Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne

• Decision Date: 31 January 1891
• Citation: 127 Ind. 109,26 N.E. 560
• Parties: Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

127 Ind. 109

26 N.E. 560

Shuman

v.City of Ft. Wayne.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 31, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Allen county; E. O'Rourke, Judge.

R. S. Robertson, for appellant. Colerick & Oppenheim, for appellee.

COFFEY, J.

This was an action by the appellee against appellant, commenced before the may or of the city of Ft. Wayne, for an alleged violation of a city ordinance. The appellant interposed a motion before the may or to quash the affidavit in the cause, which was overruled. Upon a trial he was convicted and adjudged to pay the sum of $25, from which he appealed to the Allen circuit court. In this court he renewed his motion to quash, which was overruled, and he excepted. Upon a trial he was again found guilty, and adjudged to pay the sum of $15. From this latter judgment he appeals to this court.

The affidavit in the cause is based upon section 7 of an ordinance of the city of Ft. Wayne, which ordinance purports to regulate the business of pawnbrokers. Section 1 of the ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to carry on the business of a pawnbroker in said city, without having first procured a license so to do. Section 2 defines a pawnbroker within the meaning of the ordinance. Section 6 makes it the duty of every person engaged in said city as a licensed pawnbroker to keep at his place of business a book, in which he shall enter, in writing, a minute description of all personal property received on deposit, or by purchase, the time when it was received, giving particular mention of any prominent or descriptive marks found on the same, together with the name and residence of the person by whom it was left. Section 7 of said ordinance is as follows: “Sec. 7. Every person or persons so licensed as aforesaid shall, during the ordinary hours of business, when requested by the mayor, marshal, captain of police, or any public officer of said city, submit and exhibit such books as in the sixth section provided for, to the inspection of said mayor or officer of the police department, and shall exhibit any goods, personal property, bonds, notes, or other securities that may be so left with such licensed person, to the inspection of such mayor or officer of the police department; and every such licensed person refusing to submit said books, goods, personal property, bonds, notes, or other securities as aforesaid, upon request of the mayor or any officer of the police department of said city, shall forfeit to the city of Ft. Wayne any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars.” The affidavit in this cause charges that the appellant violated section 7 above set out, in refusing to submit to the inspection of the deputy-marshal of said city upon proper request a certain coat and vest which had been left with him as a pawnbroker. It is contended by the appellant- First, that the ordinance in question is in contravention of the constitutional privileges of the citizens as reserved in the bill of rights contained in the constitution of the United States and of the state of Indiana; second, that there is no legislative enactment which authorizes such an ordinance, and that the ordinance is for that reason void. The constitution of the United States provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.” Rev. St. 1881, § 28. This provision is literally copied into our state constitution. Section 56, Rev. St. 1881. Notwithstanding those constitutional provisions, it is well settled that the respective states of the Union, and municipal corporations when the power is conferred by the state, may, in certain cases, prescribe rules and conditions under which a particular business may be carried on, and require a license as a condition precedent to the right to conduct such business. Thus it is held that, in the exercise of the police power, municipal corporations may, when empowered by the state, require a license of peddlers, hackmen, draymen, omnibus drivers, retail liquor dealers, showmen, green grocers, billiard saloons, pawnbrokers, and many other occupations. All the authorities agree that the business of the pawnbroker is a proper matter for regulation by the police power. Cooley, in his valuable work on Constitutional Limitations, (6th Ed.) p. 744, in discussing the police power, says: “It is also common to require draymen, hackmen, pawnbrokers, and auctioneers to take out licenses, and to conform to such rules and regulations as seem important to the public convenience and protection.” Horr and Bemis, in their work on Municipal Police Ordinances, (section 213.) in a list of cases where it has been held that the police power was properly exercised, include pawnbrokers, and say that they may be required to deliver to the police authorities, before midnight of each day, a list of all articles received that day, together with a description of the pledgeors. In the case of Van Baalen v. People, 40 Mich. 258, it was held that a license fee of $200 required to pawnbrokers in the city of Detroit, as a condition precedent to their right to do business in that city, was not unreasonable. The case of Launder v. City of Chicago, 111 Ill. 291, involved substantially the question now under discussion. In that case the city of Chicago passed an ordinance requiring all persons engaged in the business of pawnbrokers to take out a license. The ordinance required persons engaged in such business to keep a book, similar to the...