WATTERS
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

U.S. | 1918-12-09
No. 58
248 U.S. 65 Supreme Court of the United States (1918) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 129 · 39 S. Ct. 29 · 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1689 · SCDB 1918-012
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A Michigan peddler was convicted and fined under a city ordinance requiring a license for house-to-house canvassing and sales, even though most of his business involved interstate commerce. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that because the peddler sold two cans of toilet cream that were already at rest within the state, the ordinance could constitutionally apply to that intrastate transaction regardless of the interstate character of his overall business.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was complained of for having engaged in peddling goods and having canvassed and taken orders from house to house for the sale of goods in the city of Munising, Michigan, without having received a license as required by a city ordinance. It may be assumed that much the greater part of his business was interstate commerce and free from any obligation that the ordinance imposed. But in the course of his business he did sell two cans of toilet cream that were at rest in the State before the sale, and it is admitted that this transaction was not protected from state legislation. Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S.

504. On this ground the Supreme Court of the State sustained a conviction and fine. 192 Michigan, 462. The ordinance makes it unlawful to engage in peddling.any goods or to canvass from house to house for the sale of property on subscription without a license, which may be had on payment of specified fees.' The plaintiff in error argues that the application of this law should be determined by the general. course of business, not by an isolated transaction, and the argument has force. It depends, however, on the construction of the ordinance, and as the State Court has construed it to apply to and forbid the act proved, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sprout v. City of S. Bend, 277 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1928)
    …171], require payment of an occupation tax from one engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S. 692; Osborne v. Florida, 164 U. S. 650; Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 60; Watters v. Michigan, 248 U. S. 65; Raley & Bros. v. Richardson, 264 U. S. 157. Compare Interstate Busses Corporation v. Holyoke Street Ry. Co., 273 U. S. 45; Arnold v. Hanna, 276 U. S. 591. And it may delegate a part of that power to a municipality. Compare Postal Telegraph-Cable…
  • Wagner v. City of Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1919)
  • The Am. Indians Residing on the Maricopa-Ak Chin Reservation v. The United States, 667 F.2d 980 (Ct. Cl. 1981)
    …, 23 Stat. 337. . Noble v. Union River Logging R.R., 147 U.S. 165, 13 S.Ct. 271, 37 L.Ed. 123 (1893); Washington & Idaho R.R. v. Coeur D’Alene Ry. & Nav. Co., 160 U.S. 77, 16 S.Ct. 231, 40 L.Ed. 355 (1895); Van Dyke v. Arizona E. R.R., 248 U.S. 49, 39 S.Ct. 29, 63 L.Ed. 119 (1918); Northern Pac. R.R. v. Smith, 171 U.S. 260, 18 S.Ct. 794, 43 L.Ed. 157 (1898) (Special Act); Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 1 S.Ct. 336, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882) (Special Land Grant/Right-of-Way Act). . Great N. Ry. v. United St…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw