Supreme Court of the United States, 1865

McGuire v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 1, 1865 · Nelson

70 U.S. 387; 18 L. Ed. 226; 3 Wall. 387; 1865 U.S. LEXIS 722 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Messrs. Gushing and Richardson, for Me Guire, plaintiff in error., Mr. Speed, A. G. U. S., and Mr. Heed-, A. G. of Massacim setts, contra.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Newton (N.J. 1888)
Wylie v. State Board of Equalization (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1937)
United States v. Sandoval (District Court, D. New Mexico 1912)
Snyder v. Bettman (Supreme Court of the United States 1903)
City of Atlanta v. Stokes (Ga. 1932)
State ex rel. Southwell v. Zangerle (Ohio Ct. App. 1921)
Schlesinger v. . Gilhooly (N.Y. 1907)
Hodge v. Muscatine County (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
Matter of Heff (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)
Endleman v. United States (9th Cir. 1898)
Territory of Dakota ex rel. McMahon v. O'Connor (Supreme Court of Dakota 1889)
Royall v. Virginia (Supreme Court of the United States 1886)
State ex rel. Sage v. Bennett (Neb. 1886)
Standard Oil Co. v. Combs (Ind. 1884)
State v. Lillard (Mo. 1883)
Edye v. Robertson (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York 1883)
In re Watson (District Court, D. Vermont 1882)
Youngblood v. Sexton (Mich. 1875)

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

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court below decided that the license received under the act of Congress gave to the defendant no right to keep or sell intoxicating liquors in violation of the State law.

Whatever, might be the effect of this license as to the rights under it, in the absence of other provisions of the act of Congress — a question not involved in the case, and, therefore,.not material to be noticed — it is quite clear that it conferred no right or authority on the defendant below, and hence furnished no defence to the indictment under the law of the State.

The 67th section of the act of Congress enacts, “that no license hereinbefore provided for, if granted, shall be construed to authorize the commencement or continuation of any trade, business, occupation, or employment therein mentioned, within any State or Territory of the United States in which it is or shall be specially prohibited by the laws thereof, or in violation of the laws of any State or Territory.”

In view of this provision, it is in vain to attempt to give force or effect to the license against the State law; and hence the authority derived from it, upon which the defendant relied for his defence in the court below, fails.

The decision was against an authority set up under an act of Congress, and the case is, therefore, rightfully here under *396 the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. But as we are of opinion the decision of the court below was right, the judgment must be affirmed.

[See the preceding case.—Rep.]

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.