State v. . Perry
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from W. J. Adams, J., May Term, 1909, of Citmbbb-LAND. Indictment for violation of an ordinance of tbe city of Fay-etteville.
Read the full summary
Appeal from W. J. Adams, J., May Term, 1909, of Citmbbb-LAND. Indictment for violation of an ordinance of tbe city of Fay-etteville. Tbe ordinance is as follows : “Sec. 13. No person shall sell any fresh fish within the incorporate limits of the city of Fayetteville, outside of said market house in said city: Provided, that fresh fish which are caught in the streams and waters in Cumberland County, when offered for sale in a fresh condition, shortly after they are caught, .may be sold within the said city, at such places and'points as may not be prohibited by law.” The defendant admitted that…
1Opinion of the CourtBeowN, J.
The only questions presented by this appeal which we deem it necessary to discuss are the contentions of the .defendant that the ordinance is ultra vires aild also in conflict with Article I, section 31, of oúr State Constitution, which forbids monopolies.
It appears to us that the passage of the ordinance in question was a valid exercise of the police power vested generally in municipal corporations.. The power of the public 'authorities to inspect and control the sale of articles of food intended for consumption is undoubted, the object being the preservation of the health of the community.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Intendant and Commissioners v. . SorrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1853
- City of Palestine v. BarnesTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Lumberton Improvement Co. v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. KucNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- State v. . ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1852