Morris v. The City Council Of Rome
| Decision Date | 31 October 1851 |
| Docket Number | No. 76.,76. |
| Citation | 10 Ga. 532 |
| Parties | Erastus Morris, plaintiff in error. vs. The City Council of Rome, defendant. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Certiorari, from Floyd Superior Court. Decided by Judge John H. Lumpkin, July Term, 1851.
Erastus Morris and another, as partners, obtained a license from the City Council of Rome, to retail liquors in the City limits. The license was issued March 1st, 1850.
In April, 1850, the City Council published an ordinance, by which, among other things, the keepers of retail shops were forbidden, under a penalty, to keep their shops open after the hour of 10 o'clock, P. M.
In June, 1850, Erastus Morris was brought before the Council, and fined for a violation of the above named ordinance; upon which he applied to the Judge of the Superior Court for a writ of certiorari, on the ground—
1st. That the City Council of Rome had no power, under their charter, to establish the said ordinance.
2d. Because the said ordinance could not be applied to persons who had paid for and obtained licenses prior to its publication.
3d. Because the offence being committed by a firm, one of the parties could not be punished separately.
On hearing the application for a certiorari, the same was refused, to which decision the plaintiff in error excepted.
Akin, for plaintiff in error.
No one appearing for defendant, the plaintiff was allowed to proceed, ex parte.
By the Court.—Warner, J. delivering the opinion.
The main question made by the record in this case is, whether the City Council of Rome had the power and authority, under the charter, to enact the ordinance of which the plaintiff in error complains.
By the 5th section of the Act incorporating the City of Atlanta, it is declared, that the " Mayor and Council shall have full power and authority to pass all by-laws and ordinances that shall appear to them necessary and proper for the security, welfare and interest of the said City, or for preserving the peace, health, order and good government thereof." By the 22d section of said Act, it is enacted, that each and every provision contained in the Act of 1847, relating to the City of Atlanta, shall apply to and be of force as to the City of Rome. Pamphlet Laws, 1847, 56.
We will concede that the City Council of Rome had granted a license to the defendants to retail spiritous liquors within the City, prior to the date of the ordinance in question, which by the 18th section of the Act they have the authority to do, then the inquiry is,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clein v. City of Atlanta
...dealt with in that case prohibited the carrying on of a lawful vocation on Christmas Day, both in the daytime and nighttime. In Morris v. Rome, 10 Ga. 532, ordinance prohibiting the retail of spirituous liquors by those to whom licenses had been granted, within the city of Rome, after the h......
-
City of Red Wing v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
... ... The complaint ... alleged, among other things, that April 30, 1886, the city ... council of plaintiff city adopted an ordinance which included ... the following provisions, viz.: ... Clark, 28 N.H. 176; Hudson v. Geary, 4 R.I ... 485; State v. Freeman, 38 N.H. 426; Morris v ... City Council, 10 Ga. 532; Railroad Co. v ... Richmond, 96 U.S. 521; Texton v. Baltimore, ... ...
-
City of Tacoma v. Keisel
... ... Richards v. City of Bayonne, 61 ... N. J. Law, 496, 39 A. 708; Morris v. City Council of ... Rome, 10 Ga. 532; City of Baton Rouge v ... Butler, 118 La. 73, ... ...
-
Thomas v. Saunders
...137 U.S. 86, 11 S.Ct. 13, 34 L.Ed. 620; State v. Welch, 36 Conn. 215; Village of Plattesville v. Bell, 43 Wis. 488; Morris v. City Council of Rome, 10 Ga. 532. But is contended the quoted ordinance is in conflict with and inconsistent with the following provision of section 8, c. 5597, p. 4......