Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-06-18
OIL INSPECTION.
A Judicial Opinion Deciding the Law
ON the Subject Unconstitutional.

A Judicial OpsnIon Deciding the Law
ON the Subject Unconstitutional.
We yesterday stated that two drug firms
in the city were sued by the city inspector
Of oils for official service rendered, and
that Esquire Thurneck, before whom the
cases were tried, had reserved his decision.
The opinion has been rendered, snd we
herewith lay it before our readers. twill
be seen that the law requiring bolders Of
oils to pay two cents per gallon for their
inspection is declared unconstitutional;
MT. McQuithey vs.. Berry, Demoville
& Co., and Litterer & Cabler: Suit haV-
ing been brought before me by NJ. T. Nc
Quilhey against the defendants, for ser
vices rendered 70 the amount Of twenty
five dollars and eighty-three cents for in
spectiDg 1874 gallons of oil for Berry,
DemoyiIIe q Co, and fourteen dollars and
forty cents for inspecting 720 gallons Of oil
for Litterer & Cabler.
In proof of this account, the plaintiff in
troduces In evidence an act or ordinance
enacted by the Mayor and City Council of
Nashville, Tennessee, creating the Office Of
an Inspector 10 test oil, and fixing his
compensation at two cents per gallon for
inspection. 4sss 2 -s.J a hs-s t.-E
,s The defendants introduce as evidence,
that inspectors of oil in Louisville receive
ten cents, in Cincinnati six cent?. in Pitts
burg four cents, in Cleveland Eve cents,
St. Louis FIVE cents. etc, per barrel, and
that the law requiring them to pay two
cents per gallon Is oppressive and extor-
tionate, and on this ground refuses paying
said charges, but express their willingness
to pay for such inspection ffty cents on the
| first barrel, and twenty five cents for each
| successive barrel. ..-..... ...,.I
The question for this court 10 decide Is
this: Is the proof introduced as 4 city
| ordinance sufficient to demand judgment
according to said ordinance.
The argument made by the plaintiff
counsel that a Magistrates court had
| nothing to do with the validity of law, is
not sustained by this court. When case
| of this nature is brought before = Magistrate
he has the same right to declare law uu-
constitutional as has the Supreme Court OF
the State. That it is not so binding, and
certainly not final, this court we'll under
stands, and froSa his decision either party
may appeal. ...I .rIa. H.I
An old decision (the parties concerned
may hunt it up-in Meigs) says that cor
| porstion has q right to enact bylaws, but
not oppressive ones, and that oppressive
| laws are Unconstitutional, and this court ia
prepared to say that the law fixing such an
4 exorbitant compensation is oppressive and
ruinous to the trade and community al
large, and therefore unconstitutional, and
not governing this court. .. .-..s..F f.-
The judgment Of this court, thereforG
that the plaintiff recover from Berry, Demo
vile & Co, for the inspection of % barreli
of oil, so cents for the first barrel inspected
aud 25 cents for each additional barrel
making in this case S7.25; and from Lit
terer & Cabler for inspecting sixteen bar
rels that he recover $4.25, this being al
ample compensation.
This decision may seem to some partie
rather "duichy," but in the opinion o
this c0ur:, is founded npon principles o
right and justice and laws in equity, an'
the party sggrieved by ii may appeal.
A. s. THURNEcK, J. P.
NASHVILLE, June IL, 1859. HaaI
From the above decision the inspecto
takes an appeal to the Circuit Court