BARBOUR
v.
STATE OF GEORGIA

U.S. | 1919-04-14
No. 191
249 U.S. 454 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Caution
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 704 · 39 S. Ct. 316 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2103 · SCDB 1918-134
Cited by 32 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

Georgia's prohibitory liquor law, which became effective May 1, 1916, allowed the state to prosecute Barbour for possessing liquor acquired between the law's enactment in November 1915 and its effective date. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a state's police power to prohibit liquor possession extends to liquor acquired after enactment but before the law's effective date, as persons acquiring property during such a grace period take it with notice of its future prohibition and cannot use property acquisition to circumvent state police power under the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandéis

Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the court. .

The Georgia prohibitory liquor law was approved November 18, 1915; but, by its terms, did not become effeetive until May 1, 1916. Under it Barbour was convicted for having in his possession on June 10, 1916, more than one gallon of vinous liquor. (Georgia Laws, Extraordinary Session, 1916, Part 1, Title 2, No. 4, §§ 16 & 30, pp. 90, 99, 105.) He asserted that the liquor had been acquired by him before May first; and contended that the statute, if construed to apply to liquor so acquired, was void under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of the State overruled this contention and affirmed the sentence. 146 Georgia, 667. The case comes here on writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code.

That a State which has enacted a prohibitory law may forbid the mere possession of liquor within its borders was decided in Crane v. Campbell, 245 U. S. 304; but it did not appear there when the liquor had been acquired. Whether the prohibition of sale may be constitutionally applied to liquor acquired before the enactment of the statute was raised in Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, and Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 32-33; but was not decided. The question presented here however is simpler. For the exact date when Barbour acquired the liquor is not shown; and we must assume, as the Supreme Court of Georgia did, that it was acquired during the period of five months and twelve days between the enactment of the law and the date when it became effective. Does the Fourteenth Amendment, by its guarantee to property, prevent a State from protecting its citizens from liquor so acquired?

A State having the power to forbid the manufacture, sale, and possession of liquor within its borders. may, if it concludes to exercise the power, obviously postpone the date when the prohibition shall become effective, in order that those engaged in the business and others may adjust themselves to the new conditions. Whoever acquires, after the enactment of the statute, property thus declared noxious, takes it with full notice of its infirmity and that after a day certain its possession will, by mere lapse of time, become a crime. It is well settled that the Federal Constitution does not enable one to stay the exercise of a State’s police power by entering into a contract under such circumstances. Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co., 187 U. S. 611, 615. Compare Calder v. Michigan, 218 U. S. 591, 599. Nor can -he do so by acquiring property.

The defendant raised, in his amended motion for a new trial, the further objection that the law was unconstitutional as applied to him, because the liquor had been acquired before the statute was enacted; but the trial judge denied the motion and declined to approve any of the grounds on which it was based. In accordance with the state practice its Supreme Court therefore refused to consider the point. Dickens v. State, 137 Georgia, 523; Harris v. State, 120 Georgia, 196, 197. Consequently the question is not before us, Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46, 51; and on it we express no opinion.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • Neisel v. Moran, 80 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1919)
    …lenn v. Southern Express Co., 170 N. C. 286, 87 S. E. Rep. 136, L. R. A. 1918-B 438; State v. Carpenter, 173 N. C. 767, 92 S. E. Rep. 373. The prevailing views are expressed in Crane v. Campbell, 245 U. S. 304, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 98; Barbour v. State, 249 U. S. 454, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 316; DeLaney v. Plunkett, — Ga. —, 91 S. E. Rep. 561, L. R. A. 1917-D 926; notes in 2 A. L. R. 1085; Schmitt v. W. Cook Brewing Co., — Ind. —, 120 N. E. Rep. 19; State v. Ross, — N. D. —, 170 N. W. Rep. 121; Commonwealth v. Intoxic…
    1 / 2
  • Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1944)
    …an that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it. O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 331; Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454, 460; Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 360, 362, 380. Courts may for that reason refuse to consider a constitutional objection even though a like objection had previously been sustained in a case in which it was properly taken. Seaboard Air Lin…
  • Am. Sur. Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1932)
    …U. S. 133; Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46, 51; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Taber, 244 U. S. 200, 201-202; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Sealy, 248 U. S. 363, 365; Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454, 460; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 249 U. S. 490, 493-494; cf. Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U. S. 492, 496.…

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (17 total)

View all 17 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw