City of St. Louis v. Liessing
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Crimina] Correction.— Eon. Hiram N. Moore, Judge. (1) The production, sale and distribution of dairy products is a legitimate and lawful occupation or business, conducted as a matter of right and not as a privilege.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Crimina] Correction.— Eon. Hiram N. Moore, Judge. (1) The production, sale and distribution of dairy products is a legitimate and lawful occupation or business, conducted as a matter of right and not as a privilege. Unusual and arbitrary restrictions cannot be lawfully imposed upon it by ordinance, nor can harsh, expensive and burdensome provisions be enacted against persons engaged in an innocent and useful business so as to deprive them of the right to devote their property thereto and obstruct their freedom and liberty. Ex parte Withness, 98 Cal. 78; Matter…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
This is a prosecution by the city of St. Louis against the defendant, for violation of section 18 of ordinance 20808 of said city. The defendant was fined and appealed to the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. The third count in the information is as follows: “It is further charged that T. Liessing, the defendant aforesaid, on the 14th day of January, 1903, and on divers other days and times prior thereto, did, opposite 3027 S: Broadway, in the city of St. Louis and State of Missouri, then and there control, carry and expose for sale milk, which said milk did show on analysis less than…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Gundling v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Fischer v. St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- People v. . KiblerNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- State v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Bellerive Investment Co. v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Borden Company v. ThomasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
- State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. HedrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- Consumer Contact Co. v. State Department of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1980
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.