Ex Parte Smythe
Decision Date | 14 May 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 13469.,13469. |
Citation | 28 S.W.2d 161 |
Parties | Ex parte SMYTHE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Harrison County Court; Jno. W. Scott, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceedings by A. M. Smythe. From an order remanding relator, he appeals.
Reversed, and relator ordered discharged.
Davidson, Blalock & Blalock, of Marshall, for appellant.
William Caven, City Atty., of Marshall, and A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Relator was charged with violating an ordinance of the city of Marshall. Being arrested and confined in the city jail under said charge, he sued out a writ of habeas corpus and, upon a hearing, was remanded, from which order he appeals to this court.
Relator was arrested under the following complaint: "I, E. H. Whitehurst do solemnly swear that I have good reason to believe, and do believe, that A. M. Smythe on or about the 29th day of January A D 1930 in the territorial limits of the City of Marshall in Harrison County, Texas, and before the making and filing of this complaint, was then and there in the business and trade of lending money and making collections in connection therewith, and did on said 29th day of January A. D. 1930 on Bolivar Street, transact a part of such business by attempting to collect money from Manuel Goodspeed, against the peace and dignity of the State."
The ordinance of the city of Marshall defining the offense for which appellant was arrested reads as follows:
On the habeas corpus hearing, relator testified in substance that he was employed by the Hall Investment Company, which was engaged in making small loans and collections; that on the date of the alleged offense one Manuel Goodspeed was indebted to his employer in a small sum of money; and that he stopped and asked said Manuel Goodspeed when he was coming to the office to pay off said note. He reminded him that it was past due and urged him to take care of it promptly.
Appellant contends the above ordinance is unconstitutional. The substance of the state's contention is that the city of Marshall under its charter has absolute right of control over all of its streets and the right to prohibit same from being used by any citizen or class of citizens for the conduct of any kind or character of business. Under the general police power inherent in sovereignty, there can be no doubt of its right to reasonably control and regulate such matters. The general rule has been stated as follows: 6 R. C. L., Constitutional Law, Paragraph 226.
We take the following from the case of Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Dallas, 98 Tex. 396, 84 S. W. 648, 653, 70 L. R. A. 850:
It has been further stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Green River v. Bunger, 1922
...... v. Dauben, 124 N.E. 232-233; State v. Southern R. Co., (N. C.) 82 S.E. 963; City of Louisiana v. Bottoms, (Mo.) 300 S.W. 316-7; Ex parte Westellison,. (Okla.) 259 P. 873; Town v. Ziller, (Miss.) 118 So. 293; Hogan v. Fleming, (Mo.) 297 S.W. 404-412;. State v. Prather, (Kan.) ...598; Humes v. City of Little. Rock, 138 F. 929; City v. Shultz, (Ill.) 173. N.E. 276; Inglis v. Rymer, (Fla.) 152 So. 4; Ex. Parte Smythe, (Tex.) 28 S.W.2d 161; People v. Armstrong, (Mich.) 41 N.W. 275; In Re Webb,. (Okla.) 1 P.2d 416; Real Silk Mills v. City of. Bellingham, ......
-
Household Finance Corp. v. Shaffner
......433, 146 S.W. 40;. State ex rel. Kansas City v. O'Rear, 277 Mo. 303, 210 S.W. 392; Kreibohm v. Yancey, 154 Mo. 67,. 55 S.W. 260; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16, 90 S.W. 759;. Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U.S. 563, 54 L.Ed. 1151; 11 Am. Jur., p. 707. (2) Laws passed by the 64th. ... discriminates against them by denial of the right of. classification in the fixing of interest rates. Ex parte. Smythe, 28 S.W.2d 161; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163,. 31 S.W. 781; State ex rel. Rolston v. C., B. & Q., . 246 Mo. 512, 152 S.W. 28; State ex rel. ......
-
Noell v. City of Carrollton & Carrollton Prop. Standards Bd.
...696]State of Washington v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116, 121, 49 S.Ct. 50, 73 L.Ed. 210 (1928); see also Ex parte Smythe, 116 Tex.Crim. 146, 28 S.W.2d 161, 162 (Tex.Crim.App.1930). Further, to justify a taking based on its police power to abate nuisances, a nuisance must in fact exist. See Stewart......
-
Williams v. State, 22550.
...or arbitrary and is really designed to accomplish a purpose properly falling within the scope of police power. Ex parte Smythe, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 28 S.W.2d 161; 11 Am. Jur. 1073, and authorities there It follows that legislation which is necessary or appropriate to protect the general welf......