State v. Bridgeman & Russell Co.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1912
• Docket Number: 17,464 - (237)
• Citation: State v. Bridgeman & Russell Co., 117 Minn. 186, 134 N. W. 496 (Minn. 1912)
• Parties: STATE v. BRIDGEMAN & RUSSELL COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

134 N.W. 496

117 Minn. 186

STATE v. BRIDGEMAN & RUSSELL COMPANY

Nos. 17,464 - (237)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

February 16, 1912

Case certified from district court for Pine county. Defendant's demurrer to an indictment against it was overruled, Stolberg, J. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Constitution -- classification.

Classification for purposes of legislation is a matter of legislative policy and discretion, and it is only when a classification is manifestly arbitrary that the courts will declare a statute unconstitutional.

Constitution -- act constitutional.

Chapter 468, Laws 1909, an act to prevent unlawful discrimination in the sale of milk, cream, and butter fat, does not violate the equality provision of either the state or Federal Constitution, or the prohibitions of the state Constitution as to special legislation. The classification of the act is not an arbitrary one, and the act is constitutional.

Title of act.

It is sufficient if the title of a statute is fairly suggestive of its subject, and every fair doubt should be resolved in favor of its sufficiency. The title of the statute referred to is sufficient.

Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, Alexander L. Janes, Assistant Attorney General, and William H. Lamson, County Attorney, for the State.

Baldwin & Baldwin and J. T. Pearson, for defendant.

OPINION

START, C.J.

The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota, with its principal place of business at Duluth. It is engaged in the business of buying milk, cream and butter fat for the purpose of manufacture. On April 13 1911, an indictment was duly returned to the district court of the county of Pine, charging the defendant with a violation of the provisions of chapter 468, p. 564, Laws 1909 [R.L. Supp. 1909, § 5169 -- 1]. It demurred to the indictment, on the ground that the facts alleged therein did not constitute a public offense, thereby raising the question of the constitutionality of the statute. The demurrer was overruled, and pursuant to R.L. 1905, § 5409, the trial court certified to this court the question of the constitutionality of the statute, which is in these words:

"An act to prevent unlawful discrimination in the sale of milk, cream, butter fat and to provide a punishment for the same.

"Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Minnesota:

"Unfair Discrimination in Sale of Milk, Cream, etc., Prohibited.

"Section 1. Any person, firm, copartnership or corporation engaged in the business of buying milk, cream or butter fat for the purpose of manufacture who shall, with the intention of creating a monopoly or destroying the business of a competitor, discriminate between different sections, localities, communities or cities of this state by purchasing such commodity at a higher price or rate in one locality than is paid for the same commodity by said person, firm, copartnership or corporation in another locality after making due allowance for the difference, if any, in the actual cost of transportation from the locality of purchase to the locality of manufacture shall be deemed guilty of unfair discrimination and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six months."

The facts alleged in the indictment bring the case within the terms of this statute.

It is the contention of the defendant that this act violates the equality clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution, the equality clause, section 2, article 1, and sections 33 and 34, article 4, prohibiting special legislation, of our state Constitution. The question in its last analysis is whether the classification made by the act is a permissible or an arbitrary one, for the principles of classification are applicable alike to class and special legislation. A law, if the classification adopted be a proper one, is general, uniform, and equal which operates alike upon all subjects within the class. The classification, however, cannot be arbitrary, but must be based upon some reason suggested by such difference in the situation and circumstances of the subjects classified as naturally to suggest the necessity, or at least the propriety, of different legislation in respect thereto. Classification for purposes of legislation is a matter of legislative policy and discretion, and it is only when a classification is manifestly arbitrary that the courts will declare a statute unconstitutional. If there be any fair doubt in any case, it must be resolved in favor of the validity of the classification.

In construing the constitutionality of a statute, courts will take judicial notice of all facts relevant to the question; that is, in this case, relevant to the classification. Judicial notice does not depend on the actual knowledge of the judges, and they may refresh their recollections by resorting to any means they may deem safe and proper. Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264, 33 N.W. 800; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 58 N.W. 150; State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 75 N.W. 210; State v. Wagener, 77 Minn. 483, 80 N.W. 633, 778, 1134, 46 L.R.A. 442, 77 Am. St. 681; Murray v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Ramsey County, 81 Minn. 359, 84 N.W. 103, 51 L.R.A. 828, 83 Am. St. 379; State v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437, 89 N.W. 175, 57 L.R.A. 297, 89 Am. St. 571; State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402, 106 N.W. 477, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 327; State v. Standard Oil Co. 111 Minn. 85, 126 N.W. 527; State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 114 Minn. 122, 130 N.W. 545, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 494.

The question whether the classification in this case is clearly arbitrary is to be determined by the application to it of the general and well-settled principles stated. The classification in the act is limited to those engaged in the business of buying milk, cream, or butter fat for the purpose of manufacture, with the intention of creating a monopoly or destroying the business of a competitor. This by necessary implication excludes those engaged in the business of buying such commodities for any purpose other than for manufacture. The reasons urged in support of the claim that this classification is arbitrary are concisely stated by counsel for the defendant in these words:

...