Moots v. City of Trenton

• Decision Date: 11 October 1948
• Docket Number: 40729
• Citation: 214 S.W.2d 31,358 Mo. 273
• Parties: William Moots, Respondent, v. City of Trenton, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

214 S.W.2d 31

358 Mo. 273

William Moots, Respondent, v. City of Trenton, Appellant

No. 40729

Supreme Court of Missouri

October 11, 1948

Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court; Hon. V. C. Rose, Judge.

Affirmed.

C. J Hoover and L. A. Warden, City Attorney, for appellant.

(1) The court erred in finding that the City of Trenton had no authority to enact ordinance Nos. 1653, 1686 and 1710, for a city license to regulate automatic musical instruments (coin operated), musical machines (coin operated), and pin ball machines. R.S. 1939, secs. 6949-6950; Chap. 38, Art. 5, R.S 1939, as amended by State Legislature in 1943 Session Acts p. 701, and especially Sec. 6986, 6932; State v. White, 263 S.W. 192; State ex inf. Bloebaum, Pros. Atty., v. Broeker, 11 S.W.2d 81; Meyering v. Miller, 51 S.W.2d 65, 330 Mo. 885. (2) The court erred as the judgment is against the law and against the evidence in this case. As a municipal corporation is prima facie, the sole judges of the necessity for City Ordinance No. 1653 as amended in Ordinances Nos. 1686 and 1710, and the amendments thereto, and since the court has no right to declare them void unless the court finds them unreasonable, and the court in this instance, did not so find. City of Monett v. Campbell, 204 S.W. 32; City of St. Louis v. Schoenbusch, 95 Mo. 618, 8 S.W. 761. (3) The court erred in its judgment in placing a definite interpretation on the evidence and making a finding that was adverse to the theory upon which the respondent and appellant tried the case, as the case was submitted on the theory that $ 30 per machine was prohibitory, and not on the theory that the ordinance was void. State ex rel. Collins v. Keirnan, 207 S.W.2d 49; Cummins v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 334 Mo. 672, 66 S.W.2d 220; City of Springfield v. Smith, 19 S.W.2d 1. (4) The primary rule of construction of Statutes or Ordinances is to ascertain and find the effect the lawmakers intend. What was the intent of the framers of the Constitution in enacting Article X, Sections 1, 3, and 6, Missouri (1945) Constitution? What was the Legislature's intent in enacting Sections 6949-6950 and 6986, the last Section as amended in 1943, pp. 701-703, incl.? State v. Kiernan, 207 S.W.2d 49; Meyering v. Miller, 331 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65; Morgan v. Jewell Construction Co., 91 S.W.2d 638; City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co., 85 S.W.2d 21; Cummins v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Comm., 66 S.W.2d 920.

Thomas J. Layson and Herbert S. Brown for respondent.

(1) The state and everyone of its political subdivisions are bound by the prohibition of the due process guaranties. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, sec. 568, subsec. (e), p. 1149, footnote 61; Lovell v. City of Griffin, Ga., 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 668, 82 L.Ed. 949; State ex rel. Wyatt v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375. (2) The respondent, as plaintiff, rightfully invoked the remedy in equity to restrain the City of Trenton from enforcing said ordinance through a prosecution in its police court and it was not necessary for him (a) to exhaust his remedies in defending against the prosecution, because (b) the injury that plaintiff complained of was continuous, and (c) the fact that in each prosecution in the police court the plaintiff might plead successfully the invalidity of the ordinance does not give him an adequate remedy at law, and (d) respondent was entitled to be protected from the harassment and expense of such a multiplicity of suits. Glencoe Lime & Cement Co. v. St. Louis, 341 Mo. 689, 108 S.W.2d 143; Coal Company v. St. Louis, 130 Mo. 323; Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Carthage, 257 Mo. 383, 165 S.W. 743; Hays v. Poplar Bluff, 263 Mo. 516, 173 S.W. 676. (3) The ordinance imposing a license tax on the operation of music machines was a tax measure designed solely for the raising of revenue. State ex inf. of Bloebaum, Pros. Atty., v. Broeker, 11 S.W.2d 81; State ex rel. Wyatt v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375; 37 C.J., Licenses, sec. 6, p. 169; 33 Am. Jur., Licenses, sec. 19, p. 339. (4) The City of Trenton has no authority to impose a license tax on any person operating music machines or carrying on the business of operating music machines because no authority is found therefor in Section 6986, R.S. 1939, as Reenacted by the Laws of 1943, page 701. Sec. 6986, R.S. 1939, as Reenacted Laws 1943, p. 701; Sec. 7440, R.S. 1939; City of Ozark v. Hammond, 329 Mo. 1118, 49 S.W.2d 129; City of St. Charles v. St. Charles Gas Co., 353 Mo. 996, 185 S.W.2d 797. (5) The City of Trenton has no authority to impose a license tax upon any business unless such business is specifically named as taxable in the charter or in the statutes, and this applies to all cities. Sec. 7440, R.S. 1939; City of Lebanon v. Joslyn, 58 S.W.2d 289; Siemens v. Shreeve, 317 Mo. 736, 296 S.W. 415; Keane v. Strodtman, 323 Mo. 161, 18 S.W.2d 869; City of Ozark v. Hammond, 329 Mo. 1118, 49 S.W.2d 129. (6) The police power cannot be used for the sole purpose of raising revenue. Viquesney v. Kansas City, 305 Mo. 488, 266 S.W. 700; 37 C.J., Licenses, sec. 6, pp. 169, 170, 171; 33 Am. Jur., Licenses, sec. 19, p. 339. (7) The appellant, City of Trenton, has no inherent power to tax; that authority must be found in the statute and must be expressly granted. Siemens v. Shreeve, 317 Mo. 736, 296 S.W. 415; Keane v. Strodtman, 323 Mo. 161, 18 S.W.2d 896. (8) In order to impose a license tax on the business of operating music machines, such music machine business must clearly come within the enumerated businesses set forth in said Section 6986. City of St. Charles v. St. Charles Gas Co., 353 Mo. 996, 185 S.W.2d 797. (9) The operation of a music machine is not a nuisance per se. Davison v. Lill, 35 S.W.2d 942; St. Louis v. Dreisorner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 998.

Bradley, C. Dalton and Van Osdol, CC., concur.

OPINION

BRADLEY

Action to enjoin the City of Trenton, a city of the third class, from the prosecution of plaintiff (respondent) for the violation of a city ordinance. The trial court granted the relief sought and the city appealed. Plaintiff contends that to enforce the ordinance against him by prosecution in the city court for its violation would be a violation of his rights under the due process clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions, hence the appeal to the supreme court.

Ordinance No. 1653 fixed the annual license fee of certain occupations, trades, and businesses. The annual license fee for automatic musical instruments, coin operated, was $ 50.00. An amendment reduced this to $ 30.00. Violation of the ordinance was made a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $ 100.00 or by imprisonment in the city jail for not more than 3 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Without procuring the license as required by the ordinance plaintiff had five coin operated music machines at different business establishments in Trenton; he furnished the machines and the records and split the intake 50-50 with the owners of the business houses where the machines were placed. Complaint was filed against plaintiff in the police court for violation of the license ordinance and thereupon the present cause was filed to enjoin the prosecution of said complaint.

There are two questions presented: (1) May plaintiff resort to a court of equity to enjoin the prosecution in the city court for a violation of the ordinance? and (2) Did the city have statutory authority for requiring a license fee to be paid for the operation in the city of a coin operated music machine?

In the petition to enjoin plaintiff alleged that the city had filed in its police court a complaint against him for the violation of the city ordinance and that the city would continue from time to time to file such complaints against him and frequently cause his arrest and thereby create a multiplicity of such complaints against him and thereby compel him to pay out large sums of money, and it is alleged that unless the city be enjoined from such prosecutions plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury. And it was conceded that it was the intention of the city to prosecute plaintiff "for each and every offense" of violating said ordinance; that if plaintiff continues to operate the music machines without procuring a license for each machine, "he will be prosecuted for each time he operates them", and that "each day of operation" without the license would be considered a separate violation of the ordinance.

Glencoe Lime & Cement Co. v. City of St. Louis et al., 341 Mo. 689, 108 S.W.2d 143, was to enjoin the enforcement of a zoning ordinance which provided a penalty for violation as does the present ordinance. The point was made there that there was an adequate remedy at law; that the constitutionality of the ordinance could be challenged in any prosecution for violation of the ordinance. In ruling the point the court said: "But is the remedy at law adequate? It must be remembered that the injury complained of here is continuous. The ordinances are continuous, and plaintiffs' business is continuous, and, under the ordinances, for each wagon load of coal sold and delivered in violation of the restrictive provisions thereof, the plaintiffs each become subject to an action in the municipal courts of the city for such violation. The fact that in each of such suits the plaintiffs might plead successfully the invalidity of the ordinances as a defense thereto, does not give them an adequate remedy." See also, Sylvester Coal Co. et al. v. City of St. Louis et al., 130 Mo. 323, 32 S.W. 649; Jewell Tea Co. et al. v. City of Carthage et al., 257 Mo. 383, 165 S.W. 743; Hays v. City of Poplar Bluff et al., 263 Mo. 516, 173 S.W. 676. We think that under the facts here relief by injunction was available to plaintiff.

Did the city have statutory authority to levy a license tax...