Watters v. Michigan
Watters v. People of the State of Michigan
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Me. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error was complained of for having engaged in peddling goods and having canvassed and taken orders from house to house for the sale of goods in the city of Munising, Michigan, without having received a license as required by a city ordinance. It may be assumed that much the greater part of his business was interstate commerce and free from any obligation that the ordinance imposed. But in the course of his business he did sell two cans of toilet cream that were at rest in the State before the sale, and it is admitted that this transaction was not protected from state legislation.
Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504 . On this ground the Supreme Court of the State sustained a conviction and fine. 192 Michigan, 462. The ordinance makes it unlawful to engage in peddling.any goods or to canvass ■from house to house for the sale of property on subscription without a license, which may be had on payment of specified fees.' The plaintiff in error argues that the application of this law should be determined by the general. course of business, not by an isolated transaction, and the argument has force. It depends, however, on the construction of the ordinance, and as the State Court has construed it to apply to and forbid the act proved, the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.