HIXON
v.
OAKES
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.
A licensed pharmacist convicted under a Los Angeles ordinance restricting prescription alcohol dispensing challenged the ordinance as violating the Eighteenth Amendment and the National Prohibition Act (Volstead Act). The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that neither the Eighteenth Amendment nor the Volstead Act granted any right to sell intoxicating liquors that could be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that no substantial federal question had been raised.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff in error, a regularly licensed pharmacist, was convicted of violating, September 8, 1921, an ordinance of Los Angeles construed to forbid the filling of a prescription which called for more than eight ounces of alcoholic liquor. After sentence, under permitted practice, he challenged the validity of the ordinance by a habeas corpus proceeding commenced in the District Court of Appeal upon the ground that it “ is unconstitutional and void because it is in violation of the terms of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of the terms of the National Prohibition Act,” c. 85, 41 Stat. 305.
Having declared, “the single question presented for decision is whether the ordinance, insofar as it relates to the filling of prescriptions by licensed pharmacists, is valid and enforceable since the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment and the enactment of the National Prohibition Law, commonly known as the Volstead Act,” the District Court of Appeal affirmed the validity of the ordinance and remanded plaintiff in error. Thereupon he sued out this writ of error. The assigment of errors alleges a conflict between the ordinance and the Fourteenth as well as the Eighteenth Amendment.
The petition for habeas corpus did not mention the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion of the court below indicates it was there maintained that Congress by the Volstead Act granted some right or privilege which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and may not be abridged by State or municipality.
We do not stop to decide whether, considering plaintiff in error’s clear right through a new petition to secure from the Supreme Court of California an unembarrassed determination of the question presented below (Matter of Zany, 164 Cal. 724), the assailed judgment is one “ in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had,” within § 237, Judicial Code. It is enough now to say that he has failed to raise any substantial federal question; and for that reason the writ of error must be dismissed. Neither the Eighteenth Amendment nor the Volstead Act grants the right to sell intoxicating liquors within a State. And certainly nothing in that act lends color to the suggestion that it endows a pharmacist with the right to dispense liquors for which he may claim the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We go no further than to consider the points definitely raised upon the record and dispose of the present writ.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1926)…njunction. 291 Fed. 640. [*589] In December, 1924, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decree, and directed that the bill be dismissed. 4 F. (2d) 915. In the interval, this Court had decided Hixon v. Oakes, 265 U. S. 254, and Everard’s Breweries v. Day, 265 U. S. 545. In the latter, Dr. Lambert’s counsel was permitted to file a brief, and to present an oral argument. The appeal in the case at bar was taken under §§ 128 and 241 of the Judicial Code and was allowed be…
-
Pac. Am. Fisheries v. Alaska, 269 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1925)
-
Colonial Drug & Sales Co. v. W. Prods. Co., 54 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1931)…imitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.” In Hixon v. Oakes, 265 U. S. 254, 256, 44 S. Ct. 514, 515, 68 L. Ed. 1005, the court said: “Neither the Eighteenth Amendment nor the Yolstead Act grants the right to sell intoxicating liquors within a state.” The Eighteenth Amendment took away none of the reserved powers of the s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence