Title: Olan Mills, Inc. of Ohio v. City of Barre
Citation: 194 A.2d 385
Docket Number: 1950
State: Vermont
Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court
Date: October 1, 1963

194 A.2d 385 (1963) OLAN MILLS, INC. OF OHIO v. CITY OF BARRE and Floyd D. Chandler, Chief of Police and John Bernasconi, Grand Juror. No. 1950. Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington. October 1, 1963. Monti, Eldredge, Calhoun &amp; Free, Barre, for plaintiff. Reginald T. Abare, Barre, for defendant. Before HULBURD, C. J., and HOLDEN, SHANGRAW, BARNEY and SMITH, JJ. SMITH, Justice. This action in equity was instituted to obtain declaratory relief concerning the constitutionality of an ordinance of the City of Barre entitled "Itinerant Photographers." The contention of the plaintiff, Olan Mills, Inc., a foreign corporation, having its office and principal place of business in Springfield, Ohio, and engaged in the *386 business of itinerant photography, is that it is engaged in interstate commerce and that the said ordinance places an undue burden upon interstate commerce in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution. The decree of the Chancellor was that the petition for declaratory judgment was not sustained and equitable relief was denied. Judgment for the defendant was entered on the record. The plaintiff has briefed two issues for our consideration: 1. Does the manner in which plaintiff conducts its business in the City of Barre constitute interstate commerce? 2. If plaintiff, Olan Mills, Inc. of Ohio is engaged in interstate commerce, does the Barre City Itinerant Photographer's Ordinance unduly burden that commerce in violation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution? The case was submitted to the Chancellor under an agreed statement of facts. Attached to and made a part of the statement of facts was a list of eight questions which, by agreement of the parties, were to be resolved by the Chancellor and upon the determination of which the decree would be based. The first question to be resolved was: "(a) Is the manner in which the plaintiff Olan Mills Incorporated of Ohio conducts its business in the City of Barre as hereinabove stated Interstate Commerce?" The third question was: "(c) Does the said itinerant photographer's ordinance so discriminate between plaintiff and local photographers as to place an undue burden upon interstate commerce in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution that provides that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states?" The ultimate finding of fact, upon which the decree and judgment dismissing the action was based, is found in No. 9 of the the findings of fact: The question presented to us by the appeal of the plaintiff is whether the court below made the proper decree under the facts agreed upon by the parties. Stating the question in another way, our task "is to ascertain whether the law applied has sound footing on the facts found to support it; in other words, to resolve the question whether the conclusion is correct or erroneous, as a matter of law." Thompson v. Smith, 119 Vt. 488, 497, 129 A.2d 638, 644. In considering the questions raised by the plaintiff we can only draw necessary inferences from the agreed statement of facts, and we always construe an agreed statement against the excepting party. But we are bound to construe a record reasonably. This requirement applies to every part of this record, including the agreed statement. And if a reasonable construction of the stipulated facts requires an opposite result from that reached below we can enter the judgment that should have been given on the agreed facts. St. Albans Hospital v. City of St. Albans, 107 Vt. 59, 62, 176 A. 302. The agreed statement, as well as No. 5 of the findings of fact, states that the plaintiff, Olan Mills, conducts its business in the City of Barre as follows: Interstate commerce has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as: The manner in which the plaintiff conducts its business in Barre has been held to be interstate commerce in decisions from other jurisdictions. Graves v. City of Gainsville, 78 Ga.App. 186, 51 S.E.2d 58; Olan Mills, Incorporated v. City of Tallahassee, Fla., 100 So. 2d 164; Olan Mills, Inc. v. City of Nicholsville, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 522. We think the fact that the plaintiff, Olan Mills, was engaged in interstate commerce is inescapably inferable from a reading of the finding of fact just quoted. The defendant does not, in its brief, contend that the plaintiff is not engaged in interstate commerce. Defendant contends that the only question presented for decision to this Court is whether its ordinance, as written, is unconstitutional by placing an undue burden upon interstate commerce in its requirement that a license fee be paid for the right to solicit in the City of Barre. The ordinance of the City of Barre, entitled "Itinerant Photographers" is found in the agreed statement, as well as in No. 8 of the findings of fact: It is to be noted, as the Chancellor found below, that the ordinance places no requirement to obtain a license for any purpose on local photographers who maintain a place of business in the City of Barre. It is only photographers, such as the plaintiff, who do not maintain a regular place of business in the City of Barre, who must obtain a license by paying the fee provided for in the ordinance, as well as conforming with other provisions of the ordinance, including the furnishing of a performance bond. Itinerant photographers with no established place of business in Vermont seeking to practice their trade within the State of Vermont are required to pay a State license fee to the Commissioner of Taxes by virtue of 32 V.S.A. § 9102. In applying for such license the applicant is obliged to furnish to the Commissioner of Taxes all relevant information that the Commissioner may require before issuing such license. 32 V.S.A. § 9103. The Commissioner of Taxes has the right to refuse a license if he has reason to believe that the applicant is not of good moral character, is not financially responsible, or when the Commissioner, in his judgment believes the applicant is not a suitable person to have such a license. 32 V.S.A. § 9104. The plaintiff is the possessor of a license issued by the State of Vermont under the statutes above cited. The authority granted to municipalities of the State to license persons to practice as itinerant photographers within their respective jurisdictions is found in 32 V.S.A. § 9106. Subdivision (b) of the same section states that such municipal license shall not be granted unless the applicant has been previously licensed by the Commissioner of Taxes under the preceding sections of the chapter. The statutory authority to license and regulate itinerant photographers doing business within a municipality must be exercised without undue and unfair discrimination against such non-residents or the ordinance, so permitting, will be unconstitutional and void. At one time such discrimination was considered to be in conflict with the privileges and immunities clause of the Federal Constitution; since Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U.S. 416, 66 S. Ct. 586, 90 L. Ed. 760, however, the emphasis has been on its violation of the commerce clause Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 3 of the Federal Constitution. *390 While it may be that the Barre ordinance was not designed for the purpose of discriminating against the non-resident photographer, it clearly has that effect against one, such as the plaintiff, who is engaged in interstate commerce. The Barre ordinance requires the plaintiff, and others in like circumstances, to file a performance bond of $1000 with the City as a guarantee of moral character and financial responsibility, but, as we have seen, the Commissioner of Taxes, by his action in granting a license to the plaintiff, has already determined the possession of these attributes on the part of the plaintiff. The provisions of the ordinance which require the plaintiff to go to financial expense to furnish a guarantee of matters already predetermined by the State is clearly discriminatory and unfair. The ordinance also requires that the plaintiff, as an itinerant photographer pay a license fee of $10 for one week, $20 for a period of more than one week and less than four weeks, and $75 for a period of more than four weeks. No license fee of any kind is required from resident photographers of Barre, nor are such photographers required to file a performance bond. Such a plane of equality does not exist under the Barre ordinance between the resident photographer, who pays no license fees or regulatory costs, and the itinerant photographer, engaged in interstate commerce, subject to the various fees and costs stated above. The existing ordinance is both unfair and discriminatory. It requires little imagination to foresee that similar ordinances in each of the various municipalities of the state would constitute a burden and barrier on interstate commerce which could not be permitted. See Nippert v. Richmond, supra. It is the contention of the defendant municipality that because the licensing requirement in the ordinance is directed only to the soliciting of the making and selling of the photographs, such soliciting is local in character and distinct from the interstate commerce aspect of the business of the plaintiff. Where an order is solicited by an agent, and the filling of the order and delivery of goods require their transportation from one state to another the solicitation transaction is one of interstate commerce. State v. Mobley, 234 N.C. 55, 66 S.E.2d 12, 15. This contention of the defendant cannot be sustained. *391 The "Itinerant Photographers" ordinance of the City of Barre being invalid for the reasons indicated, the order must be "Judgment Reversed and Judgment for the Plaintiff."