Town of Pacific Junction v. Dyer

64 Iowa 38
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 7, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 64 Iowa 38 (Town of Pacific Junction v. Dyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Town of Pacific Junction v. Dyer, 64 Iowa 38 (iowa 1884).

Opinion

Adams, J.

The information charged the defendant with selling goods as a transient merchant, within the limits of the town of Pacific Junction, without a license. For the purpose of showing that a license ivas _necessary, the information set out an ordinance, which provides that transient mer[39]*39cliants shall pay a license of $25 per month, or $200 per year; and it defines transient merchants to be “every nonresident person who shall sell, exchange, or dispose of any goods, wares or merchandise of his own, or of other non-resident owners.”

The object of the ordinance appears to he to discriminate in favor of resident merchants of Pacific Junction, and against all others. In our opinion it is unconstitutional. A law of Iowa discriminating against non-resident merchants of Iowa would he in conflict with Art. 1, Sec. 8, of the constitution of the United States, which bestows upon congress the power to regulate commerce between the states. A law of Iowa discriminating in favor of resident merchants of Pacific Junction, and against other resident merchants of Iowa, would he in conflict with Art. 1, Sec. 6, of the constitution of Iowa, which provides that laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation. The town council of Pacific Junction derives its power from the legislature of the state, and cannot do what the legislature could not do. The case at bar falls substantially under The City of Marshalltown v. Blum, 58 Iowa, 184. Ve think that the demurrer was rightly sustained.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Whipple v. City of South Milwaukee
261 N.W. 235 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
In re Irish for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
250 P. 1056 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)
State v. Manhattan Oil Co.
203 N.W. 801 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Mettler v. City of Ottumwa
197 Iowa 187 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
Ideal Tea Co. v. Salem
150 P. 852 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
State v. . Williams
73 S.E. 1000 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
City of Ottumwa v. Zekind
95 Iowa 622 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)
City of Stuart v. Cunningham
20 L.R.A. 430 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1893)
State ex rel. Iowa Commission of Pharmacy v. Gouss
85 Iowa 21 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1892)
Trescott v. City of Waterloo
26 F. 592 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Iowa 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-pacific-junction-v-dyer-iowa-1884.