History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Tolman
148 Mich. 305
Mich.
1907
Check Treatment
Ostrander, J.

(after stating the facts). The instructions were right. This court has never held that an overruling necessity may not excuse entrance to a saloon on Sunday. It has expressly determined that the proprietor must, at his peril, .see that no necessity exists for keeping the same open by carrying on any other business therein which would require the doors to be open or for persons to enter therein. People v. Waldvogel, 49 Mich. 337; People v. Blake, 52 Mich. 566; People v. Cummerford, 58 Mich. 328; People v. Schottey, 116 Mich. 1; People v. Kriesel, 136 Mich. 80; People v. Crowley, 90 Mich. 366; People v. James, 100 Mich. 522; People v. Bowkus, 109 Mich. 360.

The conviction is affirmed.

McAlvay, O. J., and Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Tolman
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 30, 1907
Citation: 148 Mich. 305
Docket Number: Docket No. 133
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.