State v. Ford

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtLADD
Citation142 N.W. 984,161 Iowa 323
Decision Date20 September 1913
PartiesSTATE v. FORD ET AL.

161 Iowa 323
142 N.W. 984

STATE
v.
FORD ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 20, 1913.


Appeal from District Court, Wapello County; F. M. Hunter, Judge.

The defendants were accused of conveying intoxicating liquors within the state to persons not holding a permit and, on trial, acquitted by the police court. Thereupon the State appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision. From this ruling, the State appeals. Dismissed.

[142 N.W. 985]

George Cosson, Atty. Gen., and Chester W. Whitmore, of Ottumwa, for the State.

Ernest R. Mitchell, of Ottumwa, for appellees.


LADD, J.

The accusation against D. D. Ford and John Pumroy is the “violation of Code, § 2419, in conveying such liquor to one not a permit holder”; the liquor previously having been described as intoxicating. The charge is not specific but the sufficiency of the information is not questioned. The particular offense was in carrying, as employés of a drayman, three cases of beer shipped by H. Brew Company from Rock Island, Ill., via the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, to three persons at Ottumwa, Iowa; the defendants having procured the said cases from the railroad company at its depot by virtue of the order of the consignees. The defendants were acquitted in the police court and the property ordered returned. On appeal by the state, the district court affirmed the decision, holding in effect that under the so-called Wilson Act the liquors had not so arrived in Iowa as to render these subject to its laws. See, as bearing thereon, Louisville Ry. Co. v. F. W. Cook Brewing Co., 223 U. S. 70, 32 Sup. Ct. 189, 56 L. Ed. 355;State v. Wignall, 150 Iowa, 650, 128 N. W. 935, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 507;State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 106 Me. 138, 76 Atl. 265, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745, 20 Ann. Cas. 668;Gulf, etc., C. F. Ry. Co. v. State, 28 Okl. 754, 116 Pac. 176, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 456;State v. 18 Casks of Beer, 24 Okl. 786, 104 Pac. 1093, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492;State v. Kirmeyer, 88 Kan. 589, 128 Pac. 1114.

[1][2] The jurisdiction of the district court to entertain the appeal by the state was challenged and the question is again raised in this court. Unless the cause was appealable from the police to the district court this court could acquire no jurisdiction, and of course, if the district court was without authority to entertain the appeal, the power of review might not be conferred by consent or waiver, though the state has so argued, and the mere fact that the defendants did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State v. Traas, No. 45565.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 17, 1941
    ...be tried for the offense charged in that indictment. State v. Kinney, 44 Iowa 444;State v. Vail, 57 Iowa 103, 10 N.W. 297;State v. Ford, 161 Iowa 323, 142 N.W. 984;State v. Jackson, 128 Iowa 543, 105 N.W. 51; [298 N.W. 864]State v. Gilbert, 138 Iowa 335, 116 N.W. 142;State v. Keeler, 28 Iow......
  • State v. Little, No. 39875.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 13, 1929
    ...court on appeals by the state. State v. Keeler, 28 Iowa, 551;State v. Beckey, 79 Iowa, 368, 44 N. W. 679;State v. Ford, 161 Iowa, 323, 142 N. W. 984;State v. Ward, 75 Iowa, 637, 36 N. W. 765;State v. Alverson, 105 Iowa, 152, 74 N. W. 770;State v. Sexsmith, 202 Iowa, 537, 210 N. W. 555. Ther......
  • Iowa v. Buckley, No. 1--56537
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 29, 1975
    ...N.W. 220 (1927); State v. Bailey, 202 Iowa 146, 209 N.W. 403 (1926); State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa 332, 143 N.W. 1080 (1913); State v. Ford, 161 Iowa 323, 142 N.W. 984 (1913); State v. Johnson, 157 Iowa 248, 138 N.W. 458 (1912); State v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 153 Iowa 702, 133 N.W. 895 (1911); ......
  • Mohr v. Joslin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 25, 1913
    ...or without warranty, the rule manifestly does apply, especially where the grantor remains in possession. Sibley v. Bullis, 40 Iowa, 429; [142 N.W. 984]Steele v. Bank, 79 Iowa, 339, 44 N. W. 564, 7 L. R. A. 524, 18 Am. St. Rep. 370. [5] II. But it is said that, as the deed bears date Decembe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State v. Traas, No. 45565.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 17, 1941
    ...be tried for the offense charged in that indictment. State v. Kinney, 44 Iowa 444;State v. Vail, 57 Iowa 103, 10 N.W. 297;State v. Ford, 161 Iowa 323, 142 N.W. 984;State v. Jackson, 128 Iowa 543, 105 N.W. 51; [298 N.W. 864]State v. Gilbert, 138 Iowa 335, 116 N.W. 142;State v. Keeler, 28 Iow......
  • State v. Little, No. 39875.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 13, 1929
    ...court on appeals by the state. State v. Keeler, 28 Iowa, 551;State v. Beckey, 79 Iowa, 368, 44 N. W. 679;State v. Ford, 161 Iowa, 323, 142 N. W. 984;State v. Ward, 75 Iowa, 637, 36 N. W. 765;State v. Alverson, 105 Iowa, 152, 74 N. W. 770;State v. Sexsmith, 202 Iowa, 537, 210 N. W. 555. Ther......
  • Iowa v. Buckley, No. 1--56537
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 29, 1975
    ...N.W. 220 (1927); State v. Bailey, 202 Iowa 146, 209 N.W. 403 (1926); State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa 332, 143 N.W. 1080 (1913); State v. Ford, 161 Iowa 323, 142 N.W. 984 (1913); State v. Johnson, 157 Iowa 248, 138 N.W. 458 (1912); State v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 153 Iowa 702, 133 N.W. 895 (1911); ......
  • Mohr v. Joslin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 25, 1913
    ...or without warranty, the rule manifestly does apply, especially where the grantor remains in possession. Sibley v. Bullis, 40 Iowa, 429; [142 N.W. 984]Steele v. Bank, 79 Iowa, 339, 44 N. W. 564, 7 L. R. A. 524, 18 Am. St. Rep. 370. [5] II. But it is said that, as the deed bears date Decembe......
  • 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