Pitney v. State of Washington

Decision Date06 March 1916
Docket NumberNo. 242,242
Citation60 L.Ed. 703,240 U.S. 387,36 S.Ct. 385
PartiesF. S. PITNEY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF WASHINGTON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Louis Marshall and Sol. M. Stroock for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. D. V. Halverstadt, Blackburn Esterline, Alfred H. Lundin, and Mr. W. V. Tanner, Attorney General of Washington, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

A companion case with Nos. 41 and 224 [240 U. S. 342, 369, 60 L. ed. ——, ——, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, 379]. It was argued and submitted with those cases and involves the same general questions and the validity of the statute passed upon in No. 224.

A criminal information was filed in the superior court of the state of Washington for the county of King, charging that the United Cigar Stores Company, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, doing business in the state of Washington, owned and conducted a certain store and place of business in the city of Seattle, and had not then or theretofore obtained a separate license from the auditor of the county entitling it at its store and place of business to use or furnish to other persons, etc., to use, in, with, or for the sale of any goods, etc., any stamps, etc., or other similar devices, entitling the purchaser receiving the same to procure from any person, etc., any goods, etc., free of charge or for less than the retail price thereof upon the production of any number of said stamps, etc.

That Pitney (plaintiff in error), at said place of business well knowing the above facts, did then and there unlawfully, as the manager, servant, and agent of the United Cigar Stores Company, Inc., use and furnish in, with, and in connection with the sale of certain goods, etc., to one John Garvin a certain stamp, etc., of the following tenor:

No. 139,198. Dr.

United Cigar Stores Company (Incorporated).

Certificate.

Cash value at any Profit-Sharing Station in the state of Washington, 1 cent, but average merchandise value, according to profit-sharing list, 2 cents.

This certificate represents a 25-cent purchase, and is redeemable according to the conditions of our profit-sharing list. Ask for a copy of list. Redeemable only by the person to whom originally issued.

United Cigar Stores Company (Incorporated)

Largest Cigar Retailers in the world.

And it was alleged that Garvin received the same.

A demurrer was filed to the information, the grounds of which were, as alleged, that the defendant had not violated any law, that the information failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a crime or misdemeanor, and that it did not charge any offense against the laws of Washington. The demurrer was sustained and the case dismissed. This action was reversed by the supreme court of the state and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer. 79 Wash. 608, 140 Pac. 918.

Upon the return of the case to the superior court the demurrer was overuled and defendant pleaded guilty. He then moved in arrest of judgment, invoking against the law and sentence under it articles 5 and 8 of the Constitution of the United States and § 1 of the 14th Amendment of that Constitution.

It was stipulated that Pitney, as charged, furnished Garvin a certain stamp, etc., which entitled Garvin to procure from the United Cigar Stores Co., Inc., upon the production of a certain specified number of such stamps,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Steffey v. City of Casper
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1960
    ...L.R.A.1917A, 421, Ann.Cas.1917B, 455; Tanner v. Little, 1916, 240 U.S. 369, 36 S.Ct. 379, 60 L.Ed. 691; Pitney v. State of Washington, 1916, 240 U.S. 387, 36 S.Ct. 385, 60 L.Ed. 703, affirming 80 Wash. 699, 141 P. 883; State v. Wilson, 1917, 101 Kan. 789, 168 P. 679, L.R.A.1918B, 374; State......
  • Garden Spot Market, Inc. v. Byrne
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1963
    ...Co., 240 U.S. 342, 36 S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679; Tanner v. Little, 240 U.S. 369, 36 S.Ct. 379, 60 L.Ed. 691; and Pitney v. Washington, 240 U.S. 387, 36 S.Ct. 385, 60 L.Ed. 703, which held that all devices redeemable in merchandise could be prohibited without violating the Fourteenth Amendment......
  • Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Hoegh
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1954
    ...240 U.S. 342, 36 S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679; Tanner v. Little, 240 U.S. 369, 36 S.Ct. 379, 60 L.Ed. 691 and Pitney v. State of Washington, 240 U.S. 387, 36 S.Ct. 385, 60 L.Ed. 703, all decided in 1916. In general these cases hold legislation relative to coupons and stamps is not unconstitution......
  • People v. Victor
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1939
    ...60 L.Ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, Ann.Cas.1917B, 455;Tanner v. Little, 240 U.S. 369, 36 S.Ct. 379, 60 L.Ed. 691;Pitney v. Washington, 240 U.S. 387, 36 S.Ct. 385, 387,60 L.Ed. 703. In the case of People v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 197 Mich. 532, 164 N.W. 503, L.R.A.1918A, 797, quo warranto pro......
  • 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