Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Cal. 204

Ex parte Thomas

California Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-10-06

<p>Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce—Peddler’s License—Municipal Ordinance Imposing. — An ordinance of a board of supervisors which imposes a license tax upon every traveling merchant,, hawker, or peddler who vends goods, wares, or merchandise of any kind, other than the manufactures or productions of this state, without requiring a license for vending the manufactures or productions of this state, is in conflict with the constitution of the United States, in that it is an attempt to regulate commerce between the states.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1926

2 state decisions

Relies on Welton v. The State of Missouri · County of Mobile v. Kimball · Case of the State Freight Tax Reading Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-10-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court.

¶1This case involves the constitutionality of section 14 of an ordinance passed by the board of supervisors of Alameda County. The section referred to is in these words: —

“ Every traveling merchant, hawker, or peddler who vends goods, wares, or merchandise of any kind, other than the manufactures or productions of this state, or butchers’ meat, must pay a license tax of ten dollars per month, unless he uses a wagon, or one or more animals, for the purpose of vending such goods, wares, or merchandise, in which case he must pay a license tax of fifteen dollars per month.”

¶2No license is required for vending goods, wares, or merchandise which are the manufacture or product of this state, except butchers’ meat.

¶3The applicant for this writ was convicted of a viola*205tion of this ordinance in selling sewing-machines manufactured in another state.

¶4It is contended that this ordinance is in violation of the federal constitution, in that it is a regulation of commerce, control over which is by the supreme law of the land vested in Congress.

¶5The identical question here presented was passed on by the Supreme Court of the United States in Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, and in Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344. The statutes considered in the cases cited were of the same character as the ordinance in question herein, and they were held to be unconstitutional. (See also Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 425; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232; Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.)

¶6In accordance with the judgments in the cases above cited, we are bound to hold that the ordinance before us is unconstitutional and void.

¶7The prisoner must be discharged from custody.

¶8So ordered.

/71/cal/204 · .json · Public domain