Court Opinion

ID: 9777480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:12:31.376343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:54.685127
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
Mr. Justice W;hite.
Complaint is made in the petition to rehear that we failed to pass upon the validity of Section V of the ordinance. We said in our opinion that:
*412Section Y of the ordinance regulates the hours for the sale of beer 'within the corporate limits of said city and it also makes unlawful the sale of beer on certain holidays enumerated therein.
The chancellor referred to this Section of the ordinance when he said that it regulated “the hours and days when beer may be sold.”
In declaring Section Y and the other sections of the ordinance constitutional, the chancellor referred to Grubb v. Mayor and Aldermen of Morristown and Howard v. Christmas, supra, which held that municipalities (under T.C.A. sec. 57-208), have the broadest powers, even to the extent of prohibition, to regulate the sale of beer.
We adopted the chancellor’s memorandum opinion as the opinion of this Court and cited additional authority for holding that said ordinance, in its entirety, was a valid exercise of police power, despite the contention of appellants that the City had no authority to pass the ordinance and that its action in so doing was ultra vires and void.
T.C.A. sec. 57-208 provides that cities and towns may impose restrictions, fixing zones and territories, and providing for hours of opening and closing of places of business, and such other rules and regulations as will promote public health, morals and safety as may by ordinance be provided in connection with the sale, storage, etc., of beer.
The power to exercise sound discretion is implicit in the power to regulate. State ex rel. Major v. Cummings, 178 Tenn. 378, 158 S.W.2d 713, 139 A.L.R. 837 (1942), (sale of intoxicating liquors); Large v. City of Elizabethan, 185 Tenn. 156, 203 S.W.2d 907 (1947), (Regulation of *413use of streets by taxis); Jones v. City of Jackson, 195 Tenn. 329, 259 S.W.2d 649 (1953), (Regulation of business of auctioneering).
Also, in tbe Jones case the Court said:
An ordinance is not invalid merely because it regulates a lawful business and due process of law is not denied when an ordinance fairly and reasonably regulates a lawful business. 195 Tenn. at 336, 259 S.W.2d at 652.
The holding in the Jones case has been examined and approved most recently by this Court in the case of Gatlinburg Art Gallery v. City of Gatlinburg, 215 Tenn. 107, 384 S.W.2d 9 (1964), (Regulating the business of auctioneering).
We believe all provisions of the ordinance herein attacked do fairly and reasonably regulate the sale of beer within the corporate limits of the City of Dayton for the reasons assigned by the chancellor and by us in our original opinion.
The petition to rehear is denied.
Burnett, Chiee Justice, and Dyer, Holmes and Chattin, Justices, concur.