Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Ark. 362

State v. McGinnis

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1881-11-15

<p>1. P-KDDMIKS : Act defining and imposing licerise on, unconstitutional.</p> <p>The Statute (Gantt’s Dig. Sec. 4376, et sequitur) defining peddlers and imposing license on them, discriminates in favor of the products and! manufactures ot this State, and against those ot other States, and is therefore unconstitutional and void.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1930

2 state decisions

10188118901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

English, C. J.

¶1On the twenty-fourth of January, 1881,. Thomas McGrinnis was charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace of Nevada county, “ with the offense of going from place to place peddling and selling goods, wares and merchandize, other than the growth, produce, or manufacture of this State, in said county,” etc. ; fined $200, and. appealed to the Circuit Court.

¶2In the Circuit Court a demurrer was interposed to the charge, which the court sustained, discharged defendant,, and the State appealed.

¶3The Statute provides that:

“ Whoever shall deal in selling of goods, wares or merchandize, other than the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, by going from place to place, either by land or water, to sell the same, is declared to be a peddler.”' Gantt’s Dig., Sec. 4376, etc.

¶4Other sections require peddlers to obtain license, and prescribe the penalty for selling without, etc. lb., Secs.. 4577, 4385, 5050-1, 1494; Millers Dig., pp. 4, 5.

¶5There is no subsequent act defining a peddler, and no act-requiring peddlers of goods, wares or merchandize, which, are the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, to obtain license.

¶6The above act clearly discriminates against the products and manufacture of other States, and in favor of the products and manufactures of this State. In Welton v. State, 1 Otto, 275, just such an act of Missouri, was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be in conflict with the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore null and void. See also State v. Kate Marsh, ante.

¶7If the Legislature deems it expedient to require peddlers 'to obtain license, and to punish them for peddling without license, no discrimination must be made against goods, etc., •of the growth, produce or manufacture of other States, etc.

¶8Affirmed.

/37/ark/362 · .json · Public domain