Skip to main content
· 10/6/1890

Rothermel v. Meyerle

Citations

  • 136 Pa. 250
  • 20 A. 583
  • 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1027

Syllabus

<p>(a) The act of April 8, 1861, P. L. 258, prohibits, under penalty, the buying, as a hawker or peddler, within the counties of Berks and Franklin, of any butter, eggs, etc., with intent to send the same for sale or barter to any other market out of said counties, without payment of a license fee of $10 for residents, and $20 for non-residents of the counties:</p> <p>1. Said act is not invalid as making discriminations against citizens of other states and in favor of citizens of Pennsylvania; its discriminations are solely against non-residents of the counties named and markets outside thereof, and § 2, article IY. of the federal constitution has nothing to do with distinctions founded on domicile merely.</p> <p>2. No state has power to make any law which will affect free and unrestrained intercourse and trade between the states, and a state statute imposing imposts or duties upon goods imported into or exported out of the particular state, is in violation of the constitution of the United States and therefore void.</p> <p>3. But the act of 1861 cannot be regarded as laying a tax or impost upon exports from the state, under a principle analogous to that of Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 425; at most it could be no more than a taxing of goods at the time of their purchase, and they remain liable to taxation until transportation to another state is actually commenced: Per Mr J usliee Clark.</p> <p>4. At all events, and even if said act of 1861 be invalid, under the interstate commerce clauses of the United States constitution, in the case of the purchase of goods for sale in a market in another state, it is a valid and proper exercise of power as respects persons residing and doing business wholly within this state.</p> <p>5. If a part of a statute which is unconstitutional in its operation, is independent of and readily separable from that which is constitutional, so that the latter may stand by itself, the part that is constitutional may be sustained and enforced, ev

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • \The obvious intent of the legislature in enacting the forfeiture legislation was to deter the trafficking in narcotics ...\
  • “The obvious intent of the legislature in enacting the forfeiture legislation was to deter the trafficking in narcotics . . . ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clank, Clark, Collum, Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.