163 Ind. 671 | Ind. | 1904
Appellee was the plaintiff below. His complaint was based on the provisions of an act of the General Assembly approved March 9, 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 276). The record raises the question as to the constitutionality of that act. All of the essential provisions thereof are found in the first section, which, omitting the enacting clause, is as follows: “That it shall be unlawful for any merchant engaged in the buying and selling of merchandise, while he is indebted to any person who has in good faith given him credit for merchandise sold to him and to be used by him in the conduct of his business, or to any person for money loaned to him to be used in'the conduct of such business, and which has been actually used in said business, to sell his entire stock of merchandise in bulk, or to sell the major portion thereof in value in one or ¡more parcels or to one or more persons for the purpose and with the intention of ceasing to conduct said business in the same manner and at the same place as he has theretofore conducted the same, without first making a full and complete inventory of the merchandise so proposed to be sold, in which inventory the values shall be extended at the ruling wholesale market price thereof; and making a full, true and correct schedule of all persons to whom he is indebted for merchandise so sold to him- and of all persons to whom he is indebted for money loaned to him to be used in the conduct of such business, and- which has been used therein, stating therein the postoffice address of each of said creditors and the amount owing to each of them; to which inventory and schedule there shall be attached the oath of
In the case of Sellers v. Hayes (1904), ante, 422, we had occasion to consider the underlying question in this case, but the importance of the principle involved is, as we believe, a sufficient reason for a further opinion upon the subject.
We have little doubt that the act is in violation of our state Constitution, but, as we are persuaded that it contravenes the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, we prefer to consider the case from that view-point.
After the opening language relative to national citizenship' and its rights, the amendment contains the following language: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is settled that the adoption of said provisions did not carry into the framework of our government any new principle. The amendment is merely a check, and, as its terminology and meaning come from and are revealed by the past, we may appropriately (and for an
As was well said by Mr. Justice Story: “That government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that- the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred. At least, no court of justice in this country would be warranted in assuming that the power to violate and disregard them — a power so repugnant to the common principles, of justice and civil liberty — lurked under any general grant of legislative authority, or ought to be implied from any general expressions of the will of the people.” Wilkinson v. Leland (1829), 2 Pet. 627, 658, 7 L. Ed. 542. See State, ex rel., v. Jameson (1889), 118 Ind. 382, and separate opinion by Elliott, C. J., page 400; State, ex rel., v. Fox (1902), 158 Ind. 126.
There is an absence of high-sounding phrases concerning freedom in Magna Qharta, probably for the reason that it was largely declaratory of the fundamental law of England. 1 Blackstone’s Comm., *127; Coke’s Inst. (Second part), Proeme. The significance of the instrument depends largely upon the fact that its stipulations were wrung from the hands of an unwilling king, by men with arms in their hands. Hence it is regarded as an historical monument of right, and it is called the palladium of English liberty. The twenty-eighth chapter of Magna Charta, which Blackstone says “alone would have merited the title it bears of Great Charter,” provides: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor we will not pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer
. In the old case of Nightingale v. Bridges (1689), 1 Shower *135, it appears that counsel for the plaintiff, in arguing the cause, said that it was' a “fundamental rule, that in life, liberty, and estate, every man who hath not forfeited them, hath such a right that the law allows him to defend, and means for so doing, that if it be violated, it gives an action to redress the wrong and punish the wrongdoer. The law is the highest inheritance which the king hath, for by it the king and all of his subjects are ruled, and if the law were not, there would be neither king nor inheritance. The kings of England have always claimed a monarchy royal, not a monarchy seignoral; ‘under the first the subjects are freemen, and have a propriety in their goods, and freehold in their lands, but under the latter they are villains and slaves;’ and, my lord, this propriety was not introduced into our land, as the result of princes’ edicts, concessions and charters, but was the - Old fundamental law, springing from the original frame and constitution of the realm.”
As far back as the year 1819, Mr. Justice Johnson said, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244, 4 L. Ed. 559: “As to the words from Magna Charta, incorporated into the constitution of Maryland, after volumes spoken and written with a view to their exposition, the good sense of mankind has at length settled down to this: that they were intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained
It is well settled that under the modern law the phrases “law of the land” and “due process of law” are identical in import. Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co. (1855), 18 How. 272, 15 L. Ed. 372; Davidson v. New Orleans (1877), 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 616; Hurtado v. California (1883), 110 U. S. 516, 28 L. Ed. 232; Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th ed.), 502; Pomeroy, Const. Law (3d ed.), §245.
It was said by Mr. Justice Brewer, speaking as the organ of the court in Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis (1897), 165 U. S. 150, 159, 17 Sup. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666: “The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the Nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended, to secure that equality of right's which is the foundation of free government.” There is no doubt that the words life, liberty, and property, as used in both the fifth and fourteenth amendments, were used as representative terms. Story, Constitution '(4th ed.), §1950. Of these words, liberty is undoubtedly the most comprehensive. “In a general way,” says an authoritative writer, “it may here be stated as an explanation — not offered as a definition — that when the term civil liberty is used, there is now always meant a
“The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman,” says Blackstone, in 1 Comm., *138, “is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.” Writing in a more philosophical spirit, Kent thus expresses himself: “There have been modern theorists who have considered separate and exclusive property, and inequalities of property, as the cause of injustice, and the unhappy result of government and artificial institutions. But human society would be in a most unnatural and miserable condition if it were possible to be instituted or reorganized upon the basis of such speculations. The sense of property is graciously bestowed on mankind for the purpose of rousing them from sloth, and stimulating them to action; and so long as the right of acquisition is exercised in conformity to the social rela
It was said in People v. Gillson (1889), 109 N. Y. 389, 398, 17 N. E. 343, 4 Am. St. 465: “The term '‘liberty’ as used in the Constitution is not dwarfed into mére freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen as by incarceration, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to be free in the enjoyment of the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare.” It is not every equal law which is a just law, but, within limits, it may be said that equality is an attribute of liberty. In pronouncing the opinion of the court in United States v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U. S. 542, 555, 23 L. Ed. 588, Mr. Chief Justice Waite made use of the following language: “The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power.” It was said in Yick Wo. v. Hopkins (1885), 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220, that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
The guaranties found in the fourteenth amendment with respect to life, liberty, property, and equality are not to bo treated as amounting to a composite, yet, taken together, they clearly evince the general purpose- of the limitations. There seems to have been something of this view in the mind of the federal Supreme Court when it said in Barrier v. Connolly (1885), 113 U. S. 27, 31, 5 Sup. Ct. 357,
The effect of the guaranty of due process of law and of the equal protection of the laws is to prevent the state from exercising, by any of its departments, arbitrary and capricious power over persons or property. Ex parte Virginia (1879), 100 U. S. 339, 25 L. Ed. 676; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra; Dent v. West Virginia (1888), 129 U. S. 114, 9 Sup. Ct. 231, 32 L. Ed. 623; Duncan v. Missouri (1894), 152 U. S. 377, 14 Sup. Ct. 570, 38 L. Ed. 485; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis (1897), 165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666; Holden v. Hardy (1898), 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42, L. Ed. 780. The law of the land or due process of law can not be taken to -be the very act of legislation which wantonly deprives a person of his rights. Wynehamer v. People (1856), 13 N. Y. 378. In Loan Assn. v. Topeka (1874), 20 Wall. 655, 662, 22 L.
We recognize to the full the doctrine declared in Missouri v. Lewis (1879), 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 989, with reference to the extent of the authority to' classify; but for the very reason that the amendment was designed to protect persons against the exercise of arbitrary and capricious power by any of the departments of state government, a legislature can not enact a law which creates burdensome and invidious distinctions among persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the state. The lines on which an enactment is built should have some relevancy to the subject-matter. “Arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it classification.” Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, supra; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (1901), 183 U. S. 79, 22 Sup. Ct. 30, 46 L. Ed. 92; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. (1902), 184 U. S. 540, 22 Sup. Ct. 431, 46 L. Ed. 679.
It is with these preliminary considerations that we take up the discussion of the effect of the enactment in controversy. An examination of section one reveals the fact that it tvas the legislative purpose to provide a remedy for only two
Counsel for appellee attempt to defend the classification by the claim that there is an essential unity about a business, and that it is within the range of the legislative discretion to determine that those who • have contributed to build it up, by extending to it credit, shall alone be entitled to subject the stock to the payment of their debts; and, as a part of the contention suggested, appellee’s counsel state that the act can be upheld on the same principle on which material men’s liens and certain other statutory liens are allowed. The act in question does not proceed on the theory
In all ordinary cases the proceeds of a particular sale finds its way into the merchant’s cash drawer, and is ultimately deposited to the credit of his general bank account— an account which is checked against for the payment of his business obligations, and also to pay for multifarious outside needs. In many instances it would no more be possible to trace the benefit conferred by the credit, and determine how much of it was continued in the business and how much of it was dissipated in the business or .was otherwise expended, or to determine whether it was the proceeds of that credit (perhaps remotely given), or was the business energy of the merchant or of his employes, transmuted into money, which had on a particular day produced a favorable balance in his bank account, than it would be to separate the waters of two rivulets at a point below their confluence. In fact, it is evident that a benefit conferred upon a merchant by extending him a credit will ordinarily and in a short time become, with the' other influences, direct and indirect, which have contributed to build up the business, so profoundly ingrained with his own property that it is scarcely a figure of speech to say that the union is chemical.
We perceive no resemblance between such a-right as the act in question attempts to confer and the lien given by statute to a material man. The latter right is in the nature of a jus in re; it is based on what is a fair assumption that the property is benefited to the extent of the materials be
Although general liens bear some resemblance to the rights attempted to be granted by the statute in question, yet the difference is vital, and such liens, which are only rights of detention, find their justification largely in their ancient character and in usage, which implies a tacit agreement between the parties. It was laid down by Lord Ellen-borough, in Rushforth v. Hadfield (1806), 7 East 224, that attempts to enforce- general liens beyond settled usages are not to be encouraged, since to establish a new right of that character would be to encroach upon the common law. Of course, the grant of 'legislative power implies a right to change the common law, particularly with reference to administrative and remedial processes, and a large, and in many respects uncontrollable, discretion exists in the legislative department to determine what is expedient; but, in determining what constitutes due process of law and equality before the law, proper consideration must be given to the ancient landmarks which were established for the protection of private right. Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th ed.), 505; Maxwell v. Dow (1900), 176 U. S. 581, 20 Sup. Ct. 448, 44 L. Ed. 597; Hurtado v. California (1884), 110 U. S. 516, 4 Sup. Ct. 292, 28 L. Ed. 232.
In its last analysis, the act is objectionable in that its classification as to the remedy of an action is too narrow, and in that it attempts, in effect, at least, to give the members of the favored class a preference on execution. The doctrine has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States that “every partial or private law which directly proposes to destroy or affect individual rights, or does the same thing by affording remedies leading to similar consequences, is unconstitutional and void.” Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (1901), 183 U. S. 79, 22
There is, and always will be, in every representative government, a struggle going on between the various interests of society with reference to legislation. This but evinces the necessity for the existence of a coordinate department of government, also acting under the responsibility of an oath, to determine, when called on to enforce legislation, whether it operates unequally. Hamilton declared that, “it is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. * * * Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” 51 Federalist.
Judgment reversed, with a direction to sustain appellant’s demurrer to each paragraph of the complaint.