Title: State v. Pendarvis
Citation: 181 Kan. 560, 313 P.2d 237
Docket Number: 40,552
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 3, 1957

181 Kan. 560 (1957)
313 P.2d 237
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
IRENE PENDARVIS, Appellee.
No. 40,552

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 3, 1957.
Fred Six, Assistant Attorney General, of Topeka, argued the cause and John Anderson, Jr., Attorney General, Robert E. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, both of Topeka, and Phillip L. Harris, Geary County Attorney, of Junction City, were on the briefs for the appellant.
Richard M. Sangster, of Junction City, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HALL, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Geary County, Kansas, sustaining a motion to quash an information.
The Kansas State Hotel and Restaurant Board caused an information to be filed against the appellee herein, Irene Pendarvis, alleging that she unlawfully and willfully operated an apartment house in Junction City, Kansas, without obtaining a state license for the year 1955 as required by law.
*561 The appellee filed a motion to quash the information for the reason that the statute upon which the information was predicated, to wit: G.S. 1955 Supp., 36-104 is unconstitutional.
There is little dispute about the facts and in order to simplify the issues before the district court the parties stipulated and agreed as follows:
The district court sustained the motion to quash the information.
While the state makes several specifications of error, the question in this appeal is whether G.S. 1955 Supp., 36-104 is in violation of, or contrary to, Section 17 of Article 2 of the Kansas Constitution.
Section 17 of Article 2 of the Kansas Constitution is as follows:
G.S. 1955 Supp., 36-104 is as follows:
Appellant contends the statute is a general law and provides a reasonable and proper classification with uniform and equal operation throughout the state; therefore, it is not contrary to the Kansas Constitution.
Appellee contends to the contrary and the district court so held. *562 In its memorandum opinion quashing the information, the court said:
The constitutional question present here is one on which this court has made a great number of decisions. In fact, there are more than one hundred cases annotated under the above constitutional provision.
The constitutions of practically all of the states contain similar provisions which prohibit the passage of local or special laws.
In determining whether a law is general or special, our court follows the weight of authority of looking ordinarily to substance rather than to form and in testing such legislation have stated broadly that general laws are those which relate to, or bind all, within the jurisdiction of the law making power, while special laws are limited in the objects to which they apply.
It has always been recognized that objects of legislation may be grouped into classes for some general legislative purposes. If the class created is not too artificial in view of the purpose of the law, the act is considered general. If the classification merely serves to identify the object to be affected, the act is special. For practical purposes, therefore, the question of whether a law is general or special resolves itself into the propriety of the classification used by the legislature.
*563 Our constitutional provision requires not only that the law shall be of a general nature but that it shall also be of uniform operation.
On the subject, see 12 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 541:
Also 12 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 542:
See, also, 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 489, p. 242.
See, also, excellent articles and collection of Kansas cases in 21 JBK 375 and 13 JBK 206.
These principles of construction have been repeated over and over again in the cases decided by this court under Section 17 of *564 Article 2 of the Kansas Constitution. The parties to this appeal have cited and quoted State, ex rel., v. Allen County Comm'rs, 156 Kan. 248, 133 P.2d 165; Board of County Comm'rs v. Robb, 166 Kan. 122, 199 P.2d 530; Rambo v. Larrabee, 67 Kan. 634, 73 Pac. 915; Board of Education v. Davis, 87 Kan. 286, 123 Pac. 885; Redevelopment Authority of the City of Kansas City v. State Corp. Comm., 171 Kan. 581, 236 P.2d 782; and Barker v. Kansas City, 149 Kan. 696, 88 P.2d 1071, all of which enunciate these principles.
In Board of County Comm'rs v. Robb, supra, the court said:
In Rambo v. Larrabee, supra, the court said:
In Board of Education v. Davis, supra, the court said:
The question before us then resolves itself to this: Are the constitutional requirements fulfilled by G.S. 1955 Supp., 36-104? To answer the primary question of whether it is a general law with uniform application we must first answer the secondary question of whether the classification of the statute meets the above tests of construction as to reasonableness.
The state of Kansas has long exercised its authority under the police power over hotels, restaurants and apartment houses through the enactment of a licensing and regulatory act in 1913. (Chapter 204, Laws 1913  G.S. 1949, Chapter 36.) These laws have been amended from time to time and were most recently amended in 1955.
Article 1 of chapter 36 defines hotels (36-101), rooming houses (36-102) and apartment houses (36-104). Sections 36-101 and 36-104 and a number of other sections were amended in 1955 primarily to improve enforcement of the law and to bring motels *565 within the scope of the act. Among other things, section 36-104 was amended as follows:
It was the contention of the appellee and the decision of the district court that this amendment makes an otherwise valid classification based upon the number of rental units arbitrary, fictitious and capricious for the reason that the statute as amended places the rental units and a unit occupied by the owner in the same class under the definition of an "apartment house."
Neither the district courts nor the appellee challenged the police power of the state to regulate or license apartment houses, nor the basic classification of "number of units" used by the legislature.
The district court concluded that the classification could not operate on the owner who occupied one of the four units in the apartment house and since the statute operates only on apartment houses with four or more apartments, the owner's occupancy of one reduces the number of rental units to three and thus the house is not subject to licensing under the statute.
The court cited no authority for its decision and the appellee in her brief cites only Kansas cases on the general rules of construction under the annotations of section 17 of article 2 in support of her contention. Both appellant and appellee concede that the cases under section 17 of article 2 turn pretty much on their individual facts.
Appellant has cited several Florida cases where the constitutionality of a Florida statute was in question. (State ex rel. Warren v. Lehman, Sheriff, 100 Fla. 970, 130 So. 716; Hiers v. Mitchell, 95 Fla. 345, 116 So. 81; and Johnson v. State ex rel. Fox, 99 Fla. 711, 127 So. 317.)
In the definition of "apartment house" the Florida statute made an exception where rooms were occupied by the owner as a home or residence. The statute was attacked on the theory that such exclusion of the owner made the law discriminatory.
The court held otherwise stating that it was the obvious intent of the legislature to relieve from the license tax a home owner who rents rooms in his residence.
While the Florida and Kansas statutes in question are different, these cases have some persuasion here.
While the exercise of the police power is not questioned in this *566 case, a consideration of the authorities concerning it does shed some light on the question here.
It is well settled that the state or a municipality may license and regulate the operation of an inn, apartment house, rooming house, restaurant or similar establishment. This authority to regulate and license is based upon the police power of the state in the interest of public health, safety and welfare. (See 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 289 at page 1051; 28 Am. Jur., Innkeepers, §§ 31, 32; 43 C.J.S. Innkeepers § 6 at page 1145; and 43 C.J.S. Innkeepers § 4.)
The fixed rule and basic standard by which the validity of all exercises of the police power is tested is that the police power of the state extends only to such measures as are reasonable and that all police regulation must be reasonable under all circumstances. (11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 302.)
The regulation and licensing of hotels, apartment houses, rooming houses and motels based upon the "number of rooms" has long been established as a reasonable exercise of the police powers as well as reasonable class legislation by the legislature. (Emphasis ours.) See 28 Am. Jur., Innkeepers, § 31:
On the "number of rooms" as a reasonable classification by the legislature  see, also, Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 60 L. Ed. 364, 36 S. Ct. 147; Hubbell v. Higgins, 148 Iowa 36, 126 N.W. 914, Ann. Cas. 1912B 822; and an annotation in L.R.A. 1915B at page 1100.
On similar questions involving trailer camps, motor courts and motels  see 115 A.L.R. 1398 and 22 A.L.R.2d 774.
In the enactment of laws governing the licensing and regulation of hotels, rooming houses, apartment houses and motels the Kansas legislature has always used as its basic classification the "number of units"  in the case of hotels and motels, five or more and in the case of apartment houses, four or more. Under the authorities this classification is reasonable both as to the exercise of the police *567 power and in compliance with the constitutional provision of general and uniform laws.
In the light of these general authorities we cannot accept the appellee's contention that the adoption of the amendment to G.S. 1955 Supp., 36-104 has the effect of changing the classification in the statute from "reasonable to unreasonable."
Appellee's contention is likewise not substantiated by logic or reason. In its wisdom, the legislature determined that apartment houses of "four or more ... units" affected the public health, safety and welfare and should be licensed and regulated. The law applies generally to all apartment houses with "four or more... units." It operates uniformly on all owners who may occupy one of these units. The fact that the owner does occupy one of the units does not change the legislative reason for licensing and regulation. Of course, the figure four might well have been the figure five or six, but in using this basis for reasonable classification the legislature had to draw the line somewhere.
We cannot agree with the district court which reduced the statutory number from four to three units because the owner occupied one. The legislature did not intend such a modification of the statute. To the contrary, the 1955 amendment made it very clear that the occupancy of a unit by the owner was not an exception to the statutory number of four units.
While the statute in question is probably entitled to the usual presumption of constitutionality we feel it is not necessary to invoke the presumption or rely upon it in this case.
The order of the district court quashing the information is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.