Hotchkiss v. District of Columbia
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
In error to tbe Police Court of the District of Columbia. The Court iu the opinion stated the facts as follows: This case is here on writ of error to the police court of the District of Columbia.
Read the full summary
In error to tbe Police Court of the District of Columbia. The Court iu the opinion stated the facts as follows: This case is here on writ of error to the police court of the District of Columbia. Plaintiff in error, Susan H. Hotchkiss, was convicted of violating the following provisions of what is known as the eight-hour law of the District of Columbia: “That no female shall be employed in any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, or restaurant, or telegraph or telephone establishment or office, or by any express or transportation company in the District of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Van Orsdel
The only error assigned worthy of consideration relates to the question whether or not the place thus conducted by plaintiff in error was a mercantile or manufacturing establishment. We think the evidence shows that she conducted a manufacturing establishment. It is not easy to define just what constitutes manufacture. It may, however, be defined to consist not alone of converting raw material into the manufactured article, hut of converting a manufactured article into a different product. In Tide Water Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U. S. 210, 43 L. ed. 139, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 837, the word…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tide Water Oil Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- State v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Graham v. HendricksSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- District of Columbia v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1947
- District of Columbia v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1947
- Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1939