Voight v. Wright
Decision Date | 25 May 1891 |
Citation | 141 U.S. 62,11 S.Ct. 855,35 L.Ed. 638 |
Parties | VOIGHT et al. v. WRIGHT |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. E. Health, for plaintiffs in error.
This was an action brought in 1886 in a justice's court in Norfolk, state of Virginia, by Wright, the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error, R. P. Voight & Co., to recover $15 for fees alleged to be due to the plaintiff for inspection of flour. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and an appeal taken to the corporation court of the city of Norfolk, by which court the judgment was affirmed. This being the highest court of the state in which a decision in the suit could be had, a writ of error to the same was sued out of this court, and the case is now here for review. The question in the case has respect to the constitutionality of a law of Virginia, passed in March, 1867, by which it was declared as follows: This law was afterwards carried into the Code of 1873, constituting the tenth and eleventh sections of the eighty-sixth chapter of the said Code. The laws also gave to the inspector a fee of two cents for each barrel inspected. There was no law requiring flour manufactured in Virginia to be thus inspected as a condition of selling it or offering it for sale, though by the inspection laws of the state manufacturers of flour might have their flour so inspected if they saw fit. It may be proper to add that the law in question is now repealed. On the trial of the cause in the corporation court the following bill of exceptions was taken, to-wit:
The state of Virginia has had a system of inspection laws from an early period; but they have related to articles produced in the state, and the main purpose of the inspection required has been to prepare the articles for exportation, in order to preserve the credit of the exports of the state in foreign markets, as well as to certify their genuineness and purity for the benefit of purchasers generally. Chief Justice MARSHALL, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said: 'The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labor of a country; to fit them for exportation, or, it may be, for domestic use.' 9 Wheat. 203. In Brown v. Maryland, speaking of the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bixman
...is really an inspection law. If it is, we cannot interfere with it on account of supposed excessiveness of fees." Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62, 11 Sup. Ct. 855, 35 L. Ed. 638, is also cited, but a reference to the case will show it was decided on the ground that the statute of Virginia wa......
-
Commonwealth v. Huntley
... ... 161, 10 S.Ct. 725; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S ... 313, 10 S.Ct. 862; Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, ... 11 S.Ct. 213; and Voight v. Wright, 141 U.S. 62, 11 ... S.Ct. 855. See, also, In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 11 ... S.Ct. 865; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 61, 11 ... ...
-
Haskell v. Cowham
... ... 413; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313, 10 ... Sup.Ct. 862, 34 L.Ed. 455; Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 ... U.S. 78, 11 Sup.Ct. 213, 34 L.Ed. 862; Voight v ... Wright, 141 U.S. 62, 11 Sup.Ct. 855, 35 L.Ed. 638 ... The ... power to regulate commerce among the states was carved out of ... ...
-
William Austin v. State of Tennessee
...Com. Rep. 485, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 35 L. ed. 649, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 851; Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62, 35 L. ed. 638, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 855; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. We have thus, first, the expres......