BACCUS
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

U.S. | 1914-02-24
No. 170
232 U.S. 334 Supreme Court of the United States (1914) Caution
Also reported at: 58 L. Ed. 627 · 34 S. Ct. 439 · SCDB 1913-219 · 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1360
Cited by 37 cases

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.

Synopsis

Louisiana's statute prohibiting itinerant vendors from selling drugs, nostrums, and medicinal preparations while allowing other persons to sell such items did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that states have the power to classify and regulate itinerant vendors or peddlers differently from other merchants, particularly when regulating the sale of drugs and medicinal compounds.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justice White,

Mr. Chief Justice White,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

We accept the construction affixed by the court below to the statute and upon which alone it could in reason have held that the acts charged were embraced by its provisions. We hence disregard an intimation made in the argument of the defendant in error, that the. statute is susceptible of a different interpretation and therefore that the claim of Federal right which was made below and which was necessarily passed upon need not be here considered. It is inconceivable that the statute should mean one thing for the purpose of determining whether the acts charged were within its terms and should then be held to mean another, for the purpose of escaping the Federal question.

Thus considering the case in its true aspect, the single issue to be decided is, Did the State have power, without violating the equal protection or due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to forbid the sale by itinerant vendors of "any drug, nostrum, ointment or application of any kind intended for the treatment of disease or injury,” although allowing the sale of such articles by other persons? That it did have such authority is so clearly the result of a previous ruling of this court (Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296), or at all events is so persuasively made manifest by the authorities cited and the reasoning which sustained the ruling of the court in the case just stated, as to leave no room for controversy on the subject (pp.' 306-307).

Moreover, the power which the state Government possessed to classify and regulate itinerant vendors or peddlers exerted in the statute under consideration is cumulatively sustained-and made if possible more obviously lawful by the fact that the regulation in question deals with the selling by itinerant vendors or peddlers of drugs or medicinal compounds, objects plainly within the power of government to' regulate.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

  • Ex Parte, 100 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1930)
    …al character of business. Such a classification has been recognized by the courts as valid both in exercise of the regulatory police power for the purpose of preventing cheats, frauds, and dangers to public health or morals (see Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U. S. 334, 58 L. Ed. 627; Mogul v. Gaither, 121 Atl. R. 32; Holsman v. Thomas, 147 N. E. R. 750; 39 A. L. R. 760; Biddles v. Enright, 146 N. E. R. 625, 39 A. L. R. 766), as well as in the exercise of the taxing power, since the State may levy a different…
  • Greenleaf & Crosby Co., Inc. v. Coleman, 117 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1934)
    …al character of business. Such a classification has been recognized by the courts as valid both in exercise of the regulatory police power for the purpose of preventing cheats, frauds, and dangers to public health or morals (see Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U. S. 334, 58 L. Ed. 627; Mogul v. Gaither, 121 Atl. R. 32; Holsman v. Thomas, 147 N. E. R. 750; 39 A. L. R., 760 Biddles v. Enright, 146 N. E. R. 625, 39 A. L. R. 766), as well as in the exercise of the taxing power, since the State may levy a different tax…
  • Dusenbury v. Chesney, 97 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1929)
    …onduct of auction and other sales of certain classes of merchandise. See Mogul v. Gaither, 121 Atl. R. 32; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 57 L. Ed. 164; Holsman v. Thomas, 147 N. E. R. 750, 39 A. L. R. 760; Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U. S. 334, 58 L. Ed. 627. Aside, however, from the question of classification, which is unnecessary for us to now consider, the higher license tax imposed by this ordinance upon those in business less than two years is entirely out of proportion to any lawfu…

Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (15 total)

View all 15 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw