People ex rel. Valentine v. Berrien Circuit Judge

50 L.R.A. 493, 124 Mich. 664
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided September 24, 1900·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Acts of this character, when valid, must find a reason for their existence in the police power of the State. The act is not aimed at brokers, in the ordinary meaning of that word. It is not aimed at commission merchants generally. It is aimed solely at commission merchants who engage in the business of selling farm produce for producers upon commission. It provides 'that such a merchant shall pay a fee and execute a bond, as conditions precedent to doing business. The condition of the bond is the honest and faithful performance of his contracts. The business of buying and selling on commission has existed ever since commerce began. There are and always have been dishonest men engaged in it, as there are and always have been in every other branch of business. There are and always have been dishonest sellers, who will pack their produce in such a manner as to deceive. It would be as reasonable to require the latter to give bond to properly pack their produce. In every such case the common law provides an ample remedy for redress to the injured party for breach of contract. There is no more reason why a commission merchant should pay a license fee, and execute a bond to pay his debts and to do his business honestly, than there is that any other merchant should pay a like fee, and file a like bond to properly do his business and pay his debts. The business requires no regulation, any more than any other mercantile pursuit. There is nothing in it hostile to the comfort, health, morals, or even convenience, of a community. It is carried on by private persons in private buildings, and in a manner no different from that in which the merchant selling hardware or groceries or dry-goods carries on his business. The law can find no support in the police power inherent in the State. It is not like the liquor traffic, which, under the decisions of every court, is subject to the police power, [667]*667because of the injury it does to the health, morals, and peace of the community, and may be prohibited altogether. Neither is there anything in it requiring regulation, as do hack-drivers, .peddlers, keepers of pawnshops, and the like. The legislature of this State is not empowered by the Constitution to regulate contracts between its citizens who are engaged in legitimate commercial business, or to require any class of persons to pay a fee for the right to carry on business, or to give a bond to perform their contracts which other parties may choose to make with them. The Constitution guarantees to citizens the right to engage in lawful business, unhampered by legislative restrictions, where no restrictions are required for the protection of the public. We are compelled to hold this law void, because (1) it is class legislation, and (2) it is an unjustifiable interference with the right of citizens to carry on legitimate business.

It is unnecessary to discuss the other questions raised. The writ is denied.

The other Justices concurred.

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

People ex rel. Valentine v. Berrien Circuit Judge, 50 L.R.A. 493, 124 Mich. 664 (Mich. 1900).

50 L.R.A. 493 (People ex rel. Valentine v. Berrien Circuit Judge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Central Advertising Co. v. City of Ann Arbor
218 N.W.2d 27 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1974)
Superx Drugs Corp. v. State Board of Pharmacy
146 N.W.2d 1 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1965)
Arlan's Department Stores, Inc. v. Attorney General
130 N.W.2d 892 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1964)
Shakespeare Co. v. Lippman's Tool Shop Sporting Goods Co.
54 N.W.2d 268 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1952)
People v. Breen
40 N.W.2d 778 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1950)
Ritholz v. City of Detroit
13 N.W.2d 283 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1944)
State v. Chisesi
175 So. 453 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1937)
Carolene Products Co. v. Thomson
267 N.W. 608 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
City of Newnan v. Atlanta Laundries Inc.
162 S.E. 497 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Arnold v. Hanna
290 S.W. 416 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1926)
Harrigan & Reid Co. v. Burton
195 N.W. 60 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Peninsular Stove Co. v. Burton
189 N.W. 880 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
State ex rel. Brewster v. Mohler
158 P. 408 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1916)
City of Memphis v. State ex rel. Ryals
133 Tenn. 83 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1915)
In Re Cardinal
150 P. 348 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
State v. Bowen & Co.
149 P. 330 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)
People v. Brazee
149 N.W. 1053 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Alabama & N. O. Transp. Co. v. Doyle
210 F. 173 (E.D. Michigan, 1914)
Musco v. United Surety Co.
132 A.D. 300 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Maclam v. City of Marquette
111 N.W. 1079 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)