Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Kent Prosecuting Attorney

283 N.W. 686, 287 Mich. 555
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided February 2, 1939·No. Docket No. 45, Calendar No. 40,103.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

Butzel, C. J.

Plaintiff Sperry & Hutchinson Company deals in trading stamps given by retail merchants to cash customers. The stamps are redeemable in cash or merchandise. Plaintiff Broek-Ederle Company is engaged in the retail sale of gasoline and gives these stamps to its customers. Upon being threatened with prosecution for violation of *556 Act No. 282, § 6, Pub. Acts 1937 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1937, § 9829-16, Stat. Ann. 1938 Cum. Supp. § 28.78 [6]), plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin defendant prosecutor from bringing such threatened action and claimed that section 6, was unconstitutional. The trial judge so held and defendant appeals.

We refer to our decision in People v. Victor, ante, 506. The trial judge was correct and his decree enjoining prosecution is affirmed, but without costs, a public question being involved.

Wiest, Sharpe, Chandler, and North, JJ., concurred with Butzel, C. J.

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

Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Kent Prosecuting Attorney, 283 N.W. 686, 287 Mich. 555 (Mich. 1939).

283 N.W. 686 (Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Kent Prosecuting Attorney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garden Spot Market, Inc. v. Byrne
378 P.2d 220 (Montana Supreme Court, 1963)
State v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.
153 A.2d 691 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1959)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Hoegh
65 N.W.2d 410 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1954)