Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 edition. Excerpt: ... and all satisfactory proof as shall be deemed desirable in reference to the honesty, truthfulness, reputation and competency of any applicant for a real estate broker's or salesman's license, or of any of the officers or members of any such applicant, prior to the issuance of any such license." In reversing the order of the District Court, Mr. Justice McKenna said in effect that, while the words "require and procure" seemed to have independent and cumulative meaning, one demanding publicity, the other permitting secrecy, the court would follow the decision in U. S. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408, that "A statute must be construed, if fairly possible, so as to avoid, not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score," citing U. S. v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401, 36 Sup. Ct. 658, 659. The court was of the opinion that the word "procure" was only to confer the power of affirmative direction upon the commission, necessary to be exercised in supplement to the action of the applicant and with the same publicity and opportunity of the applicant to meet adverse evidence, and gave the commission no power that it could exercise to the detriment of any right assured to the applicant for a license by the Constitution of the United States. J. A. C. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Double jeopardy. Punishment of same act under both State and Federal Statutes. United States, Plff. In Err., vs. Vito Lanza Et Al 1 That two punishments for the same act, one at the instance of the Federal Government under the National Prohibition Act and the other under a State law for the enforcement of prohibition, do not constitute double jeopardy under the 5th Amendment, was the substance of the opinion of Chief Justice...
