State v. Zotalis

214 N.W. 766, 172 Minn. 132
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 8, 1927
DocketNo. 26,136.
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 214 N.W. 766 (State v. Zotalis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Zotalis, 214 N.W. 766, 172 Minn. 132 (Mich. 1927).

Opinion

Dibble, J.

The defendant Avas convicted of the violation of G. S. 1923, § 5814, Avhich prohibits anyone not a registered pharmacist or a dealer having such a pharmacist in charge of his place of business from retailing drugs or medicines or poisons, excepting, hoAvever, 23 articles of common use. He appeals from the judgment.

The defendant conducts a confectionery store in Minneapolis. He is not a pharmacist and does not employ one. He sold aspirin and for selling it Avas convicted under the statute. The aspirin was in a container, with a label stating that it contained five-grain aspirin tablets, that a dose was one or two tablets, and that it was distributed by a designated laboratory and chemical company of Minneapolis.

*133 G. S. 1923, § 5805, provides that the term “drugs, medicines and poisons” shall include all substances commonly kept in drug stores and used in compounding medicines or sold for medicinal purposes. Aspirin is a coal tar product commonly kept in drug stores and is used and sold for medicinal purposes. It is a drug or medicine within the statute. It is not a proprietary or patent medicine.

The statute should be sustained if enacted with reasonable reference to public health or welfare. If intended merely to give a monopoly to pharmacists or druggists by restricting sales to them it is not sustainable. It is only sustainable as a police measure.

The legislature thought that the dangers incident to its sale justified regulation and that a restriction of sales to pharmacists or to those under their supervision was effective. It is true that no technical skill is required in making a sale. This does not prove the statute invalid. As remarked by the trial court, the pharmacist knows where to procure a pure and genuine article and his prescribing physicians will require him to furnish a pure drug.

It is not questioned that the sale of drugs, medicines and poisons may be regulated in the exercise of the police power. State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 42 N. W. 781; State v. Hovorka, 100 Minn. 249, 110 N. W. 870, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1272, 10 Ann. Cas. 398; 19 C. J. pp. 772-774, §§ 5-13. The restriction of the sale of aspirin as provided by the statute is within the legislative discretion. State Board v. Matthews, 197 N. Y. 353, 90 N. E. 966, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1013; People v. Smith, 231 N. Y. 531, 132 N. E. 876; State Board v. Bellinger, 138 App. Div. 12, 122 N. Y. S. 651. It may be mentioned that G. S. 1923, § 5805, permits the sale of a commonly used medicine put up for sale by a registered pharmacist when the shop of the seller is more than two miles from a drug store. This provision was held valid in State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 42 N. W. 781.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
115 N.W.2d 643 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1962)
Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Board of Pharmacy
12 A.D.2d 180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Board of Pharmacy
22 Misc. 2d 131 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
White v. State Board of Pharmacy
285 A.D. 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Proprietary Ass'n v. Bd. of Pharmacy of NJ
106 A.2d 272 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1954)
State v. Wakeen
57 N.W.2d 364 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1953)
Culver v. Nelson
54 N.W.2d 7 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
State v. Combs
130 P.2d 947 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1942)
State v. Stephens
59 P.2d 54 (Montana Supreme Court, 1936)
People v. McClain
33 P.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1934)
People v. Garcia
32 P.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1934)
State v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
237 N.W. 817 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Missildine v. Jewett Market Co.
228 N.W. 288 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1929)
In Re Gray
274 P. 974 (California Supreme Court, 1929)
D. S. Kresge Co. v. Ottinger
29 F.2d 762 (S.D. New York, 1928)
State v. Levine
217 N.W. 342 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 N.W. 766, 172 Minn. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zotalis-minn-1927.