People v. Tolman

111 N.W. 772, 148 Mich. 305, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 529
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided April 30, 1907·No. Docket No. 133·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

111 N.W. 772 (People v. Tolman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Damm
149 N.W. 1002 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
State v. Donovan
132 N.W. 698 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1911)
Ollre v. State
123 S.W. 1116 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1909)
People v. Gordon
120 N.W. 578 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
People v. Henze
112 N.W. 491 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)