Corliss v. City of Westminster

• Decision Date: 02 December 1963
• Docket Number: No. 20426,20426
• Parties: Charles E. CORLISS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF WESTMINSTER, a Municipal corporation, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 272

387 P.2d 272

153 Colo. 551

Charles E. CORLISS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF WESTMINSTER, a Municipal corporation, Defendant in Error.

No. 20426.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Dec. 2, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 23, 1963.

Philip A. Rouse, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Donald D. Cawelti, City Atty., City of Westminster, Denver, for defendant in error.

PRINGLE, Justice.

This suit was instituted as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to Rule 57, R.C.P. Colo., in which plaintiffin error Corliss seeks to have an ordinance of the City of Westminster declared unconstitutional. He asserts that the ordinance violates his rights to freedom of speech and non-discrimination secured by the Colorado Constitution, Article II, Sections 6, 10 and 28. The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts and the trial court entered a judgment upholding the validity of the ordinance. From that judgment Corliss brings writ of error.

From the agreed statement of facts we learn that Corliss is a resident of Denver who engages in the occupation of selling Celestial China merchandise direct to customers. In making these sales, he calls from house to house and from business place to business place to solicit orders. He does not maintain or use an office or business establishment in Westminster but he 'desires and proposes' to engage in the direct sale of Celestial China in that city, using two methods of solicitation and sale: (1) He would mail pamphlets to individuals by which he would request them to return inquiry or information cards concerning his product and upon receipt of such cards from prospective customers, he would call upon them to solicit a sale; and (2) He would call at houses and business establishments and initially attempt to make such sales.

The ordinance which Corliss attacks prohibits peddlers, solicitors, canvassers and transient merchants from selling their wares in their respective fashions without first having obtained a license from the city. Granting of the license is conditioned upon an investigation to be made by the city manager into the applicant's business and moral character and the posting of a $1,000.00 surety bond. A schedule of fees is provided, the rates being set in proportion to the length of time for which payment is made in advance, i. e., $5.00 per day, $15.00 per week, $35.00 quarterly or $100.00 annually. Certain classes of persons are excepted from pertinent parts of the licensing provisions, among them farmers selling their own produce and persons soliciting from non-profit organizations. The ordinance provides fines or imprisonment, or both, as the...