State v. Deschamp
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Scott Circuit Court. John S. Little, Judge. Every presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of the act. Mugler v. Kansas,-123 U. S., 661. The most that has been claimed for the commercial power of the Federal government, under the inter-state commerce clause of the constitution, was the right of introduction into the State and affording the facilities belonging to similar articles in the State with the same restrictions and burdens imposed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Scott Circuit Court. John S. Little, Judge. Every presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of the act. Mugler v. Kansas,-123 U. S., 661. The most that has been claimed for the commercial power of the Federal government, under the inter-state commerce clause of the constitution, was the right of introduction into the State and affording the facilities belonging to similar articles in the State with the same restrictions and burdens imposed. Welton v. Missouri, 1 Otto, 275 ; Tiernan v. Rinker, 12 Otto, 123; Webber v. Virginia, 13 Otto, 344. The protection is…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
Appellee, Deschamp, was indicted for a violation of the act of the general assembly of the State of Arkansas, entitled, ‘ ‘An act to regulate the sale of wine in the State of Arkansas,” approved April 3, 1889, which provides:
‘ ‘ Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person to sell wine at any place in this State except as authorized in this act.
‘‘Sec. 2. Any person who grows or raises grapes or berries may make wine thereof, and sell the same upon the premises where such grapes or berries are grown and the wine made, in quantities not less than one quart; such person may also sell the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Leisy v. HardinSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Walling v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Webber v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Guy v. BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Leep v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Levy v. AlbrightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Cotham v. CoffmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Oliver v. Southern Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Commonwealth v. PetranichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.