City of St. Louis v. Cafferata

24 Mo. 94
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 24 Mo. 94 (City of St. Louis v. Cafferata) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of St. Louis v. Cafferata, 24 Mo. 94 (Mo. 1856).

Opinion

LEONARD, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The ordinance under which the defendant was convicted was a lawful exercise of the power given to the local government “ to make such rules, regulations, by-laws and ordinances for the purpose of maintaining the peace, good government and order of the city, and the trade, commerce and manufactures thereof, as they may deem expedient, not repugnant to the constitution and laws of this state.” (City Charter of March 3, 1851, art. 3, sec. 2.) The police regulations of the state upon this subject, to be found in the 34th and 35th sections of [97]*97the 8th article of the act concerning crimes and punishments, have nothing to do with the present proceeding. The general legislature have regulated the subject for the whole state as they deemed proper, and the city government have made such local regulations as they thought fit for the good order and peace of the city. The provisions of the two laws are different, but there is no such inconsistency between them as to annul or in any way affect the provisions of the local law, (St. Louis v. Benton, 11 Mo. 61); and the defendant was subject to both laws and amenable to the penalties they prescribed. The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Vogt v. Reynolds
244 S.W. 929 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)
State ex rel. Smith v. Wertz
114 S.E. 242 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)
Siddons v. Edmonston
42 App. D.C. 459 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1914)
Ex Parte Simmons
1911 OK CR 99 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
City of St. Louis v. Klausmeier
112 S.W. 516 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
City of St. Louis v. DeLassus
104 S.W. 12 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
State v. Ray.
60 L.R.A. 634 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
State v. Muir
86 Mo. App. 642 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
State v. Gustin
53 S.W. 421 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
Kansas City v. Hallett
59 Mo. App. 160 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Thelsen v. McDavid
34 Fla. 440 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1894)
City of Pilot Grove v. McCormick
56 Mo. App. 530 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
State ex rel. Reid v. Walbridge
24 S.W. 457 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Kansas City v. Neal
49 Mo. App. 72 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Hood v. Von Glahn
14 S.E. 564 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1892)
City of Plattsburg v. Trimble
46 Mo. App. 459 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Monroe v. City of Lawrence
44 Kan. 607 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
Van Buren v. Texarkana
53 Ark. 368 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1890)
City of St. Louis v. Schoenbusch
95 Mo. 618 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Village of Chebanse v. McPherson
15 Ill. App. 311 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Mo. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-louis-v-cafferata-mo-1856.