GRAY
v.
CONNECTICUT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Connecticut imposed a requirement in 1890 that pharmacists obtain a druggist's license from county commissioners before using spirituous liquors in medicinal preparations, and the Supreme Court upheld the validity of this regulation and the fine imposed on Gray for violating it. The Court held that a state may lawfully impose additional conditions on licensed occupations whenever authorities deem such conditions necessary for safety, and such regulations do not violate state or federal constitutional protections.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Field,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
A license to pursue any business or occupation, from the governing authority of any municipality or State, can only be invoked for the protection of one in the pursuit of such business or occupation, so long as the same continues unaffected by existing or new conditions. The degree of care and scrutiny which should attend the pursuit of the business or occupation practised will necessarily depend upon the safety and freedom from injurious or dangerous conditions attending the prosecution of the same.
In the preparation of medicinal compounds, intoxicating liquors and even still more dangerous ingredients are often properly used; but the protecting care of the government, municipal or state, in their use, should never be relaxed beyond the bounds of absolute safety. The responsibility of the legal authority, municipal or state, cannot be stipulated or bartered away.’ Whatever provisions were prescribed by the law previous to 1890, in the use of spirituous liquors in the medicinal preparations of pharmacists, they did not prevent the subsequent exaction of further conditions which the lawful authority might deem necessary or useful.
For reasons which were deemed sufficient after 1890, by the authorities of Connecticut, the use of spirituous liquors in the preparation of pharmacists’ compounds required still further provisions than those previously existing, and it was provided that such liquors could not be subsequently used in their preparation without the pharmacist’s first procuring a druggist’s license from the county commissioners.
The'imposition by the court of a fine upon the accused for a disregard of this requirement trespassed in no way upon any' of his rights under the constitution of the State, or under the-Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Page v. Watson, 140 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1938)…ion of additional penalty, but a prescribing the qualifications for the duties to be discharged and the position to be filled, and naming what is deemed to be and what is in fact appropriate evidence of such qualifications. “In Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 74, 77, this Court considered the effect of a statute prescribing additional qualifications for one acting as a pharmacist who already had a license from the State therefor, and said: ‘Whatever provisions were prescribed by the law previous to 1890, in…
-
Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1898)…ion of additional penalty, but as prescribing the qualifications for the duties to be discharged and the position to be filled, and naming what is deemed to be and what is in fact appropriate evidence of such qualifications. In Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 74, 77, this court .considered the effect of a statute prescribing additional qualifications for one acting as a pharmacist who already had a license from the State therefor, and said: “ Whatever provisions were .prescribed by the law previous to 1890,…
-
Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1911)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence