City of Duluth v. Bloom
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Maximilian Bloom, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of Duluth, Roger S. Powell, J., made August 10, 1893, denying his motion to vacate and set aside his conviction.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Maximilian Bloom, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of Duluth, Roger S. Powell, J., made August 10, 1893, denying his motion to vacate and set aside his conviction. On June 3, 1893, Daniel Kenna made complaint on oath in the Municipal Court that Bloom carried on and conducted the business of dealer in second hand goods at No. 108 West First Street in Duluth, without having first obtained a license so to do, contrary to Ordinance No. 52 passed May 5, 1890. A copy of this ordinance is printed in the margin.1 A warrant was issued and Bloom was arrested and…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
Tbe defendant was convicted, under an ordinance of tbe city of Duluth, of “carrying on and conducting tbe business of dealer in secondhand goods without first having obtained a license so to do.”
Tbe only question which we find it necessary to consider is whether defendant’s business came within tbe provisions of tbe ordinance.
It appears that be kept a store in which be dealt in new and secondhand furniture, exclusively. We think tbe evidence sufficient to justify tbe conclusion that bis dealing in secondhand furniture was not merely occasional and incidental, but a regular and principal part…
2Cited by15 opinions
- State v. ShapiroCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1917
- Commonwealth v. RingoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Grossman v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- City of New York v. VandewaterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Mayer v. TOWN OF MONTCLAIR BD. OF ADJUSTMENTSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.