Minnesota Supreme Court, 1927

State v. Zotalis

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 8, 1927 · Dibble

214 N.W. 766; 172 Minn. 132 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

Bellew, Seland, Dillon Schendel , for appellant. Clifford L. Hilton , Attorney General, James E. Markham , Deputy Attorney General, Neil M. Cronin , City Attorney, and Arthur P. Jensen , Assistant City Attorney, for the state.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1962, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. (Minn. 1958)
State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. (Minn. 1962)
Culver v. Nelson (Minn. 1952)
State v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (Minn. 1931)
State v. Wakeen (Wis. 1953)
In re Gray (Cal. 1929)
Proprietary Ass'n v. Bd. of Pharmacy of NJ (N.J. 1954)
Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Board of Pharmacy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
State v. Combs (Or. 1942)
State v. Stephens (Mont. 1936)
People v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1934)
People v. McClain (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1934)
State Ex Rel. Missildine v. Jewett Market Co. (Iowa 1929)
State v. Levine (Minn. 1928)
D. S. Kresge Co. v. Ottinger (District Court, S.D. New York 1928)
Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Board of Pharmacy (New York Supreme Court 1960)
White v. State Board of Pharmacy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1955)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Dibble, J.

The defendant Avas convicted of the violation of G. S. 1923, § 5814, Avhich prohibits anyone not a registered pharmacist or a dealer having such a pharmacist in charge of his place of business from retailing drugs or medicines or poisons, excepting, hoAvever, 23 articles of common use. He appeals from the judgment.

The defendant conducts a confectionery store in Minneapolis. He is not a pharmacist and does not employ one. He sold aspirin and for selling it Avas convicted under the statute. The aspirin was in a container, with a label stating that it contained five-grain aspirin tablets, that a dose was one or two tablets, and that it was distributed by a designated laboratory and chemical company of Minneapolis.

*133 G. S. 1923, § 5805, provides that the term “drugs, medicines and poisons” shall include all substances commonly kept in drug stores and used in compounding medicines or sold for medicinal purposes. Aspirin is a coal tar product commonly kept in drug stores and is used and sold for medicinal purposes. It is a drug or medicine within the statute. It is not a proprietary or patent medicine.

The statute should be sustained if enacted with reasonable reference to public health or welfare. If intended merely to give a monopoly to pharmacists or druggists by restricting sales to them it is not sustainable. It is only sustainable as a police measure.

The legislature thought that the dangers incident to its sale justified regulation and that a restriction of sales to pharmacists or to those under their supervision was effective. It is true that no technical skill is required in making a sale. This does not prove the statute invalid. As remarked by the trial court, the pharmacist knows where to procure a pure and genuine article and his prescribing physicians will require him to furnish a pure drug.

It is not questioned that the sale of drugs, medicines and poisons may be regulated in the exercise of the police power. State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 42 N. W. 781; State v. Hovorka, 100 Minn. 249, 110 N. W. 870, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1272, 10 Ann. Cas. 398; 19 C. J. pp. 772-774, §§ 5-13. The restriction of the sale of aspirin as provided by the statute is within the legislative discretion. State Board v. Matthews, 197 N. Y. 353, 90 N. E. 966, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1013; People v. Smith, 231 N. Y. 531, 132 N. E. 876; State Board v. Bellinger, 138 App. Div. 12, 122 N. Y. S. 651. It may be mentioned that G. S. 1923, § 5805, permits the sale of a commonly used medicine put up for sale by a registered pharmacist when the shop of the seller is more than two miles from a drug store. This provision was held valid in State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 42 N. W. 781.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.