Clein v. City of Atlanta
| Decision Date | 15 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 5806. |
| Citation | 139 S.E. 46,164 Ga. 529 |
| Parties | CLEIN et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A combination of individuals, to procure the passage and enforcement of a municipal ordinance which is not ultra vires, unconstitutional, unreasonable, or void for any reason, does not render such ordinance invalid, although their purpose in procuring its enactment and its enforcement is to drive their competitors out of business, and to thus swell their profits.
The mayor and general council of the city of Atlanta had the power to enact the ordinance in question, relating to auction sales of jewelry, clocks, silverware, etc., and the same is not unreasonable.
This ordinance does not violate the due process clauses of the federal and state Constitutions.
The courts cannot inquire into the motives of the mayor and general council of Atlanta in enacting this ordinance, and cannot set the same aside, if it is not unreasonable, ultra vires, or unconstitutional.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.
Petition by Benjamin Clein and another against the City of Atlanta and others. Petition was dismissed on demurrer, and petitioners bring error. Affirmed.
Motives of council in enacting valid ordinance regulating jewelry auctions cannot be inquired into. Acts 1925, p. 310.
Benjamin Clein and Michael Ellman filed their petition against Nat Ulman and other individuals and the city of Atlanta, in which they made the following allegations: The defendants excepting the city of Atlanta, are engaged in the retail jewelry business within said city. All of the individual defendants conspired, more than 2 years ago, for the purpose of driving out of business petitioners and such other persons as were at the time engaged in the selling of jewelry and other like goods, either wholly or partially, at auction in said city. Said conspiracy has existed for more than 2 years and is still continuing. The business of selling jewelry and like goods is peculiar, in that the general public can be and frequently is charged for goods prices that have no relation to cost or value, but the dealers charge whatever they can get, and charge extortionate prices, the profits running as high as from 100 to 300 per cent. The defendants charge upon such basis. Petitioners sell such goods at auction, and the prices realized at such auction depend in large measure upon what the purchasers are willing to pay, and are generally far below the scale charged by defendants. Petitioners have long done a considerable business by private sale and at auction and defendants have long been exceedingly impatient and resentful against petitioners because of the fact that the business done by them interferes with and limits defendants' business. Petitioners have two places of business, one at 29 West Mitchell street, and one at 58-60 Decatur street, where they not only sell jewelry at retail and private sale, but do an extensive loan business, taking jewelry and like articles in pawn. Thereby they acquire a considerable stock of jewelry and allied articles, a large part of which is bought and sold in the regular course of business, and the rest of which consists in unredeemed pledges the title to which has either partly or fully passed to petitioners. They have held on lease a place of business at 73 Peachtree street in Atlanta, for which they are under contract to pay and do pay rent at the rate of $500 per month. Said lease runs until May 1, 1927. Petitioners rented said place with the view of conducting, among other things, a jewelry auction business there, and the carrying on of such business will be the justification of the very heavy rents they have to pay. They have put in a stock of jewelry and other articles in said place, which is worth probably $25,000, in addition to the stock of goods they have in the other two places. It cost them to remodel said place of business, and to equip the same with fixtures, more than $3,000. They have been in business in Atlanta for 24 years, the last part of which they have been in partnership under the tradename of Citizen Loan Association Jewelers & Brokers. Petitioners conduct a strictly honorable, upright, and honest business. They have never misrepresented their goods, and resort to no tricks to deceive customers. They have a large line of customers, and the good will of their business is worth a very large sum of money, probably $50,000. They have, for a long time, at intervals, conducted auction sales of jewelry and other allied goods. They have never violated any law, and have never been arrested. No case has ever been made against them either in the municipal or state courts. They enjoy a good reputation in the commercial world, and have a large established credit in the banks. They have borrowed as much as $15,000 at a time, and have no doubt their credit will be regarded in the banks as justifying a loan of $75,000.
Petitioners have never interfered with their competitors in any illegal or improper manner, but have at all times treated their competitors fairly and justly. Their business has sharply competed with defendants, and the reasonable prices they receive for goods have necessarily, to some extent, limited the business done by defendants. At this time there is no other jewelry auction house doing business in Atlanta, except May Bros., who are selling out their stock at auction, for the purpose of retiring from business. During the last 2 years, one or two other houses engaged in a line of business similar to that of petitioners have been forced out of business by the persecutions instituted by the defendants, as will be set out. Among the wrongs done by said conspirators against jewelry auctioneers have been efforts to enforce and collect extortionate taxes by the city, under ordinances which petitioners allege to be unconstitutional, police court prosecutions for failure to pay such taxes, vexatious police court proceedings against jewelers selling at auction, and efforts more or less successful to secure discriminating legislation against jewelry auctions. Defendants and other persons engaged in the same line of business have organized themselves into a corporation or society, which, as petitioners believe, is called the Retail Jewelers' Association, one of the principal objects of which is to engage in the activities indicated, in restraint of commerce, and for the purpose of harassing persons in the line of business of petitioners, and driving them out of business. During the summer of 1925 the defendants, as individuals or as such association, employed counsel and paid large sums of money to secure the framing of a law and the lobbying of the same through the state Legislature. Petitioners attach as an exhibit a copy of a circular letter in regard to said matter, sent out by persons co-operating therein. As the result of said efforts, the act of 1925 (Acts 1925, p. 310) was passed, absolutely prohibiting jewelry auctions. Petitioners are advised that said law is unconstitutional and void, for numerous reasons, one of which is that the body of the act contains matter different from that expressed in its title; another is that said act deprives persons selling jewelry at auction of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the similar provision in the Constitution of the state; and another is that it denies to persons who sell jewelry at auction the equal protection of the law, in violation of said provisions of the federal and state Constitutions. A part of the conspiracy consists in the activities of the defendants to stop petitioners and others from selling jewelry at auction during the Christmas season, which is the profitable period of doing business, and thereby deprive petitioners of the opportunity to make profit, as well as to increase the business of the defendants. For the purpose of carrying out said conspiracy, defendants recently caused pressure to be brought on the city council of Atlanta, and in pursuance thereof that council, on November 1, 1926, passed an ordinance, the substantial parts of which are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little v. State
... ... Little shot and killed J. G. Herrin on June 24, 1926. The ... shooting took place in the city of Madison, Morgan county, at ... a location specifically referred to as Thompson's garage ... ...
-
Little v. State, (No. 5730.)
... ... L. B. Little shot and killed J. G. Herrin on June 24, 1926. The shooting took place in the city of Madison, Morgan county, at a location specifically referred to as Thompson's garage. The grand ... ...