Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Baldwin

242 A.D. 881

Opinion

Determination confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. [882]*882Rhodes, Crapser and Heffeman, JJ., concur; Bliss, J., dissents; Hill, P. J., dissents, with a memorandum. Hill, P. J. I dissent. This petitioner began business as a milk dealer in the city of New York on May 27, 1933. The statute in effect requires that a dealer beginning business after April 10, 1933, shall sell its milk for one cent a quart more than a dealer who was in business before April 10, 1933, received for the same grade of milk. This as effectively prevents a person from beginning business as though the statute in terms contained a direct prohibition. The reasonableness of the regulations prescribed by the Legislature in the milk emergency is subject to court review. A court may consider “ the legitimacy of the conclusions drawn from the facts found.” (People v. Nebbia, 262 N. Y. 259, 268.) The facts before the Legislature did not justify giving a monopoly to dealers in business on April 10, 1933. Petitioner’s constitutional right to engage in a lawful business has been abridged.

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

Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Baldwin, 242 A.D. 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

242 A.D. 881 (Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Nebbia
186 N.E. 694 (New York Court of Appeals, 1933)