Case Title: E-CON-O-WASH CORP. OF RI v. Sousa

Citation: 164 A.2d 851

Docket Number: 

State: rhode-island

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Date: 1960-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
164 A.2d 851 (1960) E-CON-O-WASH CORP. OF R.I. v. william P. SOUSA et al. Equity No. 2823. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. November 7, 1960. Leo Patrick McGowan, John P. Bourcier, Providence, for complainant. Frank L. Martin, for respondents. CONDON, Chief Justice. This is a bill in equity to enjoin the members of the town council and the chief of police of Bristol from enforcing the provisions of general laws 1956, § 5-16-2, against the complainant. The cause is pending in the superior court on bill, answer and oral proof, but in the course of the proceedings a question of law arose which in the opinion of the trial justice was of such doubt and importance and so affected the merits of the controversy that it ought to be determined by the supreme court. He therefore certified such question to this court pursuant to G.L. 1956, § 9-24-27, for our determination. As so certified the question reads: The complainant is conducting an automatic self-service wash business on Hope street in Bristol solely with such coin-operated washing machines and without first obtaining a permit to conduct a public laundry as required by G.L. 1956, § 5-16-2. The complainant contends that the statute does not apply to its business because it is not a "public laundry" within the meaning of that term as defined in § 5-16-1. It is therein defined as follows: "`Public laundry' shall mean and include any plant or equipment conducted or operated as a laundry for profit, and for which business is solicited from the general public * * *." Section 5-16-2 provides in part that "No person shall conduct or operate a public laundry in any city or town until the licensing authorities of such city or town shall have caused an inspection to be made of such laundry and shall have issued a permit for the operation thereof. Such permit shall be issued upon such terms and subject to such rules and regulations not inconsistent with law, as said licensing authorities may prescribe for the purpose of protecting the public health and the suppression of unsanitary conditions." The respondents contend that complainant is conducting a public laundry within the intendment of the statute and must therefore comply with such provisions. The *853 complainant argues that it is not subject to the statute because the business of coin-operated self-service washing machines for the use of the public was unknown to the legislature when it enacted the statute. In other words it concedes that its business is public but denies that it is a laundry as contemplated by the legislature at that time. We cannot agree with complainant's contention. The verb "to launder" means either to wash or to wash and iron. Webster's New International Dictionary, 1931. The place where either work is done is a laundry. And if it is a place where the public generally is so served it is a public laundry. State v. Lee, 49 R.I. 491, 144 A. 159. In that case this court construed the statute now under consideration and held that it was intended to apply even to a place where the clothes were only starched and ironed after they had been washed elsewhere. In this connection the court said, at page 494 of 49 R.I.m at page 161 of 144 A., "An establishment which performs all or any considerable portion of those services for the public is in common acceptation `a public laundry.' We know of no general term other than that of a `public laundry' which would properly designate a place where all of such services are rendered save that of washing the clothes." Although the general assembly has met in annual sessions since 1929 when such construction was declared, the statute has not been amended in any manner so as to alter the meaning then attributed to it. Such long legislative acquiescence in the court's construction may reasonably be considered to imply legislative approval. Order of St. Benedict v. Town Council, 84 R.I. 503, 125 A.2d 150; Coone v. Coone, 74 R.I. 232, 59 A.2d 850. In the circumstances we are constrained to reaffirm that construction and declare that any place where the service of washing soiled clothes for the general public is performed is a public laundry regardless of the means and methods used in performing such service. In reaching the above conclusion we have not overlooked certain New York cases which complainant cites as persuasive authority in support of its contention. The statute under review in those cases differs in some of its phraseology from our statute and for that reason we did not find such cases helpful. In the construction of statutes it is not unusual to find that the cases from foreign jurisdictions construing similar statutes in such jurisdictions are of little or no persuasive force because of such variance in phraseology and we have heretofore adverted to that fact. See Probate Court of East Providence v. McCormick, 56 R.I. 308, 185 A. 592. In the present instance we have the added reason for not looking beyond our own jurisdiction because of the clearly expressed opinion of this court in State v. Lee, supra. We answer the question certified for our determination in the affirmative and direct that the papers in the cause be returned to the superior court with our answer certified thereon.