Flax v. City of Richmond
| Decision Date | 07 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3453. |
| Parties | HERBERT FLAX v. CITY OF RICHMOND. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Powers — Regulation of Pawnbrokers — Richmond City Charter — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an application for a pawnbroker's license under section 191 of the Tax Code, petitioner was refused a license because a city ordinance forbade the licensing of any additional pawnshops when there were twelve duly licensed pawnshops in the city. The ordinance was passed pursuant to section 191al of the Tax Code, which provides that the governing body of any city may limit the number of pawnshops that may be operated at any one time within its territorial limits. Subsection (r) of section 2.04 of the city's charter provided that the city might regulate the conduct of and prescribe the number of pawnshops.
Held: That this provision constituted an express affirmance in the charter of what had previously been authorized by general law in section 191al.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Regulation of Pawnbrokers. — It is universally recognized that conducting a pawnshop falls within that class of business activities wherein rigid regulation under state or municipal police power is justified and permitted.
3. LICENSES — Power of State or City to Grant or Refuse License — Imposition of Regulatory Conditions. — Imposition of regulatory conditions in the interest of the public as a condition to the grant of a State or municipal license is well recognized.
4. LICENSES — Can Be Revenue Measure or Police Regulation. — The imposition of license taxes is often solely for the purpose of revenue, but it is sometimes for the purpose of regulation and revenue.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Regulation of Pawnbrokers. — Under the police power of the State, the right to impose conditions and restrictions upon pawnbrokers is limited only to the extent that it must be subject to reasonable classification.
6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Regulation of Business and Employments. — The State under its police power has the right to regulate any business, occupation, trade or calling in order to protect the public health, morals, and welfare, subject to the restriction of reasonable classification. This power to regulate includes the power to license, and it is the settled general rule that to protect the health, morals, and welfare of the public a State can license an occupation, trade or calling. Where the business or vocation is one of a nonuseful nature, or one likely to develop into a nuisance, the State may, in the exercise of its police authority, license or absolutely prohibit it as regard for the welfare of the community may seem to justify.
7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Regulation of Businesses and Employments — Pawnshops. — The business of conducting a pawnshop is well within the class of business activities which are directly affected with a public interest, and regulation is not prohibited but necessary.
8. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Equal Protection of Laws — Ordinance Limiting Number of Pawnshops in City — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an application for a pawnbroker's license under section 191 of the Tax Code, petitioner was refused a license because a city ordinance forbade the licensing of any additional pawnshops when there were twelve duly licensed pawnshops in the city. The ordinance provided that such licenses should be issued only upon a city officer's approval. It was passed pursuant to section 191al of the Tax Code, which provides that the governing body of any city may limit the number of pawnshops that may be operated at any one time within its territorial limits. Petitioner contended that the effect of the statute and ordinance was to grant to twelve pawnbrokers special and exclusive rights and deny him an equal opportunity and protection of law and deprive him of an inherent right to engage in a lawful business enjoyed by others in violation of section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Held: That neither the statute nor the ordinance undertook to give arbitrary power or delegate legislative authority. The power granted merely permitted the exercise of a reasonable discretion upon a factual basis sufficient to sustain the action to be taken and was fully justified when imposed for the regulation of petitioner's type of business. The ordinance prevented petitioner from securing a license and conducting his business at the time, but did not amount to an absolute prohibition or unlawful discrimination. It was a mere regulation and the resultant exclusion of petitioner and others similarly situated was incidental. The primary purpose of the grant of a license was not for the grantee's benefit but to protect the public interest and the classification made in awarding licenses to the twelve already doing business was a reasonable regulation.
9. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Equal Protection of Laws — Denial of Right to Engage in Lawful Business. — The right of an individual to engage in a lawful business may not be arbitrarily denied him and granted to another under the guise of a regulation.
10. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Legislation Denying Equal Protection of Laws. — The State undoubtedly has the power, by appropriate legislation, to protect the public morals, the public health and the public safety, but if, by their necessary operation, its regulations looking to either of those ends amount to a denial to persons within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws, they must be deemed unconstitutional and void.
11. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Regulation of Pawnbrokers — Limiting Number Engaged in Business. — It is not now open to question that the business of pawnbroker is such as to place it in that category which justifies police control and supervision, limited only by the requirement that the classification made does not constitute arbitrary discrimination. If the body in which rests the power of legislation deems it necessary to restrict the number of such business establishments to promote the public welfare, and the classification made is to limit the number to those already engaged in that business as of a designated time, the exercise of that discretion constitutes regulation and control and not unlawful discrimination or prohibition as those terms are used.
12. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Regulation of Businesses and Establishments — Limiting Number Engaged in Particular Occupation. — When occupations are likely to become inimical to public welfare unless the number is limited by law, the police power may be rightfully exercised to restrict the number, for then a reasonable basis exists for the classification made, and there is justification for the incidental denial of full enjoyment of the privilege by those not within the classification.
13. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Powers — Regulation of Pawnbrokers — Ordinance Not in Conflict with State Law — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an application for a pawnbroker's license under section 191 of the Tax Code, petitioner was refused a license because a city ordinance forbade the licensing of any additional pawnshops when there were twelve duly licensed pawnshops in the city. The ordinance was passed pursuant to section 191al of the Tax Code, which provides that the governing body of any city may limit the number of pawnshops that may be operated at any one time within its territorial limits, but it also required that the licensee be a qualified voter and approved by a city officer. Petitioner contended that the ordinance was in conflict with sections 191 and 191al and therefore void.
Held: That section 191 did not expressly or by implication undertake to oust the municipalities from imposing further restrictions upon the grant of a license, but contemplated and expressly authorized further legislation. Additional reasonable conditions or restrictions not in conflict with it were not prohibited, and the requirements cited were reasonable and justified by the city's charter and by general law.
14. ORDINANCES — Validity of Ordinances — Ordinance Not Open to Question by Party Unaffected by it — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an application for a pawnbroker's license under section 191 of the Tax Code, petitioner was refused a license because a city ordinance forbade the licensing of any additional pawnshops when there were twelve duly licensed pawnshops in the city. The ordinance was passed pursuant to section 191al of the Tax Code, which provides that the governing body of any city may limit the number of pawnshops that may be operated at any one time within its territorial limits, but it contained other regulatory provisions and required that the licensee be a qualified voter. Petitioner was a qualified voter. He contended that the ordinance was in conflict with sections 191 and 191al and therefore void.
Held: That the provisions complained of, whether valid or not, were not open to question by petitioner because he was a qualified voter and was denied the license solely because the quota of licensees was filled.
15. MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS — Section 191al of Tax Code Not Violation of Constitutional and Statutory Prohibition — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an application for a pawnbroker's license under section 191 of the Tax Code, petitioner was refused a license because a city ordinance forbade the licensing of any additional pawnshops when there were twelve duly licensed pawnshops in the city. The ordinance was passed pursuant to section 191al of the Tax Code, which provides that the governing body of any city may limit the number of pawnshops that may be operated at any one time within its territorial limits. Petitioner contended that the effect of section 191al was to allow localities to enact legislation creating trusts and monopolies in...
To continue reading
Request your trial