In re O'Neill
Citations
- 41 Wash. 174
- 83 P. 104
- 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1088
Syllabus
<p>Statutes — Title oe Act — Sueeiciency. An act entitled, “An act to prevent fraud upon travelers and prescribing where, how, and by whom railroad tickets shall be sold,” etc., is sufficient to embrace provisions prohibiting the business of ticket brokerage except by authorized railroad agents.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Police Power — Prohibiting Sale oe Rail-, road Tickets — Licensed Agents — Statutory Regulation. Laws 1905, p. 376, providing that none but a duly authorized agent of a railroad company shall be permitted to sell railway transportation, does not deprive a citizen, who was already established in such business prior to the enactment of the law, of property without due process of law, or unduly interfere with his liberty to pursue his occupation; since it is a valid exercise of the police power to make reasonable regulations to protect the traveling public and prevent the perpetration of frauds in the sale of railway tickets.</p> <p>Same — Equal Protection oe Laws — Special Privileges. 'Laws 1905, p. 376, prohibiting the business of railroad ticket brokerage, and requiring railroad companies to duly commission all agents authorized to sell tickets and to redeem unused tickets, does not deny the equal protection of the laws, since it rather imposes duties upon, than grants special privileges to, the railroad companies.</p> <p>Same — Delegation oe Legislative Power. An act making it a misdemeanor for any one except authorized agents of a railroad company to sell railroad tickets, and requiring companies to commission their agents, is not unconstitutional as delegating to the companies the power to say who are guilty of the offense by issuing or withholding the authority.</p> <p>Same — Statutes—Partial Uncónstitutionality. The unconstitutionality of part of an act imposing the burden of proof upon the accused would not affect the balance of the act declaring the selling of railway tickets by unauthorized agents to be a misdemeanor.</p>
Judges: Hadley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Burdick v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1894-04-02· cited 33×
- State v. CorbettSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1894-05-25· cited 28×
- Fry v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1878-11-15· cited 27×
- State v. BrownWashington Supreme Court· 1905-02-18· cited 23×
- State v. BernheimMontana Supreme Court· 1897-05-17· cited 20×
- In re AubreyWashington Supreme Court· 1904-12-20· cited 19×
- Commonwealth v. KearySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1901-03-11· cited 19×
- In re BurdickIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-05-09· cited 16×
- State v. . RaySupreme Court of North Carolina· 1891-09-05· cited 5×
- People ex rel. Fleischman v. CaldwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1901-07-15· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.