This case was compared with an incident in which Hugh Maher seized a piece of property from Harmon Spruance in an Edmund Kitch article entitled, "The Facts of [this case]." The court opinion for this case uses state constitutions and the Magna Carta to define the word "deprive" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. That opin
This case was compared with an incident in which Hugh Maher seized a piece of property from Harmon Spruance in an Edmund Kitch article entitled, "The Facts of [this case]." The court opinion for this case uses state constitutions and the Magna Carta to define the word "deprive" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. That opinion also uses the examples of wharfingers and hackney-coachmen and quotes Lord Hale's De Portibus Maris to show that the legislation in question did not violate the due process clause. In the court opinion for this case, Chief Justice Waite argued that although Congress alone could regulate interstate commerce, the regulations in question in this case did not impair federal control, and agreed that a "virtual monopoly" was created by the owners of grain elevators. Overturned by the decision in the Wabash case, for 10 points, name this case arising from legislation passed due to the influence of the Granger movement, which decided that private property can be regulated for the public good, to the detriment of warehousers in Chicago.
This case was compared with an incident in which Hugh Maher seized a piece of property from Harmon Spruance in an Edmund Kitch article entitled, "The Facts of [this case].
{Munn} v. {Illinois}