Powell v. Eld

• Citation: 11 S.E.2d 33,190 Ga. 839
• Decision Date: 24 September 1940
• Docket Number: No. 13403.,13403.
• Parties: POWELL et al. v. HARTSFI ELD, Mayor,et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

190 Ga. 839

11 S.E.2d 33

POWELL et al.

v.HARTSFI ELD, Mayor, et al.

No. 13403.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 24, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1940.

Syllabus by the Court.

The facts in this case bring it well within the general rule that courts of equity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution. No such property rights are alleged as would take the case out of the general rule. The judgment sustaining the demurrer to the petition is affirmed.

ATKINSON, P. J., dissenting.

Error from Superior Court^ Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.

Suit by W. L. Powell and others against W. B. Hartsfield, Mayor, and others for a judgment decreeing city ordinances unconstitutional, to enjoin the defendants from further molesting plaintiffs in any alleged attempt to enforce the ordinances, and from further prosecuting plaintiffs under the ordinances until further order of court. To review an adverse judgment, the plaintiffs bring error.

Judgment affirmed.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants, alleging, that two ordinances adopted by the City of Atlanta attempting to regulate barbers and the barber trade by fixing a minimum price that must be charged for barber services, and imposing a fine or imprisonment as a penalty for violating the ordinances, are unconstitutional and void, for many reasons; and that the plaintiffs have been arrested by an officer of the City of Atlanta upon charges of cutting prices below those fixed by the city ordinance, and have been ordered to appear in court for trial on such charges. The prayers are for judgment decreeing the ordinances unconstitutional, and that each defendant be enjoined from further molesting plaintiffs in any alleged attempt to enforce said ordinances, and from further prosecuting them under said ordinances until further order of the court. By amendment it was alleged that plaintiffs have been licensed to do barber work under State law, and have a financial interest in the franchise from the State, which interest is freedom to work at-their trade as barbers; that they have investments in barbershop supplies and in leases and ownership of the premises occupied by their shops; that interference has actually been made with their person and property by arrest and imprisonment under the guise of enforcing the ordinances; and that further interference is threatened by further arrests, which will result in the destruction of their franchise from the State, their labor, and the good will which they have established, as well as their good name as law-abiding citizens, and the value of their equipment. The exception is to a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to the petition.

F. Joe Turner, Jr., of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

J. C. Savage, J. C. Murphy, Edwin L. Sterne, and Frank A. Hooper, Jr., all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

DUCKWORTH, Justice.

"Equity will take no part in the administration of the criminal law. It will neither aid criminal courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction, nor will it restrain or obstruct them." Code, § 55-102. This rule has been applied to municipal ordinances. Phillips v. Mayor, etc., of Stone Mountain, 61 Ga. 386; Garrison v. Atlanta, 68 Ga. 64; Pope v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 74 Ga. 365; Mayor, etc., of Moultrie v. Patterson, 109 Ga. 370, 34 S.E. 600; City of Bain-bridge v. Reynolds, 111 Ga. 758, 36 S.E. 935; Salter v. Columbus, 125 Ga. 96, 54. S.E. 74; Mayor, etc., of Shellman v. Saxon, 134 Ga. 29, 67 S.E. 438, 27 L.R.A..N. S., 452; Mayor, etc., of Jonesboro v. Central of...