State v. U.S. Express Co.
Decision Date | 17 February 1914 |
Citation | 164 Iowa 112,145 N.W. 451 |
Parties | STATE v. UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. (HAMM BREWING CO., INTERVENER). |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Wapello County; F. M. Hunter, Judge.
Action in equity to enjoin an alleged liquor nuisance; to enjoin defendant from distributing or delivering intoxicating liquors, or aiding in the distribution or delivery thereof, contrary to law, from transporting, conveying, and carrying, or distributing liquors, either in cars, wagons, or otherwise, contrary to law, in Wapello county, Iowa, or in the judicial district in which said county is located; for attorney's fees, etc. The defendant answered, pleading in substance that it is a common carrier, engaged in interstate commerce; that all that it did, or was charged with doing, was shipping intoxicating liquors in interstate commerce, without knowledge of any unlawful intent on the part of the consignee. It also pleaded that it did not violate any of the laws of this state or of Congress, and that, if said laws are so construed as to make their acts illegal, they are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the state of Iowa. The Hamm Brewing Company, a corporation organized under the laws of, and doing a brewing business in, the state of Minnesota, intervened, claiming that it was engaged in the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in interstate commerce; that such business is lawful, and that it was using the express company as a means for doing its business; that it was making sales to different persons in many states, to individuals for their own personal use, as well as for sale after delivery to them. They also pleaded the unconstitutionality of the laws of this state and of Congress, particularly if they be held to prohibit the sale and delivery to a common carrier of intoxicating liquors for transportation to a nonresident of the state in which they do business, and for the consignee's own personal use. The case was tried to the court on these issues, resulting in a decree dismissing plaintiff's petition, and the appeal is from that decree. Reversed and remanded.George Cosson, Atty. Gen., L. H. Salinger, of Carroll, Chester W. Whitmore, of Ottumwa, C. A. Robbins, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George L. Gillies, of Ottumwa, for the State.
Parker, Parrish & Miller, of Des Moines (Lawrence Maxwell and Joseph S. Graydon, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee United States Express Co.
E. R. Mitchell, of Ottumwa (Lawrence Maxwell and Joseph S. Graydon, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief, for appellee Hamm Brewing Co.
The nature of the action as indicated by the prayer of the petition has already been stated; but to fully understand the case, it is deemed advisable to quote some of the allegations of that petition. They are, in substance, as follows: We do this to show that this is not a criminal proceeding or an action to enforce a penalty under section 2419 of the Iowa Code of 1897. The plaintiff in its pleading seems to place some reliance upon that section, doubtless to show that the act of transporting liquor after it is brought into this state in interstate commerce is interdicted by our law, and in doing these acts it was unlawfully handling liquors, or aiding and abetting others therein for the reason that the handling of liquor in this state is unlawful, and that all who aid or abet therein are guilty of a nuisance, and may be enjoined in a civil proceeding. So much for the issues.
The case was tried upon a stipulation, and certain concessions of fact, supplemented by some oral testimony, and the trial court made the following, among other, findings of fact:
These findings of fact are not challenged by any of the parties to the controversy, and we need only say in this connection that, in so far as this case is concerned, the question of purchase and shipment to a consignee for his own personal use is entirely eliminated, as was the question of the criminal liability of either the defendant or the intervener. The findings of fact, even if challenged, have sufficient support in the testimony, and we accept them as correct.
[1] It is also conceded, as we understand, that in virtue of our prohibitory law, and the procedure provided for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Peede
... ... Looney, Atty. Gen., W. A. Keeling, C. M. Cureton, and C. E. Lane, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State ... HARPER, J ... This case involves the proper construction ... Smith, Ark., it delivered to the Wells Fargo Express Company, at its office in Ft. Smith, Ark., the four quarts of whisky to be shipped and transported ... It is not for us to question or conjecture why the Legislature so provided in that section dealing with the ... ...
-
Gottstein v. Lister
... ... Lister, Governor, and others, state and county officials, ... from enforcing the provisions of an initiative measure ... recall, which was held by us in Cudihee v. Phelps, ... 76 Wash. 314, 136 P. 367, ... [153 P. 598] to comply with ... that but one change was made, viz., to express a reservation ... of legislative authority in the people. That such authority ... could ... ...
-
State v. U.S. Express Co.
... ... v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 (22 S.Ct. 857, 46 L.Ed. 1113); ... Morgan v. Board of Health, 118 U.S. 455 (6 S.Ct ... 1114, 30 L.Ed. 237) ... Apt ... quotations might be made from each and all of these cases, ... which hold that such an act as the one before us is either ... permissive in its nature, or adoptive of the laws of the ... states, and that in either event there is no delegation of ... power to the states. It will be noticed too, in reading these ... cases, that the objection that there might be as many ... [145 N.W. 460] ... rules as ... ...
-
Kirtley v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
... ... to any person ... in any prohibition district in the state of ... Idaho, or to any point or place in this state where the sale ... of intoxicating liquors ... the shipment. (American Express Co. v. Beer, 107 ... Miss. 528, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 127, 65 So. 575; H. Clark & ... Sons v. Southern ... have more than a persuasive value in guiding us to a correct ... interpretation of the section of our own act here in ... question ... ...