City of Newnan v. Atlanta Laundries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1932
• Docket Number: 8632.
• Citation: 162 S.E. 497,174 Ga. 99
• Parties: CITY OF NEWNAN et al. v. ATLANTA LAUNDRIES, Inc., et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

162 S.E. 497

174 Ga. 99

CITY OF NEWNAN et al. v. ATLANTA LAUNDRIES, Inc., et al.

No. 8632.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 12, 1932

Syllabus by the Court.

Ordinance licensing business of laundry companies held valid as to provision requiring application to name place where business is conducted, and town and county where principal office is located in case of nonresident.

License may be required of any business, provided requirements are not arbitrary and unreasonable.

Portion of ordinance requiring applicant for laundry license to give bond where articles are taken from city for laundering held not violative of due process requirement (Const. Ga. art. 1, § 1, par. 3; Const. U.S. Amend. 14).

Portion of laundry licensing ordinance requiring filing of schedule of prices held not violative of requirement of due process as price-fixing regulation (Const. U.S. Amend. 14).

As between two possible constructions of statute or ordinance court should adopt that construction which will sustain constitutionality.

Charter granting authority to city to license, regulate, control, or prohibit numerous designated kinds of business and all "other establishments, business callings, or vocations," held to authorize licensing of laundries (Laws 1893, p. 277, § 17, as amended by Laws 1925 p. 1302).

City ordinance requiring license tax of laundries of $50 per year with tax of $300 where work is done outside city held void as unreasonable and arbitrary classification and as violative of constitutional requirement for protecting person and property (Const. Ga. art. 1, § 1, par. 2).

Freedom of contract is qualified right, and "liberty" implies absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations (Const. U.S. Amend. 14).

Ordinance licensing laundry establishments, requiring filing of schedule of prices, and requiring giving of bond for articles laundered outside city, held not void as interfering with liberty of contract (Const. U.S. Amend. 14).

Ordinance licensing laundries, which required higher license tax for work done outside city and requiring giving of bond for articles taken from city for laundering, held not void as denying privileges and immunities of citizens of other states (Const. U.S. art. 4, § 2, par. 1).

Invalidity of portion of ordinance for licensing laundries which required higher license tax in case of work done outside city held not to invalidate remainder of ordinance.

Suit to enjoin city's enforcement of licensing ordinance held not outside jurisdiction of equity as calling for administration of criminal law (Civ. Code 1910, § 5491).

1. The ordinance of the city of Newnan, in so far as it requires a license to do business of the laundry company, is not invalid. A license to do business may be required of a business, however lawful and honest, provided the requirements are not arbitrary and unreasonable. As a condition for granting such license, the city may properly by ordinance require the filing of a written application wherein, as a means of reasonable regulation, the applicant must name (a) the place where the business is to be conducted; (b) if a nonresident, the town and county where the principal office is located.

2. That portion of the ordinance which requires the applicant for a laundry license to give a bond where articles are taken from the city for the purpose of laundering is not arbitrary and unreasonable, and is not in conflict with the due process clause of the State Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

3. That portion of the ordinance which requires a schedule of prices to be filed as a condition precedent to the issuance of a license is not in conflict with article 1, § 1, par. 3, of the State Constitution (Civil Code 1910,§ 6359), or of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Where a statute or an ordinance is capable of two constructions, constitutional under one construction and unconstitutional under the other, it is the duty of the court to adopt that construction which will sustain its constitutionality. The city of Newnan contends that the portion of the ordinance in question is not for the purpose of price fixing, but is a means of judging, as a condition precedent to the issuance of the license, whether the applicant is undertaking to engage in unfair competition. The petitioner contends that it is really the means of fixing prices. The proper construction is that it is not price fixing, and therefore not unconstitutional.

4. The charter of the city of Newnan (Ga. Laws 1893, p. 272), as amended by the act of 1925 (Ga. Laws 1925, p. 1302), contains grant of specific authority to the city to license, regulate, and control the business of operating laundries, etc.

5. That portion of the ordinance which requires of laundries a license tax, where the work is done in the city of Newnan $50 per year, and a tax of $300 where the work is done without the city, is an unreasonable and arbitrary classification, and is invalid because it contravenes article 1, § 1, par. 2 of the State Constitution (Civil Code 1910, § 6358).

6. "Freedom of contract is a qualified and not an absolute right. There is no absolute freedom to contract as one chooses. Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint--not immunity from reasonable regulations." Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 31 S.Ct. 259, 55 L.Ed. 328. The ordinance in question does not interfere with the liberty of contract, under the Federal Constitution.

7. The ordinance in question does not contravene article 4, § 2, par. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which declares: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." The ordinance does not in any way make distinction between citizens of this state and of the other states. A general definition of the meaning of that section given by Mr. Justice Washington, which has been uniformly accepted and followed by the courts, will be found in Corfield v. Coryell, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, 4 Wash. C. C. 371.

8. The portions of the ordinance which are declared unconstitutional are not so vital and connectedwith the general scheme of the ordinance that the whole ordinance must fall. That portion which is invalid can be stricken and the remainder of the ordinance upheld as valid. Futrell v. George, 135 Ga. 265, 69 S.E. 182; Leonard v. American Life & Annuity Co., 139 Ga. 274, 77 S.E. 41; Morgan v. State, 140 Ga. 202, 78 S.E. 807; Sister Felicitas v. Hartridge, 148 Ga. 832, 98 S.E. 538; 1 Stevens' Index-Dig. Ga. R. 637, and cit.

9. Under the facts of this case, it does not fall within the general rule declared in the Civil Code 1910, § 5491.

Error from Superior Court, Coweta County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Suit by the Atlanta Laundries, Incorporated, against the City of Newnan and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant named and others bring error.

Affirmed, with direction for modification.

GILBERT, J., dissenting.

Hall & Jones and A. H. Freeman, all of Newnan, for plaintiffs in error.

Herbert J. Haas, Bertram S. Boley, and Jos. F. Haas, all of Atlanta, and Lovejoy & Mayer, of La Grange, for defendants in error.

GILBERT J.

Atlanta Laundries, Inc., filed a petition seeking an injunction against the city of Newnan. It appears from the allegations in the petition that the complainant is a corporation with its principal office in Delaware, but that its place of doing business is in the city of Atlanta. The character of its business is that of laundering, cleaning, dyeing, pressing and doing such other things as are incident to that character of business. The petitioner applied to the municipal authorities of Newnan for a license to carry on its business there. The application was returned by Mrs. L. P. Williams (official status, if any, not appearing), with the statement that the city clerk was absent, being "confined to the Piedmont hospital, Atlanta, Ga.," that she was "keeping the office for him, and would prefer that you defer application for license until he returns." The letter also stated: "I cannot accept the check you tender in settlement of the license, for the reason that you have not tendered the correct amount and you have not filed an application for the license as required under the ordinance regulating the same." The laundry company then made similar application to the mayor of the city of Newnan, who returned the check for $100, tendered to cover license for laundry and dry cleaning business in the city of Newnan. The mayor also called attention to the fact that the application for license was not submitted in accordance with the terms of the city ordinance. Apparently nothing further was done by the laundry company with reference to securing license. Subsequently, on May 18, Deck, an agent of the laundry company, residing at Newnan, who had been soliciting business of the character done by petitioner, within the municipality, was arrested by the chief of police, charged with violating the ordinance of the city of Newnan which required all persons doing laundry business to obtain a license according to the municipal ordinance. The schedule of fees fixed by the ordinance, are: "Laundry and/or, laundry agents, using one motor-driven vehicle, when the work is done in the City of Newnan, $50. Where the laundry work, or substantially all the laundry work is done without the limits of the City of Newnan, $300." Like fees are fixed in the case of those engaging in the business of dry cleaning, dyeing, and pressing. Payment of $600, the amount required by the ordinance of those engaging in the business of laundering and that of dry cleaning, dyeing, and pressing "where the ***...