ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens

Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Manufacture and Sale Manufacture and sale of goods.-Under the police power the States have made regulations relating to merchandise, and such regulations have been upheld by the courts where inequality of protection has been shown not to exist.

National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U. S. 115.
Central Lbr. Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157.
Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540.

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. St. Louis, 238 U. S. 41.
McFarland v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 241 U. S. 79.
Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U. S. 413.
International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199.
Lemieux v. Young, 211 U. S. 489.

Kidd, etc., Co. v. Musselman 217 U. S. 461.

Broadnax v. Missouri, 219 U. S. 285.

Ozan Lbr. Co. v. Union County Bank, 207 U. S. 251.

Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621.

Armour v. North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510.

Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260.

Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34.

Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U. S. 334.

Rippey v. Texas, 193 U. S. 509.

Cox v. Texas, 202 U. S. 446.

Eberle v. Michigan, 232 U. S. 700.

Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446.

Adams v. Milwaukee, 228 U. S. 572.

Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 199 U. S. 552.

St. John v. New York, 201 U. S. 633.

Hutchinson Ice Cream Co. v. Iowa, 242 U. S. 153.

Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 683.

Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238.

Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183.

Heath & Milligan Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338.
Corn Products Ref. Co. v. Eddy, 249 U. S. 427.
Raley & Bros. v. Richardson, 264 U. S. 157.

Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U. S. 171.

Options to buy or sell grain at a future time.-In holding that the grain futures act of Illinois was not unconstitutional, it was said in Booth v. Illinois (184 U. S. 425):

If, looking at all the circumstances that attend, or which may ordinarily attend, the pursuit of a particular calling, the State thinks that certain admitted evils can not be successfully reached unless that calling be actually prohibited, the courts can not interfere, unless, looking through mere forms and at the substance of the matter, they can say that the statute enacted professedly to protect the public morals has no real or substantial relation to that object, but is a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights secured by the fundamental law (p. 429).

See also

Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623.
Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313.

Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78.

Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62.

Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, as to sales of stock on margin.

Citizens Nat. Bank v. Durr, 257 U. S. 99, as to membership in stock exchange.

Intoxicating liquors.-In holding that the Michigan local option act of 1889 was not unconstitutional under this pro

See same subject, pp. 605, 685, and 747.

Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Intoxicants

Amend 14.-Rights of Citizens vision of the fourteenth amendment on account of discrimina tion in making certain specific exceptions to the general prohibition, the court said in Eberle v. Michigan (232 U. S. 701):

Nor can the judgment be reversed because the original act, while prohibiting liquor to be sold by merchants permitted it to be sold by druggists for medicinal, mechanical, or scientific purposes. The contention that this was an unlawful discrimination is answered by Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1; Rippey v. Texas, 193 U. S. 504; Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445. Those cases show that the State may prohibit the sale of liquor absolutely or conditionally; may prohibit the sale as a beverage and permit the sale for medicinal and like purposes; that it may prohibit the sale by merchants and permit the sale by licensed druggists.

See also

Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201.

Western Turf Ass'n v. Greenberg, 204 U. S. 359.
Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 198 U. S. 17.

Relation of employer and employee.1-Workmen's compensation acts, employers' liability acts, fellow-servant laws, laws regulating hours of labor, payment of wages, etc., are not violative of this provision if made in the legitimate exercise of the police power.

Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Meese, 239 U. S. 614.

Memphis Cotton Oil Co. v. Tolbert, 171 S. W. 309.
Tullis v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 175 U. S. 348.

Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373.

St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Paul, 173 U. S. 408.

See also

Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U. S. 385.

Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366.

Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 222.

Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U. S. 426.

Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 685.

Keokee, etc., Coal Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224.

Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225.

Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, 235 U. S. 571.

New York Cent. R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188.

Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219.

Hawkins v. Bleakley, 243 U. S. 210.

Sturges, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Beauchamp, 231 U S. 320.

Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33.

Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 340.

Dominion Hotel Co. v. Arizona, 249 U. S. 265.

Arizona Employers' Liability Cases, 250 U. S. 400.

Middletown v. Texas Power, etc., Co., 249 U. S. 152.

McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539.

Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U. S. 380.

Aluminum Co. v. Ramsey, 222 U. S. 251.

Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36.

Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205.
Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Herrick, 127 U. S. 210.
Minnesota Iron Co. v. Kline, 199 U. S. 593.
Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35.
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U. S. 559.

Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Castle, 224 U. S. 541.
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549.

See same subject, pp. 598, 657, and 683.

Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens

Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Court Procedure

North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Soley, 257 U. S. 216.

Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286.

Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292.

As to strikes, picketing, and secondary boycotts, see

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312.

Statute allowing additional interest to be added to judgment for injured employee sustained on appeal held not denial of equal protection.

Twohy Bros. Co. v. Kennedy, 295 Fed. 462.

State Control Over Court Procedure

Change in construction of procedure statute.-There is no absolute right vested in the individual as against the power of the legislature to change modes of procedure. And a similar thought controls where the courts of the State have construed a statute as prescribing one form of procedure, and parties have acted under that construction, and then subsequently the same court has held that the statute was theretofore misconstrued, and really provided a different mode of procedure. This last adjudication can not be set aside in the Federal courts on the ground of an unjust discrimination or a denial of the equal protection of the laws.

Backus v. Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 571.
Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164.

Different tribunals for different persons.-When the protection of equal laws equally administered has been enjoyed, it can not be said that there has been a denial of the equal protection of the law within the purview of the fourteenth amendment only because the State has allowed one person to seek one forum and has not allowed another person, asserted to be in the same class, to seek the same forum, although as to both persons the law has afforded a forum in which the same and equal laws are applicable and administered.

Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. Snell, 193 U. S. 36.

Refusal of application to file supplementary answer. The refusal of a State court to grant an application for leave to file a supplementary answer is not a denial of the equal protection of the laws when there is no abuse of discretion.

Sawyer v. Piper, 189 U. S. 154.

Quo warranto or indictment against corporation.-The right to bring quo warranto to oust a corporation charged with misusing its license to do business in the State, does not deny the equal protection of the laws to a corporation so proceeded against, when other corporations may be prosecuted in the same court for the same act by indictment with the right of trial by jury.

Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270.

Constitution of juries.—An accused has no legal right to a jury composed wholly or in part of his own race. All that he can

Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens

Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Court Procedure

rightfully demand is a jury from which his own race is not excluded.

Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313.

See also

Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110.
Murray v. Louisiana, 163 U. S. 101.
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370.
Smith v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 592.
Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213.

Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442.
Tarrance v. Florida, 188 U. S. 519.

Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226.

Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316.

Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U. S. 161.

Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 176.

Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 69.

Failure to provide method for enforcing attendance of nonresident witnesses. The failure of the law to provide the method for enforcing the attendance of nonresident witnesses, and for the procuring and reception of their depositions, is not in a particular case a denial to the accused of the equal protection of the laws. Minder v. Georgia, 113 Ga. 772, affirmed 183 U. S. 559.

Production of books and papers.-A statute providing for the production of books and papers by a corporation upon notice, and for its punishment as for contempt for neglecting or refusing to comply without reasonable cause, does not, because it is confined to corporations alone, deny them the equal protection of the laws. Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U. S. 541. Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322.

Costs generally.-A State statute which provides that “whenever it shall appear to the court or jury trying the case that the prosecution has been instituted without probable cause and from malicious motives, the name of the prosecutor shall be ascertained and stated in the finding; and such prosecutor shall be adjudged to pay the costs, and may be committed to the county jail until the same are paid, or secured to be paid," does not deny the equal protection of the laws, as the statute is applicable to all persons under like circumstances, and does not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of power.

Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U. S. 81.

Allowance for attorney's fees and damages-In general.-A statute providing for the recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in actions on small claims against all classes of defendants, individual and corporate, does not deny a defendant in such cases the equal protection of the laws.

Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642.
Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412.

In actions against railroads.—A statute which provides that in an action for certain claims against a railroad company, if the

Amend. 14-Rights of Citizens

Sec. 1.-Equal Protection--Court Procedure plaintiff obtains judgment he shall be entitled to recover the amount of such claim and all costs, and in addition thereto, all reasonable attorney's fees, not to exceed $10, can not be sustained.

Gulf, etc., v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 156.

Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96.
Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U. S. 56.
Farmers', etc., Ins. Co. v. Dobney, 189 U. S. 305.

On certain insurance policies.-A statute which directs that life and health insurance companies, who shall default in pay. ment of their policies, shall pay 12 per cent damages, together with reasonable attorney's fees, does not deny the equal protection of the laws in failing to impose the same conditions on fire, marine, and inland insurance companies, and on mutual benefit and relief organizations doing business through lodge and mutual relief benevolent associations.

Fidelity Mutual v. Mettler, 185 U. S. 325.
Manhattan Life v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123.

In mandamus proceeding.-A statute allowing a successful plaintiff in a mandamus proceeding the right to recover reasonable attorney's fees does not deny the equal protection of the laws.

Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Larabee, 234 U. S. 459.

Criminal Prosecutions

In general.-Equality of protection under the laws implies not only accessibility by each one, whatever his race, on the same terms with others to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, but that in the administration of criminal justice he shall not be subjected, for the same offense, to any greater or different punishment.

Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583.

See also

Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462.

Minder v. Georgia, 183 U. S. 559.

Bachtel v. Wilson, 204 U. S. 36.

Ocampo v. U. S., 234 U. S. 91.

Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U. S. 541.

Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655.

Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293.

Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585.

Gatewood v. North Carolina, 203 U. S. 531.

Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172.

Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445.

Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U. S. 325.

Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164.

Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394.

Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 651.

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377.

Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673.

Refusal to amend the record. The refusal of a State appellate court to amend a record so as to show that the accused was not

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »