Case Summary

On February 1st 1904, a Criminal Complaint was formally filed against Ernest Hutchinson, a naive of Michigan doing business in Seattle. Charged with violating Seattle City Ordinance 6036, which imposed licensing on the sale and trade of stamps in the city. Hutchinson apparently sold stamps (a system of warehouse coupons which provided a holder with the equivalent value of good from a storehouse to that on the stamp) without securing either the $600 licence to trade stamps, nor buy requiring the purchasers of stamps to secure their $100 stamp licences. In his petition, filed on April 12, 1904, Hutchinson claimed the ordinance violated both his rights under the US Constitution and the Washington State Consitution. In numerous filings between April and May, Hutchinson's petition was granted and he was released on his own recognizance. His lawyers submitted numerous briefs on his behalf, both to secure his initial petition costs (which was ordered by Judge Hanford on 25 May) and to claim that the entire ordinance licensing the stamps was unlawful. Citing many cases, both at the state and federal levels, Hutchinson claimed the licensing was "an interference with private property” and that, under the state constitution, licencing was restricted as a police power and was therefore limited to items related to the “peace, happiness and prosperity” of its citizens. Ultimately, it is unclear what happened to Hutchison's case. Eleven years after it was first filed, Hutchinson's company, The Sperry and Hutchinson Company sued and were successful at having the case dismissed in September 1915.

Case Information

Petition type(s)

• Carceral

Petition subtype(s)

• Selling trade stamps without a licence
• Refusal or inability to pay fine

Sites of significance

• City Hall (Seattle, Washington)

Outcome

Writ dismissed

Fate of bound party

Released from custody

Case Citation

RG 21 US Circuit Courts, Western Disctrict of Washington, Seattle; Law Register Northern Division, 1899-1906, vol 2

Source material(s)

Case File

Repository(s)

• National Archives and Records Administration, Seattle Branch, Washington (Seattle, WA) (Seattle, Washington)

State

• Washington

Point(s) of law cited

City of Seattle, Ordinance 6036; T.J. Fleetwood v. Read, 21 Wash, page 547; W.C. Stull v. JP DeMattos, et al. 23 Wash. Page 71; City of Seattle v. R. W. Barto, 31 Wash, page 141; Venice v. Murdock, 92 US 494, 23: 583|Genoa v. Woodruff, Id. 502, 23: 586|Carpenter v. Providence Washington Insurance Co. 16 Pet 495 10: 1044|Chicago v. Robbin, 2 Black, 418, 17: 298|Brooklyn City, etc. R.R. Co. V. Nat. Bank of Republic, 102 US 14, 26:62|Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 547, 21: 757|Delmas v. Merchants Mat Ins. Co. 14 Wall 661, 20: 757|Carroll v. Carroll, 16 How. 275, 14: 936; Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. Palmes, 169 U.S. 244, 27:922; Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791, 25: 921; Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black, 436, 17: 173; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 30: 220; Olcott v. Fond du Lac County, 16 Wall. 678, 21: 382; State v. Mitchell, 53 Atl. 887; City of Springfield v. Jacobs, 73 S. W. Rep. 1097; Gast v. Buckley, 64 S. W. Rep. 632; Thurlow Medical Company v. City of Salem, N.J., 50 Atl. 475; State (Margalies prosecutor) v. City of Atlantic City, N.J., 50 Atl. 367; People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 390; People v. Gillson, 17 N. Y. 343; New York Acts c. 691, 1887, amendatory of Pen. Code 335a; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377|2 N.E. 29.; Commonwealth v. Emerson, 165 Mass. 146; Common v. Sisson, 60 NE 385; City of Chicago v. Netcher, 183 Ill. 104|48 L. R. A. 261|5 N.E. 707; State of Missouri ex rel. Wyatt v. Ashbrook, 48 L. R. A. 265; State of Rhode Island v. Dalton, 48 L. R. A. 775; Long v. State of Maryland, 12 L. R. A. 425; Stockton Laundry Case, in re Tie Loy (C. C. Cal.) 26 Fed. Rep. 611; Sam Kee, 31 Fed. 680|in re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 523.; Harding v. People, 160 Ill. 459|43 N. E. 624; Eden v. People, 160 Ill. 296|32 L. R. A. 659|43 N.E. 1108; Bailey v. People, 109 Ill. 28|54 L. R. A. 838|60 N.E. 98; Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649|Book 39 L. R. A. 567; People ex. Rel Madden v. Dycker, 76 N. Y. Supp’t 111; Ruhstrat v. People, 185 Ill. 133|49 L. R. A. 181|57 N. E. 41; Ex-parte McKenna, 126 Cal. 429|58 Pac. Rep. 916; City of Tacoma v. Krech, 15 W. 296 Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578|Book 41 L.C.P. Co. 560; Bessette v. People, (Ill.) 62 N.E. 215; Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294|7 N.E. 631; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Shaver v. Pennsylvania Co. 71 Fed. 931; 86 Ohio Laws, p. 149; Re: Wiltshire, 103 Fed. 620|623; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 661 Ex-parte Leo Jentzsch, 32 L. R. A. 664 Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296|32 L. R. A. 659|43 N.E. 1108; Ex-parte Frank, 52 Cal. 606, (28 Am. Rep.); Huzo v. San Francisco, 33 Cal. 143; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 282; Wallace v. San Jose, 29 Cal. 180; Dillon on Mun. Corp. sec. 55, et seq.; Fleetwood v. Read, 21 Washington, p. 547; Pierce’s Code: Section 3732, pg. 596;

Tag(s)

• 14th amendment

People

• Hutchinson, Ernest (petitioner)
• Hutchinson, Ernest (bound party)
• Carroll, Carroll (petitioner attorney)
• Delaney, Thomas (holding party)
• Delaney, Thomas (respondent)
• Sullivan, John M. (holding party)
• Gilliam, Mitchell (respondent attorney)
• Hanford, Cornelius Holgate (judge)
• George, R. R. (authority ordering detention)
• George, R. R. (police judge)
• Buller, Ellis (respondent attorney)
• Wilson, H. A. (respondent attorney)

• Additional parties

  Netterer, Jeremiah (Judge in 1915 dismissal)

  Moore, A. N. (Deputy Clerk)

  Phair, E.C. (merchant that bought stamps from Hutchinson)

  Reeves, A. Ayres (Clerk)

  Riplinger, A. (City Comptroller)