{
  "id": 1870968,
  "name": "State of Arkansas v. McGinnis",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McGinnis",
  "decision_date": "1881-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "362",
  "last_page": "364",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ark. 362"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "91 U. S., 275",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5647387
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/91/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 U. S. 691",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5628288
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/102/0691-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2589,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5090920396212473e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6670720957090549
    },
    "sha256": "741c503a395844429240785fec22b148a6b7c3cf5d9b193609448ac349485136",
    "simhash": "1:5be3101058334556",
    "word_count": 425
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:17.182005+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "State of Arkansas v. McGinnis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "English, C. J.\nOn the twenty-fourth of January, 1881,. Thomas McGrinnis was charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace of Nevada county, \u201c with the offense of going from place to place peddling and selling goods, wares and merchandize, other than the growth, produce, or manufacture of this State, in said county,\u201d etc. ; fined $200, and. appealed to the Circuit Court.\nIn the Circuit Court a demurrer was interposed to the charge, which the court sustained, discharged defendant,, and the State appealed.\nThe Statute provides that:\n\u201c Whoever shall deal in selling of goods, wares or merchandize, other than the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, by going from place to place, either by land or water, to sell the same, is declared to be a peddler.\u201d' Gantt\u2019s Dig., Sec. 4376, etc.\nOther sections require peddlers to obtain license, and prescribe the penalty for selling without, etc. lb., Secs.. 4577, 4385, 5050-1, 1494; Millers Dig., pp. 4, 5.\nThere is no subsequent act defining a peddler, and no act-requiring peddlers of goods, wares or merchandize, which, are the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, to obtain license.\nThe above act clearly discriminates against the products and manufacture of other States, and in favor of the products and manufactures of this State. In Welton v. State, 1 Otto, 275, just such an act of Missouri, was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be in conflict with the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore null and void. See also State v. Kate Marsh, ante.\nIf the Legislature deems it expedient to require peddlers 'to obtain license, and to punish them for peddling without license, no discrimination must be made against goods, etc., \u2022of the growth, produce or manufacture of other States, etc.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "English, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. B. Moore, Attorney-General, for the appellant:",
      "Montgomery & Hamby, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State of Arkansas v. McGinnis.\n1. P-KDDMIKS : Act defining and imposing licerise on, unconstitutional.\nThe Statute (Gantt\u2019s Dig. Sec. 4376, et sequitur) defining peddlers and imposing license on them, discriminates in favor of the products and! manufactures ot this State, and against those ot other States, and is therefore unconstitutional and void.\nAPPEAL from Nevada Circuit Court.\nHon. Dan W. Jones, Special Judge.\nO. B. Moore, Attorney-General, for the appellant:\nMontgomery & Hamby, for appellee.\nSections 1494, 5050, 5054, and 4377, Gantt\u2019s Digest, are-each repugnant to the second clause of Sec. 8. Art. 1, Qon. U. S., and void. County of Mobile v. Kimbal, 102 U. S. 691; Welton v. State of Mo., 91 U. S., 275; Webber v-Virginia, Ms., H.S. October Term, 1880."
  },
  "file_name": "0362-01",
  "first_page_order": 360,
  "last_page_order": 362
}