Kansas City and other points; sometimes he received like merchandise at the railroad depot in Leavenworth, which was then hauled across the river. At the Stillings office he received and accepted orders for beer to be delivered in Leavenworth and other points in Kansas. Eighty-five per cent came by telephone; the remainder through the Leavenworth postoffice, but these were carried to his place of business before being opened.
(b) Accepted orders for delivery in Leavenworth were filled by setting aside the cases, kegs, or casks in the warehouse, tagging them with the names of the purchasers, and then sending them daily—sometimes oftener—over the bridge in his wagons to the residences of purchasers. For such deliveries no charges were made. If the goods were intended for other points in Kansas they were hauled to the railroad station at Leavenworth, and there turned over to the carrier. The business for the most part was 'family trade' for private use only, and amounted to some $500 per month. A license tax was paid to the Federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. Guaranty Mortgage & Trust Co
... ... Co., 167 Miss. 842, 147 So. 773 ... Appellee ... was doing business within the State of Mississippi, without ... having qualified so to do under the laws of the State of ... 611; ... Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389, 33 S.Ct. 294, 57 ... L.Ed. 565; Kirmeyer v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 568, 35 ... S.Ct. 419, 59 L.Ed. 721; Heyman v. Hays, 236 U.S ... 178, 35 ... ...
-
Nitrate Sales Corporation v. State of Alabama
...359, 21 S.Ct. 132, 45 L.Ed. 224; Cook v. Marshall County, Iowa, 196 U.S. 261, 270, 25 S.Ct. 233, 49 L.Ed. 471; Kirmeyer v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 568, 573, 35 S.Ct. 419, 59 L.Ed. 721; Price v. Illinois, 238 U.S. 446, 454, 35 S.Ct. 892, 59 L.Ed. 1400; Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297, 304, 39 S.Ct. ......
-
Central Greyhound Lines, Inc of New York v. Mealey
...sense rather than on the ground that it was not interstate commerce. Compare Ewing v. Leavenworth, supra, with Kirmeyer v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 568, 35 S.Ct. 419, 59 L.Ed. 721. Again, it would have made for a less dialectical, if not more coherent, development of the law to sustain a New York g......
-
Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Kansas
... ... 507, 27 Sup.Ct. 159, 51 L.Ed ... 295; Ohio R.R. Com. v. Worthington, 225 U.S. 101, 32 ... Sup.Ct. 653, 56 L.Ed. 1004; Stewart v. Michigan, 232 ... U.S. 665, 34 Sup.Ct. 476, 58 L.Ed. 786; Oil Pipe Line Cases, ... 234 U.S. 548, 34 Sup.Ct. 956, 58 L.Ed. 1459; Kirmeyer v ... Kansas, 236 U.S. 568, 35 Sup.Ct. 419, 59 L.Ed. 721; ... City of Lee's Summit v. Jewell Co., 217 F. 965, ... 133 C.C.A. 637 ... (9) ... Absence of a specific consignee at the time of shipment does ... not alter the character of the shipment. Swift & Co. v ... United ... ...