Court Opinion

ID: 9868392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:33:06.340549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:36.940076
License: Public Domain

On PETITION TO REHEAR.
Plaintiff in error has filed a petition to rehear, complaining of the holding* of the court that the ordinances of the City of Chattanooga are a valid exercise of the police power, and that the hours of opening and closing pawn shops are not unreasonable. It is not denied that the City has the right to regulate the business of conducting pawn shops. Ample authority is cited in the original opinion to sustain such legislation. There is nothing, however, in the opinion to justify the insistence,, of petitioner that the court held “any hours fixed are reasonable.” We are concerned alone with the hours of opening and closing as set forth in the ordinance which is assailed in the instant case. The general rule of law as stated by McQuillin on Municipalities, and quoted in *301the original opinion, Ras been followed in a number of jurisdictions. Tlie case of City of Butte v. Paltrovich, 30 Mont., 18, 75 P., 521, 104 Am. St. Rep., 698, is directly in point, wherein it was held that an ordinance fixing’ the hours of opening and closing pawn shops at seven o ’clock, A.M., and six o’clock, P.M., was not unreasonable. In Hyman v. Boldrick, 153 Ky., 77, 154 S. W., 369, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1039, the ordinance assailed, fixed the hours of openng and closing at between seven, A.M., and seven, P.M. In City of Butte v. Paltrovich, supra, it was contended, as petitioner does in the instant case, as follows: “ Appellant contends that this ordinance prohibits him from conducting his business during a portion of every day” and that “It is an unlawful interference with or restraint of trade.”
In overruling this contention the court held that the ordinance was not a prohibition hut was a reasonable regulation, citing cases. As to the reasonableness of the ordinance, the court said:
“The only remaining question is, is the regulation provided by this ordinance a reasonable one ? The mere fact that appellant’s business is legitimate, and specifically recognized as such by legislative enactment, does not render ineffectual the power conferred by subdivision 16 above. The police power is not confined to the regulation of those classes of business which are essentially illegal, for, if illegal, in the sense that they are prohibited by law, it is not easily understood how they could be regulated at all.
“It is of the very essence of the exercise of police powers that citizens may, for the public good, be constrained in their conduct with reference to matters in themselves lawful and right. Hopper v. Stack [69 N. J. L., *302562], 56 A., 1. It is not a material inquiry to attempt to ascertain tlie reason which impelled the Legislature to designate the business of pawnbrokers as subject to police regulations.* It is sufficient for us to know that it has done so, and deal with the law as we find it.”
Contention is here made that other persons who are engaged in a similar and competitive business, such as junk dealers and dealers in secondhand goods, are not required to close during the same hours as pawn shops. Responding- to this contention we hold that the court is not justified in comparing the provisions of other ordinances regulating’ different kinds of business or even similar businesses in deciding the validity of one that is assailed.
The petition to rehear is denied.