Respublica v. Philip Urbin Duquet
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
2 Yeates 493 (1799)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
On March 11, 1789, the state of Pennsylvania (plaintiff) enacted an ordinance that provided cities with the power to make bylaws to support the governing and welfare of the city and to punish those who violated such laws and ordinances. On April 18, 1795, Pennsylvania enacted legislation that empowered the mayor and other elected municipal council members to pass ordinances at their discretion that prevented individuals from erecting various types of wooden buildings, including shops, stores, or mansions, within certain populous parts of Philadelphia. This legislation specified that incorporated cities may enact any ordinances to prevent individuals from erecting such wooden buildings as the cities saw fit. The corporation of the city of Philadelphia subsequently adopted an ordinance that gave the mayor’s court the power to try all violations of the prohibition on wooden-building construction. Philip Urbin Duquet (defendant) was charged with constructing a wooden structure in violation of Philadelphia’s ordinance. Duquet was prosecuted by indictment in the mayor’s court with the possibility of imprisonment. Duquet removed the case to federal court and challenged that the city of Philadelphia was not authorized to pass such an ordinance, and if it was, the ordinance was unconstitutional because the city only had the power to inflict pecuniary penalties.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shippen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.