Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts v. Ziebold
| Decision Date | 05 December 1887 |
| Parties | MUGLER v. STATE OF KANSAS, 1 (two cases.) STATE OF KANSAS ex rel. TUFTS, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gen., v. ZIEBOLD et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The defendant, Peter Mugler, was prosecuted criminally in two different cases for the violation of the prohibitory liquor law of the state of Kansas. In the first case, the indictment contained one count, charging that the defendant 'did unlawfully manufacture, and did assist and abet in the manufacture, of certain intoxicating liquors on, to-wit, the first day of November, A. D. 1881, in violation of the provisions of an act entitled 'An act to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, except for medical, mechanical, and scientific purposes, and to regulate the manufacture and sale thereof for such excepted purposes."
[Statement of Case from pages 624-625 intentionally omitted] The trial was had in this case before the court, without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, which statement of facts is as follows:
'It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the facts in the above-entitled case are, and that the evidence would prove them to be, as follows:
That the defendant, Peter Mugler, has been a resident of the state of Kansas continually since the year 1872; that, being foreign born, he in that year declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and always since that time, intending to become such citizen, he did, in the month of June, 1881, by the judgment of the district court of Wyandotte county, Kansas, become a full citizen of the United States and of the state of Kansas.
That in the year 1877, said defendant erected and furnished a brewery on lots Nos. 152 and 154, on Third street, in the city of Salina, Saline county, Kansas, for use in the manufacture of an intoxicating malt liquor, commonly known as beer; that such building was specially constructed and adapted for the manufacture of such malt liquor, at an actual cost and expense to said defendant of ten thousand dollars, and was used by him for the purpose for which it was designed and intended after its completion in 1877, and up to May 1, 1881.
That said brewery was at all times after its completion, and on May 1, 1881, worth the sum of ten thousand dollars for use in the manufacture of said beer, and is not worth to exceed the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars for any other purpose; that said defendant, since October 1, 1881, has used said brewery in the manner and for the purpose for which it was constructed and adapted, by the manufacture therein of such intoxicating malt liquors, and at the time of the manufacture of said malt liquor said defendant had no permit to manufacture the same for medical, scientific, or mechanical purposes, as provided by chapter 128 of the Laws of 1881. And the foregoing was all the evidence introduced in this case, and upon which a finding of guilty was made.' The defendant was found guilty, and fined $100, and appealed to the supreme court of the state of Kansas, where the court below was affirmed. A writ of error was sued out, upon the grounds that the proceedings in said suit involved the validity of a constitutional enactment of the state of Kansas, and of a statute of said state; the defendant claiming that said constitutional enactment and statute are in violation of the constitution of the United States, and the judgment of said supreme court of the state of Kansas being in favor of the validity of said enactment and statute.
Plaintiff in error invoked in the argument before the supreme court of the state of Kansas a portion of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, which provides: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' The amendment to the constitution of the state of Kansas which is complained of is as follows: 'The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be forever prohibited in this state, except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes.' Const. Kan. art. 15, § 10. This amendment was adopted by the people November 2, 1880. The statute complained of is chapter 128 of the Laws of Kansas, passed in 1881. That statute became operative May 1, 1881. Section 8 of that statute is as follows: 'Any person, without taking out and having a permit to manufacture intoxicating liquors as provided in this act, who shall manufacture, or aid, assist, or abet in the manufacture, of any of the liquors mentioned in section 1 of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall suffer the same punishment as provided in the last preceding section of this act for unlawfully selling such liquors.' Section 5 of that statute is as follows: 'No person shall manufacture or assist in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in this state, except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. Any person or persons desiring to manufacture any of the liquors mentioned in section one of this act, for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes, shall present to the probate judge of the county wherein such business is proposed to be carried on a petition asking a permit for such purpose, setting forth the name of the applicant, the place where it is desired to carry on such business, and the kind of liquor to be manufactured. Such petition shall have appended thereto a certificate, signed by at least twelve citizens of the township or city where such business is sought to be established, certifying that such applicant is a person of good moral character, temperate in his habits, and a proper person to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors. Such applicant shall file with said petition a bond to the state of Kansas, in the sum of ten thousand dollars, conditioned that, for any violation of the provisions of this act, said bond shall be forfeited. Such
Page 626-Continued.
bond shall be signed by said applicant or applicants, as principal or principals, and by at least three sureties, who shall justify, under oath, in the sum of seven thousand dollars each, and who shall be of the number signing said petition. The probate judge shall consider such petition and bond, and, if satisfied that such petition is true, and that the bond is sufficient, may, in his discretion, grant a permit to manufacture intoxicating liquors for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. The said permit, the order granting the same, and the bond and justification thereon, shall be forth with recorded by said probate judge in the same manner and with like offect as in a case of a permit to sell such liquors as provided in section two of this act; and the probate judge shall be entitled to the same fee for his services to be paid by the applicant. Such manufacturer shall keep a book, wherein shall be entered a complete record of the liquors manufactured by him, the sales made, with the dates thereof, the name and residence of the purchaser, the kind and quantity of liquors sold, and the price received or charged therefor. An abstract of such record, verified by the affidavit of the manufacturer, shall be filed quarterly in said probate court, at the end of each quarter during the period covered by such permit. Such manufacturer shall sell the liquor so manufactured only for medical, mechanical, and scientific purposes, and only in original packages.
He shall not sell such liquors for medical purposes except to druggists, who, at the time of such sale, shall be duly authorized to sell intoxicating liquors as provided in this act; and he shall sell such liquors to no other person or persons, associations or corporations, except for scientific or mechanical purposes, and then only in quantities not less than five gallons.'
The case of State ex rel. Tufts v. Ziebold et al. is a civil case, commenced in the district court of Atchison county, Kansas, in the name of the state, by the assistant attorney general for that county, to abate an alleged nuisance, to-wit, a place where intoxicating liquors are bartered, sold, and given away, and are kept for barter, sale, and gift, in violation of law, and a place where intoxicating liquors are manufactured for barter, sale, and gift, in the state of Kansas, and to perpetually enjoin the defendants from using or permitting to be used the premises described in the petition for the purposes mentioned, in violation of the prohibitory law of the state of Kansas. The defendants filed with the clerk of the district court a bond and petition for removal to the circuit court of the United States; and, on the hearing of said petition, the same was overruled by the judge of the district court, who rendered the following opinion, retaining the cases for trial:
'The State of Kansas ex rel. J. F. Tufts, Assistant Attorney General, Plaintiff, vs. Ziebold & Hagelin, Defendants.
Page 626-Continued.
'On application to remove to United States circuit court.
'MARTIN, J. This is an action under the clause of section 13 of the prohibitory liquor law, which was added by the legislature of 1885; the relator, averring that the defendants have no permit from the probate judge of this county, either to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquors, and that they are doing both at their brewery, near the city of Atchison, asks that they be enjoined from selling, and from manufacturing for sale, in the state of Kansas, any malt, vinous, spirituous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors. The defendants have filed an answer, containing a general denial, and also an averment to the effect that the defendant's brewery, which is alleged to be of the value of $60,000, was erected prior to the adoption of the prohibitory amendment to the constitution of this state, and the passage of the prohibitory law, for the purpose of manufacturing beer, and that it is adapted to no other purpose, and that if the defendants are prevented from the operation thereof for the purpose for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riverside Cnty. Transp. Comm'n v. S. Cal. Gas Co.
...as a synonym for acting in a governmental capacity — due process did not require compensation at all. (See also Mugler v. Kansas (1887) 123 U.S. 623, 668-669, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205 [police power regulation of use of property is not a taking requiring compensation, even if it destroys th......
-
State v. Bixman
...989; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, 5 Sup. Ct. 897, 28 L. Ed. 629; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205. In the last-mentioned case it was said: "There is no justification for holding that the state, under the guise mere......
-
Hale v. State
...... to limit to the utmost its evil tendencies (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205). . . ......
-
In re Application of Crane
...declare. (State v. Redmon, 134 Wis. 89, 126 Am. St. 1003, 114 N.W. 137, 15 Ann. Cas. 408, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 229; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205.) F. Moore, Pros. Atty., for State. Chapter 11 of the Idaho Session Laws of 1915 does not violate sec. 1 of the fourte......
-
Supreme Court Issues Significant Rulings on Eminent Domain Issues: A Primer on 5th Amendment Takings Jurisprudence
...safety of the general public."Allied-General Nuclear Services v. United States, 839 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 (1887)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819, 109 S. Ct. 61, 102 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1988) In 1992, the Supreme Court's Lucas ......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...by reason of their not being permitted, by a noxious use of their property, to inflict injury upon the community .” Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668-669. Thus, there is no “taking” where a city prohibits the operation of a brickyard within a residential area, see Hadacheck v. Sebastian, ......
-
Review of Adverse Decisions
...Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 17 ELR 20440 (1987); see also Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); Yancey v. United States, 915 F.2d 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 109. See, e.g., Florida Rock Indus. v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 161, 20 EL......
-
List of Case Citations
...50 Morgan v. Walter, 728 F. Supp. 1483, 20 ELR 20731 (D. Idaho 1989) ...............................................106 Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) ................................................................................................115 Municipality, see name of municip......
-
The Regulatory Takings Battleground: Environmental Regulation of Land Versus Private-Property Rights
...and since Pennsylvania Coal have recognized that the nature of the State’s action is critical in takings analysis. In Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887), for example, a Kansas distiller who had built a brewery while it was legal to do so challenged a Kansas constitutional amendment which......