City of Corinth v. Crittenden
Decision Date | 24 November 1908 |
Docket Number | 13,402 |
Citation | 47 So. 525,94 Miss. 41 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | CITY OF CORINTH v. MACK CRITTENDEN |
FROM the circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.
Crittenden appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the city of Corinth, appellant, was defendant there. The suit was an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of an ordinance of the city prohibiting pool and billiard rooms. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Lamb & Johnson, for appellant.
The court below erred in overruling the motion of the city of Corinth to dissolve and vacate the writ of certiorari and prohibition granted appellee in this case for the reason that the ordinance, for the violation of which appellant was tried and convicted, was passed and adopted by the board of mayor and aldermen under and by virtue of a power expressly and specifically granted the city of Corinth in section 8 of the charter; this provision of the charter is purely a local law, and no part of it has been expressly repealed by any subsequent act of the legislature, except that portion of the same, which provides that the board of mayor and aldermen, if they deem it expedient to license poolrooms, may tax the same in a sum not to exceed $ 150; it has not been repealed by implication because of any repugnance between this special act and the general law legalizing the business of operating poolrooms and providing for licensing the same. The state of Mississippi had a right, under its police power, to prohibit the operation of public poolrooms throughout the state, and, having this power, it delegated the same to the city of Corinth.
Sharp & McIntyre, for appellee.
All that part of section 8 of the charter of Corinth pertaining to the prohibition of poolrooms, etc., is repugnant to the constitution and general laws of the state; our general laws make and declare the operation of poolrooms to be a legitimate business and our legislature has legalized the operation of same; if the business is a legitimate one and legalized in all other parts of Mississippi, why should it be illegitimate and unlawful in the city of Corinth? Why should a citizen, so long as his business does not interfere with the rights of others, or the peace, health or safety of the community, not have the same rights and privileges in Corinth as in all other cities in the state?
The mere act of playing pool or billiards may be and often is a harmless and an innocent amusement--it is to be remembered that the operation of a billiard table or a poolroom is not wrong in itself, it is not violative of the morals necessarily and is not denounced by law; on the contrary it is legalized--nowhere under the law are they prohibited. Crittenden v. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723.
If the law prohibits that which is harmless in itself or requires that to be done which does not tend to promote the health, comfort, safety or welfare of society, it will, in such cases, be an unauthorized exercise of power, and it would be the duty of the courts to declare such legislation void. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Jacksonville, 67 Ill. 37, 16 Am. Rep. 611.
The city of Corinth is operating under a special charter, and has never adopted the Code chapter on municipalities. The charter of Corinth is found in Laws 1884, p. 547, c. 403. In December, 1906, the mayor and board of aldermen of the city of Corinth, acting under the powers granted by section 8 of its charter, wherein the city is given the power to restrain or prohibit the keeping of billiard tables, pool tables etc., within its borders, passed an ordinance making it unlawful for any person or persons to engage in the business of operating and running a poolroom, billiard room, etc., in the corporate limits of the city of Corinth. In April, 1908,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Bolivar County
...Ex parte Jones, 112 Miss. 27, 72 So. 846; Adams v. Dendy, 82 Miss. 135, 33 So. 843; Lum v. Vicksburg, 72 Miss. 960; Corinth v. Crittenden, 94 Miss. 41, 47 So. 525; Adams v. Kuykendall, 83 Miss. 571, 35 So. 830. Section 212 of the Constitution not self-executing. I. I. & C. case, 81 Miss. 17......
-
Flanagan v. Town of Petersburg
...Am. Dec. 337; Tarkio v. Cook, 120 Mo. 1, 41 Am. St. Rep. 678, 25 S.W. 202; Clearwater v. Bowman, 72 Kan. 92, 82 P. 526; Corinth v. Crittenden, 94 Miss. 41, 47 So. 525; Cole v. Culbertson, 86 Neb. 160, 125 N.W. 287; parte] Re Jones, 4 Okl. Crim. 74, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 548, 140 Am. St. Rep. ......
-
Mayor and Board of Aldermen of City of Vicksburg v. Streckfus Steamers
... ... of constitutional inhibitions and subsequent repealing ... legislative enactments ... City of ... Corinth v. Crittenden, 94 Miss. 41, 47 So. 525; Lum ... v. City of Vicksburg, 72 Miss. 950, 18 So. 476 ... General ... acts ordinarily do not ... ...
-
Clegg v. City of Spartanburg
...Am. Dec. 337; Tarkio v. Cook, 120 Mo. 1, 41 Am. St. Rep. 678, 25 S.W. 202; Clearwater v. Bowman, 72 Kan. 92, 82 P. 526; Corinth v. Crittenden, 94 Miss. 41, 47 So. 525; Cole v. Culbertson, 86 Neb. 160, 125 N.W. 287; Jones, 4 Okl. Crim. Rep. 74, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 548, 140 Am. St. Rep. 655, ......