Court Opinion

ID: 9685633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:54:08.641564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:08.796897
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Jrrstice
(dissenting).
I do not disagree with the broad constitutional principle that the legislature has power to prevent monopolies. In the light of that principle, it may well be that the first sentence of Section 111(a) of Act No. 805, 1951 Acts, p. 1402, is not, on its face, violative of any constitutional provision.
The bill of complaint here under attack, as I understand it, seeks far more than a mere declaration that the first sentence of Section III (a) is constitutional on its face. I do not understand how it can be said that the bill sufficiently alleges violation of the statute by appellant, and shows that complainant is entitled to the injunction prayed for, on the bare holding that the first sentence of Section III (a) of the Act is not unconstitutional on its face.
As it appears to me, the respondent, in this Court at least, has, by appropriate demurrer and argument, challenged certain sections of the statute. I am not able to agree that those sections meet the constitutional test and am of opinion that the decree overruling the demurrer is in error. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.