Case Summary
On February 1 1904, a criminal complaint was formally filed against Ernest Hutchinson, a native of Michigan doing business in Seattle. Hutchinson was 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 goods from a storehouse) without securing either the $600 license to trade stamps, nor requiring the purchasers of stamps to secure their $100 stamp licenses.
In his petition, filed on April 12, 1904, Hutchinson claimed the ordinance violated both his rights under the US Constitution and under the Washington State Constitution. 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 May 25) 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, licensing was restricted as a police power and was therefore limited to items related to the “peace, happiness and prosperity” of its citizens. Judge Hanford ruled in favor of Hutchinson, and declared the ordinance unconstitutional. Eleven years after it was first filed, Hutchinson's company, The Sperry and Hutchinson Company sued in regards to this case, and were successful, in 1915.
Case Information
Petition type(s)
Petition subtype(s)
- Selling trade stamps without a licence
- Refusal or inability to pay fine
Sites of significance
Outcome
Writ dismissed
Fate of bound party
Released from custody
State
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)
