McCullough v. Brown
Citations
- 41 S.C. 220
- 23 L.R.A. 410
- 19 S.E. 458
- 1894 S.C. LEXIS 100
Syllabus
<p>1. Abstract Question. — Whether a statute, passed since these appeals were taken, and brought by the attorney general to the attention of the court, rendered the questions here presented abstract propositions of law, not considered, no motion being made.</p> <p>2. Statutes — Constitutionality.—The presumption is always in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, and a reasonable doubt must be solved in favor of the validity of the statute ; and in all cases the constitutionality of a State statute, unlike an act of Congress, must be sustained, unless it is forbidden by some provision, expressed or necessarily implied, in the State or Eederal Constitution.</p> <p>3. Dispensary Act — -Sale op Liquors. — The “Act to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage within this State, except as herein provided” (21 Stat., 62), commonly called the “Dispensary Act,” was intended to put the manufacture and sale of liquors within the limits of this State, for any purpose whatsoever, exclusively in the hands of State officers, and for the purpose of realizing a profit to the State and its subordinate governmental agencies on such monopolized traffic.</p> <p>4. Property Right — Liquors—-Police Powers. — Under the Constitution of this State, every person has the inalienable right of acquiring, holding, and disposing of property, of which right he may not be deprived but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and,’therefore, liquor being property, and the sale of liquor not malum in se, it is a lawful subject of commerce, and the traffic in this property cannot be taken away from the individual, except where the State, in the exercise of its police powers, declares such traffic to be unlawful.</p> <p>5. Dispensary Act — Police Powers. — But as the Dispensary Act does not prohibit the sale of liquors (which the State has the clear right to do), and, on the contrary, encourages such sale-by providing for purchases and sal
Judges: Chiee, Moiyer, Pope
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Arens v. Village of RogersSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1953-12-04· cited 50×
- Lowenstein v. EvansU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina· 1895-10-09· cited 13×
- Cannon v. Loyola University of ChicagoN.D. Illinois· 1985-02-26· cited 11×
- Churchill v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC.Supreme Court of Alabama· 1982-02-26· cited 10×
- State v. McFallOregon Supreme Court· 1924-10-07· cited 7×
- Retail Services & Systems, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of RevenueSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2017-03-29
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1877-03-18· cited 1,474×
- Brown v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1827-03-12· cited 822×
- Thurlow v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1847-03-18· cited 427×
- Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1878-05-13· cited 406×
- Sinking-Fund CasesSupreme Court· 1879-05-18· cited 353×
- Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1888-03-19· cited 290×
- Corfield v. CoryellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania· 1823-04-15· cited 214×
- Parkersburg v. BrownSupreme Court· 1883-01-18· cited 177×
- Boyd v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1877-05-18· cited 99×
- Lincoln v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont· 1855-02-15· cited 67×
- Beebe v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1855-12-20· cited 39×
- State v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1856-09-15· cited 38×
- State v. Brennan's LiquorsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1856-09-15· cited 25×
Other cases named McCullough v. Brown
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.