People v. Tolman

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Tolman

111 N.W. 772, 148 Mich. 305, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 529

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1907

DocketDocket No. 133

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 111 N.W. 772 (People v. Tolman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Tolman, 111 N.W. 772, 148 Mich. 305, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 529 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

(after stating the facts). The instructions were right. This court has never held that an overruling necessity may not excuse entrance to a saloon on Sunday. It has expressly determined that the proprietor must, at his peril, .see that no necessity exists for keeping the same open by carrying on any other business therein which would require the doors to be open or for persons to enter therein. People v. Waldvogel, 49 Mich. 337; People v. Blake, 52 Mich. 566; People v. Cummerford, 58 Mich. 328; People v. Schottey, 116 Mich. 1; People v. Kriesel, 136 Mich. 80; People v. Crowley, 90 Mich. 366; People v. James, 100 Mich. 522; People v. Bowkus, 109 Mich. 360.

The conviction is affirmed.

McAlvay, O. J., and Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

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

Ostrander, J.

(after stating the facts). The instructions were right. This court has never held that an overruling necessity may not excuse entrance to a saloon on Sunday. It has expressly determined that the proprietor must, at his peril, .see that no necessity exists for keeping the same open by carrying on any other business therein which would require the doors to be open or for persons to enter therein. People v. Waldvogel, 49 Mich. 337; People v. Blake, 52 Mich. 566; People v. Cummerford, 58 Mich. 328; People v. Schottey, 116 Mich. 1; People v. Kriesel, 136 Mich. 80; People v. Crowley, 90 Mich. 366; People v. James, 100 Mich. 522; People v. Bowkus, 109 Mich. 360.

The conviction is affirmed.

McAlvay, O. J., and Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.W. 772, 148 Mich. 305, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tolman-mich-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack