Soon Hing v. Crowley
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FIELD |
| Citation | 28 L.Ed. 1145,113 U.S. 703,5 S.Ct. 730 |
| Parties | SOON HING v. CROWLEY, Chief of Police, etc |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1885 |
Page 704
The petitioner in the court below, the plaintiff in error here, was arrested by the defendant, who is chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco, for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the board of supervisors of that municipality, approved on the eighteenth of June, 1883; and while in custody of the officer applied to the circuit court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus, in order to obtain his discharge. The circuit court refused to issue the writ; the judges of the court being divided in opinion, and that of the presiding judge controlling.
The ordinance was adopted to regulate the establishment and maintenance of public laundries and wash-houses within certain limits of the city and county of San Francisco. It recited that the indiscriminate establishment of such laundries and wash-houses, where clothes and other articles were cleansed for hire, endangered the public health and public safety, prejudiced the wellbeing and comfort of the community, and depreciated the value of property in their neighborhood. It then ordained, pursuant to the authority vested in the board, that after its passage it should be unlawful for any person to establish, maintain, or carry on the business of a public laundry or a public wash-house within certain designated limits of the city and county, without having first obtained a certificate of the health officer of the municipality that the premises were properly and sufficiently drained, and that all proper arrangements were made to carry on the business without injury to the sanitary condition of the neighborhood; and also a certificate of the board of firewardens of the municipality that the stoves, washing and drying apparatus, and the appliances for heating smoothing-irons were in good condition, and that their use was not dangerous to surrounding property from fire, and that all proper precautions were taken to comply with the provisions of the ordinance defining the fire limits of the city and county, and making regulations concerning the erection and
Page 705
use of buildings therein. The ordinance requires the health officer and the board of wardens, upon the application of any one desirous to open or conduct the business of a public laundry, to inspect the premises in which it is proposed to carry on the business, in order to ascertain whether they are provided with proper drainage and sanitary appliances, and whether the provisions of the fire ordinance have been complied with; and if found satisfactory in all respects, to issue to the applicant the required certificates, without charge for the services rendered. Its fourth section declares that no person owning or employed in a public laundry or a public wash-house within the prescribed limits shall wash or iron clothes between the hours of 10 in the evening and 6 in the morning, or upon any portion of Sunday; and its fifth section declares that no person engaged in the laundry business within those limits shall permit any one suffering from an infectious or contagious disease to lodge, sleep, or remain upon the premises. The violation of any of these provisions is declared to be a misdemeanor, and penalties are prescribed according to the nature of the offense. The establishing, maintaining, or carrying on the business without obtaining the certificate is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment of not more than six months, or by both. Carrying on the business outside of the hours prescribed, or permitting persons with contagious diseases on the premises, is punishable by a fine of not less than $5 or more than $50, or by imprisonment of not more than one month, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The petitioner was arrested by the chief of police upon a warrant to a police judge of the municipality, issued upon a complaint under oath, that the petitioner had washed and ironed clothes in a public laundry within the prescribed limits between the hours of 10 o'clock in the evening of the twenty-fifth of February, 1884, and 6 o'clock in the morning of the following day, thereby violating the provisions of section 4 of the ordinance. The petition for the writ of habeas corpus presented to the judges of the circuit court sets forth the arrest and detention
Page 706
of the petitioner by the chief of police, the ordinance under which the arrest was made, the complaint before the police judge, and the issue of the warrant under which he was taken into custody. It then proceeds to state that the petitioner has for several years been engaged in working for hire in a public laundry in the city and county of San Francisco, and has, in all respects, complied with the laws of the United States and of California, and the ordinances of the city and county, except in washing at the hours...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larabee v. Dolley, 8,810
...275 (23 L.Ed. 550), In re Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (25 L.Ed. 676), Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (26 L.Ed. 567), and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (5 Sup.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145).' It follows, from what has been said, the demurrers in cases Nos. 8,810 and 8,817 must be overruled and deni......
-
Moss v. Hornig, Civ. No. 9261.
...People v. Friedman, 302 N.Y. 75, 79, 96 N.E.2d 184, appeal dismissed, 341 U.S. 907, 71 S.Ct. 623, 95 L.Ed. 1345; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 710, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 304, 318, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166; Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164,......
-
State v. Clement Nat. Bank
...Constitution is that one class be not deprived of a privilege enjoyed by the other under the same conditions. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, 5 Sup. Ct. 730. 28 L. Ed. 1145. Depositors in national banks and taxpayers under the general law are not in the same situation. One class pays a......
-
S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., A144702
...” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 721, 726, 119 Cal.Rptr. 631, 532 P.2d 495 citing Soon Hing v. Crowley (1885) 113 U.S. 703, 710–711, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145, italics added.) Thus, “[p]urpose alone is not a basis for concluding a local measure is preempted. Whil......
-
Larabee v. Dolley, 8,810
...275 (23 L.Ed. 550), In re Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (25 L.Ed. 676), Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (26 L.Ed. 567), and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (5 Sup.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145).' It follows, from what has been said, the demurrers in cases Nos. 8,810 and 8,817 must be overruled and deni......
-
Moss v. Hornig, Civ. No. 9261.
...People v. Friedman, 302 N.Y. 75, 79, 96 N.E.2d 184, appeal dismissed, 341 U.S. 907, 71 S.Ct. 623, 95 L.Ed. 1345; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 710, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 304, 318, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166; Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164,......
-
State v. Clement Nat. Bank
...Constitution is that one class be not deprived of a privilege enjoyed by the other under the same conditions. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, 5 Sup. Ct. 730. 28 L. Ed. 1145. Depositors in national banks and taxpayers under the general law are not in the same situation. One class pays a......
-
S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., A144702
...” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 721, 726, 119 Cal.Rptr. 631, 532 P.2d 495 citing Soon Hing v. Crowley (1885) 113 U.S. 703, 710–711, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145, italics added.) Thus, “[p]urpose alone is not a basis for concluding a local measure is preempted. Whil......
-
THE OBSOLESCENCE OF BLUE LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
...laws were consolidated in the General Laws of 1932."). (29.) See Lawrence-Hammer, supra note 6, at 1277. (30.) See Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 710-11 (1884) (stating that Blue Laws were a valid police objective and therefore valid under the (31.) 113 U.S. 703 (1884). (32.) Id. at 71......