Court Opinion

ID: 8508623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 08:34:17.882265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:51:00.656133
License: Public Domain

GIFFEN, J.
The ordinance involved in this case is unreasonable, unjust and practically prohibitive in fixing the fee for maintaining a temporary store at the sum of $300, regardless of the amount of goods offered for sale, and of the length of time the business is to be carried on. If the value of the goods is $300 or less, the collection of the prescribed license fee in effect confiscates the goods, and, if the licensee wishes to operate a store for one day only he is charged the same fee as one who desires to maintain it for the period of a week, a month, or a year.
The amount of goods on hand, and the success of the venture are both important factors in determining the length of time that the store would be kept open. A ready sale of all the goods might terminate the enterprise, or on the other hand, induce the proprietor to purchase other goods and continue it indefinitely. A merchant could rarely afford to pay the sum of $300 for the privilege of opening a temporary store, and hence this provision of the ordinance operates in restraint of trade. For these reasons we hold the ordinance to be invalid, and reverse the judgment of the common pleas court.
Swing, J., concurs.