Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co.

condi- performance of would excuse Mex- New precedent.7 We think tion majority rule. would follow ico courts after until asserted claim not The years four almost death in

insured’s have oc- alleged disability is after the furnished, not proof was due Since curred. permitted the administratrix alleged establishes unless she recover satisfactory, and con- by clear, disability vincing evidence. the cause reversed The overrule with instructions

remanded com- reinstate dismiss and motion plaint. CO. CAB TRANSIT YELLOW JOHNSON No. 2697. Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Court of Circuit July 26, 1943. Lattimore, Atty. Gen., H. Sam Asst. Williamson, Gen., (Mac Q. Atty. Oklahoma Miskovsky, George Co.

Atty., Okl., brief), City, on appellants. Dudley Duvall, B. Duke both of J. City, Okl. & (Dudley, Duvall Dudley, Okl., City, appellee. brief), for PHILLIPS, BRATTON, Before MURRAH, Judges. Circuit PHILLIPS, Judge. Circuit F. A. S. organi- Officers Club is an composed army

zation several thousand duty who are on officers at the United States Military Reservation.1 Fort Sill The Club Life Ins. v. Mutual Johnson Hereinafter called the Reservation. Cir., 41, 44; on Con 70 F.2d Williston Rev.Ed., 3, p. tracts, Vol. army managed secretary is an officers mandatory injunction requir- a who for a provides, ing officer in active It them shipment service. status to hold mess, things, quo liv- an officers’ the ac- pending the determination of quarters ing officers, loung- ship- number for a of tion and them requiring to return es, rooms, reading Company and fa- ment to other recreational to refrain Transit cilities, Compa- services from renders various club interfering the Transit ny’s possession to its ship- members. and movement of such ment in destina- interstate commerce to its 24, 1942, Prior to October hun- several tion. dred gave members of Club to the Club secretary their individual written orders From judgment granting a the relief varying quantities liq- for prayed of for, enforcement officers the state designated uor. These orders the brand appealed. have quantity accompanied desired and were wholly with- is located money pay checks or intox- for such in the exterior boundaries Oklahoma. of icating liquor. secretary, acting The Club acquired by It was from the United States officers, assembled, tabulated, for such to- long France before became a taled, and forwarded these orders to M. B. prior state. Since to the admission of Ok- Louis, Company, Gintz at East St. Illinois. been, lahoma as a state it it now Company accepted The Gintz the orders is, exclusively purposes used military thereof, and in fulfillment on 'October performance of functions Yellow Transit delivered to Cab Com- Department of the War of the United pany2 Louis, at East bill St. on a uniform States. In the state of Oklahoma en- lading, spirituous of of cases wine and ceding jurisdic- acted a statute liquors, consigned to F. A. S. Officers Club Reservation, tion over the with certain ex- Mess, at the Reservation. material, ceptions not here to the United shipment While pos- was in States.4 session of Company the Transit as a com- Oklahoma has under the mon carrier and of course transit Twenty-first Amendment to forbid all im Reservation, from East Louis St. to the portations of into the momentarily but while stopped it was at the adopt degree regu a lesser of terminal Company of and dock the Transit prohibition.5 lation total than It also City, Oklahoma, at Oklahoma was it seized require permit transportation a for the of by Johnson, Commissioner Public of Safe- intoxicating liquor in commerce interstate ty Oklahoma, Husted, of the State of Su- through the state as means of establish perintendent of Bureau of Identifica- identity ing the those engage who Department Investigation tion and transportation points and their routes Safety of Public West and destination, and enabling local offi Riggs, deputies Superintendent, under the appropriate in cers measures to take Kolb, deputy and McGrew and sheriffs of transportation without sure diversion.6 County, Oklahoma,3 and was Oklahoma has not enacted statutes transported placed to and in a vault in the transportation regulating of intoxicat- county County, courthouse of Oklahoma liquor through requires ing state. where it is held under the claim it permit into illegal shipment an state.7 subject to confiscation and destruction. Had the been delivered at the Twenty-first While the Amendment have received would been power of the re increased the state with secretary delivery Club for state, importation spect did placed the officers had who the order. extend the territorial state. Territorial over the This action commenced Tran- a dis- Company Reservation is against sit state enforcement Equalization Board called State Hereinafter the Transit Com Young’s pany. Market S. Mahoney Joseph Ct. called Hereinafter the state enforce Corporation, Triner S. ment officers. Ct. Arkansas, Act See 80 O.S.1941 of June Duckworth 40 U.S.C.A. 9, 1940, Act of October 54 Stat. 138 A.L.R. 1144. §§ 13-18. U.S.C.A. 37 O.S. 41-45. possess Twenty-first liquor from a common or to sovereignty, and the tinct pro- liquor; is asserted that gave Amendment into virtue relief been denied hibit trans- regulate the malo oritur actio. of the maxim ex dolo non’ the Reservation or to sale, dispo- assume, we possession, dealing or other with this contention portation, In decide, the Reserva- liquor penal within but do that the Oklahoma of such sition not into relating was no tion. There statutes were The therein. delivery put or use for in force in the Reservation as Federal delivery in the Act; consigned for by was the Assimilative Crimes statutes therefore, conclude, that that, We if Reservation.8 neither do we decide offi- enforcement by seizure state the cers was into the Reservation would violate a statute, was of law without warrant injunctive against relief the unlaw- wholly illegal. of the enforcement ful acts officers be denied.11 pro Act9 Crimes Assimilative The 4, 153, O.S.L.1933, Sec. ch. 37 O.S.A. § whoever, territorial vides that 31, provides any that shall be unlawful for upon any lands state, within .or limits of person keep to have or in excess of one acquired the use for or reserved quart liquor intoxicating “whether such or States, under liquor be intended for the use of personal thereof, do shall concurrent person keeping having so the same by penal made which is not any thing act or foregoing orig- or not.” The section was if commit Congress, but which any act of 70, inally 4, enacted as ch. O.S.L.1910-11. § state, by of the within ted Wilson, 451, parte In 6 Ex Okl.Cr. 119 P. 1, February in force on the laws thereof 596, it was held on the unconstitutional guilty 1940, shall be deemed penal, would be ground police pow- that isit not within the pun like subject to a offense of a like possession prohibit er of the toxicating liquor in- ishment. for use. adopted, for Act Assimilative Crimes 5, 70, O.S.L.1910-11, Sec. ch. 37 O.S.A. places designated government 32,12was unconstitutional for the same § jurisdic- concurrent or the exclusive under tion of the United State, 445, reason. Morse v. 63 Okl.Cr. 77 States, laws criminal 757, 763, Wilson, parte Ex P.2d which cited Act, in the mentioned force, date in supra, See, also, approval. Brickey v. such which within states in the several State, 451, 743, 55 32 Okl.Cr. P.2d 744. It situated, far such in so places are superseded 6, 26, O.S.L.19I3, ch. § specific acts displaced by been 3, 153, 1933, amended as 37 ch. O.S.L. § Fed- they became By adoption Congress. 82.13 O.S.A. The last-mentioned sec- designated places.10 in the in force eral laws tion does not toxicating possession make mere of in- the statutes urged unlawful; that It is merely put in force possession referred to were makes quart hereinafter óf in excess of one statutes as Federal intoxicating liquor prima in Reservation facie evidence Act, and that Crimes sell, the Assimilative of an convey, intention to or other- in- import it is unlawful to dispose thereof wise liquor; virtue of such and the Okla- Reservation, to toxicating liquor into the homa Appeals Criminal Court of has re- in- room which keep peatedly maintain a club possession or held that mere in- received, kept, or stored toxicating toxicating liquor barter, sell, without an intent to the mem- give away or division or distribution does not Club, an to receive constitute bers offense under the Oklahoma Co., 465, 700; 8 1062, 304 v. Yosemite Collins Mc See 1009, Sugar 518, Refg. 1502. Farland 58 S.Ct. v. American U.S. 79, 451, 84, 85, 899; 498, 468. 36 S.Ct. 9 18 U.S.C.A. State, 410, 216 U.S. Barnett v. v. United 243 Ala. 9 So.2d Franklin 434, 267, 268; Graham, 559, 568, McCanless 30 S.Ct. Publishing 137, 57, Press Com Tenn. 146 S.W.2d 138. United States v. provided 1, 8, 212, pany, It that 55 L. it should 219 U.S. be unlaw any person keep 942; People Puer ful for have or Ed. Ann.Cas. place Company, about his residence more than Rico Shell gallon intoxicating liquor. one 82 L.Ed. 235. 58 S.Ct. State, Leisy Hardin, Whitwell v. Okl.Cr. Cf. Young State, P.2d Bowman v. 64, 123 Ry. Co., Chicago P.2d Okl.Cr. & Northwestern 125 U.

. O.R.L.1910, amended therefore, conclude, Sec. We statutes.14 1, makes O.S.L.1933, 37 O.S.A. ch. possession of convey” way any “ship, sale it unlawful to for unlawful personal use and not place liquor “from one in Okla- prohibited disposition is not This place therein.” with- another and, therefore, prohibited this state to is not homa trans- intrastate entirely with Assim- deals by virtue section to trans- application portation. Act. ilative Crimes Okla- portation from 186, O.S.L.1917, 37 O.S.A. § ch. Sec. Reserva- state, into homa unlawful provides that shall be tion. any person receive within O.S.L.1939,15 provides or other liquor from a common 1, p. import into the state possess in Oklahoma unlawful to it shall be liquor common contain- liquor from a toxicating received of ing by provisions alcohol per its four cent or other more than liquors intended for secured apply volume, “such therefor permit to shall without a otherwise, use, provides well and to personal as The Act provided as in the Act. shipments or well intrastate Commis- interstate as State Tax application to the for an .Since, Ex under the decisions the issuance carriage.” and for permit a by sion for such State, supra, We parte Wilson and Morse Commission. permit the Tax of the intoxicating liquor per- ap- possession for no can have this Act think it clear that prohibited, Congress it would not be sonal use seem that the Reservation. plication within this unconstitutional. permit section is a provision for made no has legislature beyond require the it is the or jurisdiction If to no Oklahoma has possession the of intoxi- to make unlawful of intoxi- for grant permits the use, liquor like- cating personal for to must or liquor cating beyond make unlawful importation.16 wise be to regulate otherwise liquor possession for way permit the a to obtain Since there from a common car- use received liquor the Reserva- import intoxicating into rier. tion, the Reser- imports into one who criminally re- held not be vation should 3610, O.R.L.1910, as amended § securing permit which a sponsible for 13, O.S.L.1927, 6, pro- ch. 37 O.S.A. § To hold otherwise could not obtain. he keep or vides that shall be unlawful to statute, by virtue the would make maintain club room where Act, pro- anot Assimilative Crimes received, kept, or stored for sale against importation the Reser- into hibition among for distribution or division mem- pro- permit, but a total vation a without say upon bers of such club. We cannot the importation. against such hibition presented receipt facts here that the shipment by secretary of the Club By provisions of U.S.C.A. § delivery to the officers of their several beer, wine, in- sale of embraced in would orders constitute a violation exchange, liquors any post toxicating Club canteen, transport prohibited. army foregoing section. It seems us that un- Here, within the Reser- there was no sale der the facts it could not be said that the in East was consummated vation. The sale received, kept, Club or stored the only contemplated It was St. Louis. sale or for distribution to its members. The transportation of the in- there a among distribution was not to be made toxicating into Reservation Club, members of the but the of- secretary as delivery thereof to the Club a given ficers who had order. The Club’s placed the army officerswho agent for the secretary merely agent. acted as their In- of- This, opinion, not consti- order. our did deed, counsel for the state enforcement 1350,supra. a violation of tute club, ficers say, in their brief “The Accordingly, course, we conclude that the appears to connec- no actual liquor.” tion with this 1030, 1032; State, Robinson v. 79 P.2d Whitwell v. 72 Okl.Cr. State, 489, 490; State, 198. 108 P.2d Okl.Cr. 114 P.2d Haltom v. 15 O.S.1941, 41-48. P.2d Hull Okl.Cr. State, 423, 425; 61 Okl.Cr. 65 P.2d Stump State, U. v. Yosemite Collins P.2d Okl.Cr. Knighton 616, 619; State, 64 Okl.Cr. 278- 468, commonly As- delivery 18 U.S.C.A. called the there- Reservation together, Act, runvide in delivery the similative Crimes secretary of to the Club doing not effect that or failure to do joined in would officers who the order thing acquired act or on lands reserved or As- offense under the a Federal constitute 1350, for the exclusive use of the United States Act, under similative Crimes under there- and of, exclusive supra. penal which is not an act of made affirmed. Congress but which if committed jurisdiction of the state in which such lands- BRATTON, Judge (concurring). Circuit penal are situated would a of- constitute acquired by ces The United States fense, shall like and be- constitute offense comprising from lands' sion France the subject punishment. to like Military Fort Sill Oklahoma, 37' existing An statute in long prior admission and since 41, provides that it shall be un O.S.1941 § Union, the Reservation into state import transport into the lawful continuously exclusively been used liquor containing more than military purposes By of the United States. volume, per cent four alcohol statute, state ceded to the United States permit therein- first secured therefor as territory over all provided. after are other state And there comprising owned United States making penal things- certain it to do statutes in long as the United the Reservation so States respect intoxicating but it is- of the Reservation for should own and hold However, unnecessary the to detail them. except military purposes, that the re state Assimilative Crimes Act does these state make- right civil or served the process to serve criminal state laws- effective as statutes prosecutions therein in suits or within the Reservation. Where that act rights obliga on acquired, for or account of applies, adopts laws the United'. as of incurred, in tions or crimes committed designated government of States for the but outside the state places exclusive of under the companies right further to tax railroad criminal laws of the United States corporations and their franchises and respective places in such are states which property within 80 the Reservation. O.S. provisions, the of situated. Under its laws 1941 ex 4. The United States did not States, United become laws of the pressly accept un the cession but that was place. They no. respect of such a have necessary presumed will as it in the ab the state. Frank effect whatever laws of any sence dissent. Fort R. of Leavenworth 559, States, 216 30 S.Ct. lin v. United 434, U.S. Lowe, 525, 995, 114 5 29 Co. v. U.S. S.Ct. 615; 54 v. Press L.Ed. United States By Congress, L.Ed. 264. of act United 1, 212, Co., 31 55 Publishing 219 S.Ct. U.S. consented that States the several states 942; 65, People 21 Ann.Cas. authority have their should make Work Co., 253, 58- 302 Puerto Rico v. Shell U.S. Compensation applicable men’s Acts 167,82 L.Ed. 235. S.Ct. premises lands owned United within States the exterior boundaries of Twenty-first of' Amendment 1938, states. 49 40 Stat. U.S.C.A. § of the the Constitution accepted 290. Oklahoma cession 877, 27, 1935,49 27 August Stat. Act of Compensation its extended Workmen’s Act 122, prohibit the trans each U.S.C.A. § accordingly.' 85 O.S.1941 4. And act portation Congress, the United States consented in violation of the laws liquor into a state empowered that the several states be to ex free to. A is therefore of such state. state sales, income, tend their and use tax acts importation of forbid the to Federal areas within such 54 states. territorial' commerce into its in interstate 1059, 13, U.S.C.A. 14. Aside from regulatory pro boundaries or it enact exceptions, these none of which has Board importation. State visions for such here, bearing material the laws of Okla 59, Co., Young’s Market 299 U.S. v.

homa as state laws do not force 77, 38; Mahoney Triner 81 L.Ed. v. Ct. or effect within the Reservation. Fort 952, 401, 58 S.Ct. Corp., 304 U.S. Lowe, supra; R. Co. v. Leavenworth lins v. Yosemite Park Col 1424; Liquor Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. 518, Commission, 305 U.S. S.Ct. Control 1009, 82 L.Ed. 1502. S.Ct. may impose rea And ' Code, regulations safeguard 272 of the Criminal sonable intended to Section 18 U. . 451; Code, in interstate- S.C.A. óf such the'movement of such section policy wisdom this of course state, they declared is provided through commerce competence peculiar people on of the a substantial burden do not constitute Arkansas, of Oklahoma. The effect of the v. Duckworth such commerce. court, upheld by lower the ma- U.S. jority, enjoin police is to power power But has no asserted 138 A.L.R. 1144. a state State, ancillary to the enforcement transportation in interstate forbid laws, of its criminal liquor through grounds that its commerce of inoperative are rendered force United States v. territorial boundaries. 323, L.Ed. transcendent Federal law. Gudger, 249 U.S. S.Ct. Commonwealth, 169 Va. Williams expres from the It difficult to discern true even 795. And 192 S.E. tran majority sions whether enroute to a destina though shipment by injunc power scendent vindicated to be tion the manufacture and sale where process paramount springs tive from the Mc law. prohibited Congress regulate interstate Graham, 57, 146 S.W. 177 Tenn. Canless commerce, of Con or the State, 2d Ala. Barnett gress authority places all to exercise over So.2d 267. expressly committed the Federal Art. Constitution. lines This crossed state 2). Clause Pacific Art. Clause See respect move every essential and was Dairy Department Agriculture, Coast originated interstate commerce. ment in -; point Illinois, its destination was Cf. Milk Penn Dairies v. Control Commis of Okla geographical boundaries sion, 87 L.Ed.-. beyond jurisdiction or wholly but homa sale, respect control of the state differences, clearly define our In order to liquor. possession, or use agree fully noted I be here power, either the no under The state had Reservation, Military al- Ft. Sill Amendment, the Twenty-first the sweep of though geographical located within the otherwise, sovereignty, or to an attribute of Oklahoma, is of State of boundaries the by interfere seizure and confiscation wholly exclusively an enclave and within color of such interstate commerce under government, the of Federal importation preventing of powerless and is that the State of Oklahoma Col liquor in of its local Cf. violation law. thereon, any regulate to activities conducted Co., supra. lins Yosemite except respect to not material in matters Furthermore, liquor shipment here. of MURRAH, (dissenting). Judge Circuit Illinois, originated and the time its at of transported by being Oklahoma has asserted the was The State of seizure common Reservation; shipment and a of to seize confiscate carrier to the Ft. Sill thus being transported commerce, intoxicating liquor, moving while in interstate and was en- Military such, by protection immunity to Ft. carrier Sill titled to if common regarded legitimate which is enclaved within it be as a article of commerce, transportation The asserted terstate of Oklahoma. of State shipment legitimate of to seize and confiscate the which incidental to activities is attempted question is liquor an exercise within the reservation. Our conducted is, my police power in its of that in point of State difference form, Oklahoma, to a purest because relates declared the of its Constitution State laws, affecting public morals public policy, possess, makes it unlawful police pow- transport, furnish, particu- or receive this inhabitants. of the State's liquor, indispensable preroga- shipment er of is an of lar subject sovereignty, to sei- and “at times the contraband and tive therefore of is insistent, always one of under most the least zure confiscation powers government.” State, Government has limitable Federal Richmond, only operation Eubank v. consented to its laws not L.R.A..N.S., respect particu- to the laws in S.Ct. involved, See, also, Kirkwood, Sligh made commodity but has also U. lar offense when com- S.Ct. Clas- acts a Federal the same Indiana, on v. within the boundaries enclave. mitted 858; Ziffrin, Inc., Reeves, legiti- not a Consequently, is commerce; there mate interstate 128. The article governmental protect; 7S8, is no function to no U.S.C.A. 1350. It immunize; activity legitimate interstate follows therefore that it a violation of is and, legislation policy no Federal the Federal import law to liquors Reservation; vindicate. into the to receive intoxicating liquors from a common oth- By Constitution, pro its has carrier, er whether personal' intended hibited and declared unlawful the manu otherwise; use or to sell or otherwise fur- facture, sale, barter, away, giving or fur same; and, possession nish the than of more nishing intoxicating liquor quart one State,1 its laws has declared unlaw prima reservation is facie evidence of its any ful the State of illegal possession. Furthermore, it is unlaw- intoxicating liquors beverage purposes; ful to maintain a club room in which in- receive, directly indirectly, any liquor toxicating stored, kept, is for dis- liquors, prohibited by the sale of which is tribution the members of club. Oklahoma, the laws of from a common or same, possess or to wheth sufficiently thus becomes plain that the liquors er personal are intended for use or otherwise.3 is Oklahoma has also de any legitimate incidental to activi- possession clared that upon more than ties the Military Reserva- quart tion, one of intoxicating prima is but illegal would and contraband at facie evidence of illegal possession;4 point its of its destination. It is thereh keep it is unlawful or maintain legitimate fore not a article interstate- club kept room where immunity against or stored commerce. Interstate the- sale, or for distribution or operation division of state criminal laws does not among the members of such club.5 Thus moving in extend to articles interstate com- laws, network of its Oklahoma has made merce to an unlawful destination. If this- plain possession that the true, maxim, of intoxicating be then the ex dolo malo non- and', liquors for beverage purposes actio, is contrary cogent application, oritur public policy. justifiable injunctive- there basis for relief court. By force,of Act,6 the Assimilative Crimes thing act or committed or with- In order equity, omitted to make out a case in the- in the Ft. Military Reservation, Sill majority which pos- hold that it not unlawful to penal by is not made an Congress, act question sess the for one’s but if which committed or omitted within use and it therefore not Oklahoma, the State of possess would be a Military violation unlawful to it on the Reser- laws, of its criminal is a violation of vation. holding by- Feder- This conclusion is reached punishable al law and (Laws 1917, such. Further- enactment, the State sthtute ch.. more, by express 186, 350, 1, Federal p. 38, it is Sec. 37 making O.S.A. § any person unlawful for to sell or deal it unlawful to receive the from a com- beer, wine, intoxicating liquors it, mon or other possess on or to Military 2, Reservation. Act of Feb. whether intended for use or other- 1 State, Prohibition the Okla Ordinance to 82. See Morse v. 63 Okl.Cr. Following 445, 757; homa State, Constitution. Schedule 77 P.2d Whitwell v. 72 490; 192, 489, § 43. 114 Okl.Cr. P.2d Haltom 2 1939, 1-5, State, 117, Laws 744, Secs. 37 O.S. v. 41-45. 58 Okl.Cr. 50 P.2d Hayes States, Cir., 746; State, 12, See United v. 112 10 Hull v. 61 Okl.Cr. 65 P.2d 417; Epps States, Cir., 423, 425; Stump State, F.2d 391, v. United 10 v. 66 Okl.Cr. 931; Flippin States, 616, 619; Knighton 112 State, F.2d v. 92 United P.2d v. 64 Cir., 742, denied, 1032; 322, 1030, 8 121 F.2d certiorari Okl.Cr. 79 P.2d Robin 677, 184, 542; State, 75, 314 62 196, 86 L.Ed. son v. 71 108 Okl.Cr. P.2d States, Cir., Hinkle United v. 8 115 F. 198. 3610, R.L.1910, 2d 1927, 217. Laws Sec. 1917, 186, 1, 13, 1, Laws ch. Sec. 37 O.S.A. § ch. Sec. 6.§ O.S.A. DeHasque Atchison, etc., 289, 38. See v. as last Cr.Code amended June- Ry. Co., 183, 73, 6, 1940, 234, 68 Okl. 173 P. L.R.A. Stat. 18 U.S.C.A. 468. 1918F, 259; Baldridge State, Paul, 141, United States 6 Pet. Okl. See 85, 217; State, 348; 194 P. Walker v. 18 Okl. Franklin v. United 661, 559, 568, 434, 197 P. Cr. 520. 216 U.S. 615; 30 S.Ct. 54 L. p. 48, 6, Laws ch. Laws Sec. Ed. Pub States Press 1923-24, 123, p. 144, lishing Co., 1, 8, ch. Sec. Laws 219 U.S. 31 S.Ct. 153, p. ch. 942. O.S.A. Ann.Cas. n wise,unconstitutional. Co., Curry 304 U.S. Park & lins v. Yosemite Thus, it is said 1502. But 518, 538, 58 S.Ct. law-—State no shipment violated case, are no there the Yosemite unlike Federal; confiscation its seizure no Fed- legitimate protect, and activities to was an unwarranted officials the State policy This legislative eral to vindicate. commerce, and interstate terference be- jurisdictional jealousy not a case of entitled is therefore carrier common sovereignties; tween Federal and State answer It is a sufficient injunctive relief. to asserted the Federal Government has not light- laws are not say that state criminal to any power in it insure which reside to equity on by Federal courts ly nullified shipment, nor has conduct of the safe they unconstitutional. grounds that are consignee invoked the Act, thought be unconstitu- to The State tional, Only court. carrier seeks re- be- the interstate it has been law became lief, equities upon of its case rest interpreta- courts for Oklahoma' fore legitimacy which it of the articles trans- constitutionality construction, tion and ported protect. to and seeks think I challenged, and do been has not setting it aside lightly we are warranted proper The our orderly function of injunctive relief in these justify in order to system only government dual is achieved n circumstances. Moreover, trial is on one through a delicate and meticulous balance acts. We of these for the violation of Federal sovereignty. and state Each is ;are only validity inso- with their concerned supreme delegated re- domain policy of the they express public far as Constitution, served Federal to purpose (cid:127)sovereign Oklahoma. Our State of yet regulate operate both the conduct power asserted whether the is to ascertain people. This deli- behavior of united one acts, pursuance these so offends attained, main- cate balance of justify the Federal law as to paramount tained, only by regard for the solicitous equity powers to vindi- of Federal exercise sovereign in relation of each policy. national cate the general governed. welfare indistinct, im prohibits Amendment the two The 21st boundaries between are transportation broadly portation only delineated the Consti- province liquors tution. is the of the courts into the State empowered for as- maintain that balance State essential un suring sovereignty to each the full measure bid such respect by the commerce clause for its and ordinances. This fettered Act, Webb-Kenyon also balance not maintained utilization Constitution. See injunctive process, of Federal insure State U.S.C.A. § 299 U.S. safe conduct Young’s Market of a Board v. Mahoney v. Tri from State to a Mili- State, tary Corp., 304 located within the ner Liquor Brewing whereat it would violation of Indianapolis Co. be a receive, Commission, sell, possess law the same. S Control Ziffrin, Inc., Injunctions by against courts .Ct. operation should, events, Reeves, of state all ap upon necessity be based 21st Amendment is considerations of But the my judgment, is in for national dominance. In plicable where exclusive necessity here, in the not exist does the United n injunction beverages. Col- should have been denied. regulate alcoholic

Case Details

Case Name: Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 26, 1943

Citation: 137 F.2d 274

Docket Number: 2697

Court Abbreviation: 10th Cir.