People ex rel. Valentine v. Berrien Circuit Judge

Constitutional Law — Commission Men — License and Bond. *A law requiring merchants who sell farm produce upon commission to execute a bond, in the penal sum of §5,000, conditioned for the faithful performance of their contracts, and to pay a license fee, is unconstitutional.

Mandamus by the People of the State of Michigan, on the relation of George M. Valentine, prosecuting attorney, to compel Orville W. Coolidge, circuit judge of Berrien county, to vacate an order quashing an information. One William B. Thompson was arrested, charged with a violation of Act No. 851 of the Public Acts of 1899, because he had filed no bond and received no license to solicit farm produce for a firm in Chicago. The court quashed the information, holding the law to be unconstitutional. The act is entitled ‘ ‘An act to license and regulate commission men and brokers.” The first section of the act reads: “That every person who shall solicit to receive for sale, for himself or another, or who shall receive for sale, or offer for sale, for another, for hire, or cause the same to be done, any grain, fruits, vegetables, live stock, meats, or poultry, and all other kinds of farm or dairy produce, shall execute a bond in the penal sum of five thousand dollars, running to the people of the State of Michigan, to be approved by the judge of probate in the county where his principal office may be, except as hereinafter provided, with two or more sureties, or by an indemnity company authorized by law to do business in this State, conditioned for the faithful performance of the trust reposed in him as a commission man or broker, and to pay over all moneys to the proper parties coming into his hands by virtue of his agency or trusteeship, by virtue of his receiving the goods and produce aforesaid, which shall justly belong to any person. Such bond, when approved, shall be filed with the county clerk of the county where such commission or broker man shall be engaged in business and where he shall have his principal office: Provided, that the provisions of this act shall apply only to persons, firms, and corporations who hold themselves out as commission men, brokers, agents, or merchants, and their agents.” Section 2 makes every such commission merchant or broker liable on his bond for all moneys received by him upon the sale of goods and produce committed to his care, and for the faithful performance of his duties. Section 3 prohibits the doing of business without having a certificate from the' county clerk or secretary of state, and provides for requiring a new bond when the first shall be deemed insecure. Section 4 provides a penalty of fine or imprisonment, or both, for soliciting goods or produce without such bond and certificate. Section 5 makes it the duty of the sheriff to investigate every complaint made under the act, and to make complaint for violations thereof. Section 6 requires the payment of a fee of five dollars upon making application for a certificate. Section 7 makes every person soliciting without the certificate liable to the owner for the goods and produce for which he has contracted for his principal. Section 8 provides for bringing a suit in any county in the State where the aggrieved person may be, and constitutes the secretary of state the lawful agent of nonresidents for service of process.- • The learned circuit judge held the act unconstitutional and void, for the following reasons: “1. That the title of the act does not express its object. “2. That "the act makes the solicitor liable for the default of the principal. ‘‘3. That the act is indefinite, uncertain, and vague, and the meaning of it cannot be interpreted. “4. Class legislation. ‘5. Its provisions are inconsistent. “6. That it is repugnant to the interstate commerce law. “7. That the penalty is so onerous and burdensome that it is in restraint of trade and unjust.”