People v. Harper
Citations
- 91 Ill. 357
Syllabus
<p>1. Inspection or grain—delegation of power in respect thereto. There is no provision of the constitution which, either expressly or by necessary implication, inhibits the General Assembly from committing the inspection of grain to a board created for that .purpose. The right to pass inspection laws belongs to the police powers of the government, and the legislature has authority to arrange the distribution of such powers as the public exigencies may require, apportioning them to local jurisdictions to such extent as the law-making power deems appropriate, and committing the exercise of the residue to officers appointed as it may see fit to ordain.</p> <p>2. So it was competent for the General Assembly to delegate to the Railroad and Warehouse Commission the power to control the subject of the inspection of grain.</p> <p>3. Same—as to fees to be paid. The expenses occasioned by the inspection of grain may be required to be borne by those presumably benefited by it. Fixing fees for such services, and prescribing the manner of their collection, and upon whom they shall be imposed, do not fall within the constitutional limitation concerning the imposition of a local burden by way of taxation.</p> <p>4. Same—delegation of the power to fix inspection fees. It is within the legislative power to invest the Railroad and Warehouse Commission with authority to prescribe what fees shall be charged for grain inspection, and to regulate them from time to time as circumstances may require. The delegation of this legislative function may well be regarded as a necessary incident to the exercise of this branch of the police power of the government.</p> <p>5. Same—constitutional requirement that fees and salaries shall be fixed by law. The officers in respect of whom the constitution speaks of fees and salaries fixed by law, are only those specifically named in that instrument, and do not embrace officers appointed under the inspection laws of the State.</p> <p>6. Samé—inspection l
Judges: Dickey, Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Georgia Railroad v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia· 1883-02-27· cited 69×
- Southern Railway Co. v. MeltonSupreme Court of Georgia· 1909-09-25· cited 63×
- Rouse v. ThompsonIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-10-02· cited 63×
- State ex rel. Gaulke v. TurnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1917-08-20· cited 29×
- Michigan Central Railroad v. Michigan Railroad CommissionMichigan Supreme Court· 1910-03-19· cited 24×
- Bueker v. Madison County IllinoisIllinois Supreme Court· 2017-04-25· cited 15×
- Stoll v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co.W.D. Washington· 1913-04-28· cited 9×
- State ex rel. Rhodes v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri· 1917-04-09· cited 8×
- People ex rel. Lewman v. BairdIllinois Supreme Court· 1923-04-18· cited 7×
- Board of Trade v. CowenIllinois Supreme Court· 1911-12-21· cited 6×
- Hicks v. Aetna InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois· 1981-07-08· cited 2×
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Railroad CommissionCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division· 1910-12-19
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1854-12-15· cited 111×
- Harward v. St. Clair & Monroe Levee & Drainage Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 52×
- Munn v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-09-15· cited 29×
- Police Commissioners v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1868-06-25· cited 21×
- Trustees of Schools v. TatmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1851-11-15· cited 16×
- People v. TompkinsIllinois Supreme Court· 1874-09-15· cited 6×
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.