City of Morrilton v. Malco theatres, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4-6281 |
| Citation | 149 S.W.2d 55,202 Ark. 100 |
| Parties | CITY OF MORRILTON v. MALCO THEATRES, INC |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Conway Chancery Court; J. B. Ward, Chancellor; affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
J H. Reynolds and W. P. Strait, for appellant.
Gordon & Gordon, Robert Bailey and Tom F. Digby, for appellee.
Appellants, other than the city of Morrilton are its mayor, recorder and chief of police. On October 9, 1939, the city council passed and the mayor approved an ordinance, No. 454, levying an annual license fee or tax of $ 50 on all moving picture shows operating in the city three nights per week or less, and $ 100 on all those so operating more than three nights per week, and an additional annual tax of 40 cents per chair on all chairs in excess of 300 with which any theatre is seated. On March 11, 1940, ordinance No. 458 was enacted which amended ordinance No. 454 by re-enacting its licensing and taxing provisions, and added the additional provision, prohibiting the issuance of a license to any person, firm or corporation "to operate more than one moving picture show within the corporate limits of the city," and making it unlawful for any such person, firm or corporation "to operate or be interested in the operation of more than one moving picture show within the city limits," etc. A fine of not less than $ 10 nor more than $ 50 per day is imposed for violations. An emergency is declared in § 2, that: "This ordinance being in the interest of fair competition and for the purpose of keeping down monopolies."
Appellee brought this action against appellants to enjoin the enforcement of said ordinances. The complaint alleged that it is and has been the owner and operator of the Rialto Theatre in said city for some 12 or 13 years, and that it has expended for improvements and equipment for same some $ 15,000; that it has purchased a lot in the city for the purpose of constructing a theatre thereon for use by it; that ordinance No. 454 "is void and unenforceable for the reason that the license fee provided therein is unreasonable, inequitable and discriminates between persons or corporations pursuing the same occupation and for the further reason that said license fee is based on income"; that ordinance No. 458 is unreasonable and void in prohibiting the licensing and operating of more than one picture show in the city, in that it is unconstitutional; and that its enactment is not within the purview of the powers of the municipality.
To this complaint appellants demurred and also filed an answer, but they elected to stand on their demurrer, and the answer was evidently abandoned. The decree recites that the cause was submitted to the court on the complaint and exhibits, "and the demurrer of defendants, and the court after having heard the argument of counsel--doth overrule said demurrer, whereupon defendants refuse to further plead and elected to stand upon their demurrer, thus admitting the allegations of plaintiff's bill." A decree was entered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. Hence this appeal.
A great portion of the brief of appellants is devoted to a discussion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. Town of Oak Grove, 97-898
...contemplated by appellant tended to constitute a safety and health hazard to the welfare of the people); City of Morrilton v. Malco Theatres, Inc., 202 Ark. 100, 149 S.W.2d 55 (1941) (holding that the city had the power to regulate reasonably, but could not prohibit appellee from operating ......
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Riffel