Leisy v. Hardin
Decision Date | 28 April 1890 |
Citation | 10 S.Ct. 681,135 U.S. 100,34 L.Ed. 128 |
Parties | LEISY et al. v. HARDIN. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Christiana Leisy, Edward Leisy, Lena and Albert Leisy, composing the firm of Gus. Leisy & Co., citizens of Illinois, brought their action of replevin against A. J. Hardin, the duly elected and qualified marshal of the city of Keokuk, Iowa, and ex officio constable of Jackson township, Lee county, Iowa, in the superior court of Keokuk, in said county, to recover 122 one-quarter barrels of beer, 171 one-eighth barrels of beer, and 11 sealed cases of beer, which had been seized by him in a proceeding on behalf of the state of Iowa against said defendants, under certain provisions of the Code of the state of Iowa; and upon issue joined, a jury having been duly waived by the parties, the case was submitted to the court for trial, and, having been tried, the court, after having taken the case under advisement, finally 'rendered and filed in said cause its findings of fact and conclusions of law in words and figures following, to-wit:
'(5) That on the 30th day of June, 1888, the defendant, as constable of Jackson township, Lee county, Iowa, by virtue of a search-warrant issued by J. G. Garrettson, an acting justice of the peace of said Jackson township, upon an information filed charging that in premises occupied by said John Leisy there were certain intoxicating liquors, etc., seized the property therein described, and took same into his custody.
'(7) That on the 2d day of July, 1888, plaintiffs filed in this court their petition, alleging, among other things, that they were the owners and entitled to the possession of said property, and that the law under which said warrant was issued was unconstitutional and void, being in violation of section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States, and having filed a proper bond a writ of replevin issued, and the possession of said property was given to plaintiffs.
'From the foregoing facts the court finds the following conclusions: That plaintiffs are the sole and unqualified owners of said property, and entitled to the possession of same, and judgment for $1.00 damages for their detention, and costs of suit; that so much of chapter 6, tit. 11, Code 1873, and the amendments thereto, as prohibits such sales by plaintiffs as were made by plaintiffs, is unconstitutional, being in contravention of section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States; that said law has been held unconstitutional in a like case heretofore tried and determined by this court, involving the same question, in the case of Collins v. Hills, decided prior to the commencement of this suit, and prior to the seizure of said property by defendant; to all of which the defendant at the time excepted.'
Judgment was thereupon rendered as follows:
A motion for new trial was made and overruled, and the cause taken to the supreme court of Iowa by appeal, and errors therein assigned as follows:
The supreme court reversed the judgment of the superior court, and entered judgment against the plaintiffs and their sureties on the relevin bond in the amount of the value of the property, with costs. The judgment thus concluded: To review this judgment, a writ of error was sued out from this court. The opinion of the supreme court, not yet reported in the official series, will be found in 43 N. W. Rep. 188.
The seizure of the beer in question by the constable was made under the provisions of chapter 6, tit. 11, Code 1873, and amendments thereto. Code 1873, p. 279; Laws 1884, c. 8, p. 8; c. 143, p. 146; Laws 1888, c. 71, p. 91; 1 McClain, Ann. Code, §§ 2359-2431, p. 603.
Section 1523 of the Code is as follows: or any ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Epstein v. Lordi
...as warranting broad exercise of State authority within the traditional confines of the Commerce Clause. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 10 S.Ct. 681, 34 L.Ed. 128 (1890) and cases cited. The Constitution "has never been deemed to exclude the states from regulating matters primarily of local ......
-
Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
...of the provisions of the Constitution which relate to those subjects, and therefore void." In 1890, in Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 S. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128, and in Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U. S. 161, 10 S. Ct. 725, 34 L. Ed. 150, in opinions written by Chief Justice Fuller, it was held......
-
Commonwealth v. Huntley
...does not modify the doctrine declared in Leisy v. Hardin. Accepting without discussion the decision of the majority of the court in Leisy v. Hardin as settling the law for it covers, we have to consider whether it extends so far as to cut off the power of the legislature to forbid the manuf......
-
Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
...commerce. See Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co. , 125 U.S. 465, 8 S.Ct. 1062, 31 L.Ed. 700 (1888) ; Leisy v. Hardin , 135 U.S. 100, 10 S.Ct. 681, 34 L.Ed. 128 (1890). Dormant Commerce Clause cases from that era "advanced two distinct principles," an understanding of which is critical ......
-
Antitrust's “State Action” Doctrine and the Policy of the Commerce Clause
...values.» Obviously, state regulation works an exemption78 112 S. Ct. at 802.79 See Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 109-10 (1890) ("Hence, inas-much as interstate commerce, consisting in the transportation, purchase,sale and exchange of commodities, is national in character, and must begovern......
-
Old whine in a new battle: pragmatic approaches to balancing the Twenty-First Amendment, the dormant commerce clause, and the direct shipping of wine.
...supra note 25, at 171-72. (43.) Id. (44.) Id. at n.63 (citing Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)). (45.) Id. (46.) Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 124 (47.) Craig, 429 U.S. at 205 (noting that Leisy v. Hardin "undercut the theoretical underpinnings of the License Cases"). (48.) Spaeth, su......
-
The most-cited Federalist Papers.
...Cincinnati Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 212 (1894) (quoting from Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299, 318 (1851)); Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 109 (1890); Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273, 280 (1878); Gilman v. Philadelphia, 70 U.S. 713, 730 n.28 (1865); Cooley v. Board ......
-
Inconvenient Federalism: The Pandemic, Abortion Rights, and the Commerce Clause
...prevent effectively the sale of alcohol imported from out of State to the extent it was in its “original package,” see Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 124 (1890) (“The plaintiffs . . . import into Iowa beer which they sell in original packages. . . . [T]hey had the right to import this beer ......