Felton v. City Of Atlanta

• Decision Date: 09 April 1908
• Docket Number: (No. 928.)
• Parties: FELTON. v. CITY OF ATLANTA.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

4 Ga.App. 183

61 S.E. 27

FELTON.

v.CITY OF ATLANTA.

(No. 928.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 9, 1908.

1. Municipal Corporations—Police Power —Public Health—Plumbing.

The business of plumbing is so related to the public health that the regulation of it is a legitimate subject for the exercise of the police power. However, the right of every citizen to labor at any and all common and honest employments is of such high importance that any statute or ordinance placing restrictions thereon will be strictly construed.

2. Same—Ordinances—Construction.

The ordinances of the city of Atlanta regulating plumbing require all persons who work at that occupation as master, employing or journeyman plumbers to stand an examination and secure a certificate of proficiency. The ordinances do not in terms include apprentices and helpers working under licensed master or journeyman plumbers, and they will not be included by judicial construction.

3. Licenses—Ordinances.

The evidence not showing that the defendant was engaged as a master or journeyman plumber, but, on the contrary, showing that he was a mere helper to a licensed plumber in charge of the work, his conviction was unauthorized.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; W. D. Ellis, Judge.

J. A. Felton was convicted of a violation of an ordinance of the city of Atlanta forbidding any person to engage in the business of plumbing either as master, employing or journeyman plumber, without a license therefor, and he brings error. Reversed.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Atlanta for an alleged violation of section 887 of the City Code, which provides: "No person, firm or corporation engaged in, or working at the business of plumbing, shall engage in or work at said business in the city of Atlanta, either as master, employing or journeyman plumber unless such person, firm or corporation first receives a license therefor, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance." By other sections provision is made for the examination of master, employing and journeyman plumbers before a constituted board, and the issuance of a certificate in the event the examination is satisfactory. There is a statement in the ordinance that "in case of a firm or corporation the examination and licensing of any one member of the firm or corporation shall satisfy the requirement." The case comes to this court upon exception to the refusal of the superior court to sustain the certiorari brought to review the conviction. The entire evidence upon which the conviction rests is so brief that it will be set out in full, as follows: "Defendant was employéd by and working for M. E. & C. W. Ford, a partnership engaged in the plumbing business, in the city of Atlanta. Said partnership has paid the license, and both the members thereof are duly certified by the board of plumbing examiners of the city of Atlanta as required by law and the ordinance of the city. Defendant himself had no license, and never had stood any examination, nor had he been given any certificate. At the time of the arrest he was working at the place of business of Davidson, Paxon & Stokes, on Whitehall street, in the city of Atlanta, engaged at the time in tearing out plumbing, pipes, etc., in the basement of said business. The purpose of tearing out this plumbing was to enable M. E. & C. W. Ford to make plans in conformity with the requirements of the city ordinance for the purpose of enabling them to install new plumbing fixtures. When arrested, defendant was getting lead out of a hub." The defendant makes the following contentions: That the evidence did not show a violation of the ordinance; that the ordinance is unreasonable and contrary to article 1, § 5, par. 2, Const. (Civ. Code 1895, § 5735), which preserves to the people of this state "all inherent rights hitherto enjoyed" because no person could stand the examination without experience, and it would be unlawful to obtain the experience without the certificate to which the examination is a prerequisite; also, that the ordinance is unreasonable and contrary to article 1, § 1, par. 3, Const. (Civ. Code 1895, § 5700), in that it deprives laborers of the right to work without due process of law; also that it is repugnant to article 1, § 1, par. 2, Const. (Civ. Code 1895, § 5699), which provides that protection to person and property shall be impartial and complete, in that it makes arbitrary and unjust discriminations between plumbers and between individuals and firms or corporations. It is also alleged to be contrary to the "due process of law" clause of the federal Constitution.

Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & Heyman, for plaintiff in error.

J. L. Mayson and W. P. Hill, for defendant in error.

POWELL, J. 1. The common inherent right which every citizen has of enjoying the inestimable blessing of laboring at any honest employment he may choose, save only so far as...