Ransone v. Craft

• Decision Date: 21 September 1933
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: C. B. RANSONE, HEALTH OFFICER OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE v. S. K. CRAFT AND O. H. RIDGEWAY.

Page 332

161 Va. 332

C. B. RANSONE, HEALTH OFFICER OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE v. S. K. CRAFT AND O. H. RIDGEWAY.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 21, 1933.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Epes, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.

1. ORDINANCES — Validity of Ordinance Regulating the Trade of Barbers — Conflict of Ordinance with Rule of State Board of Health — Failure of Complainant to Allege Conflict — Case at Bar. — In the instant case complainants challenged the validity of an ordinance of the city of Roanoke regulating the trade of barbers and beauty culturists within the city. The trial court found that the ordinance in question conflicted with the rules and regulations of the State Board of Health on the same subject. The bill of complaint did not allege that the ordinance was in conflict with any rule or regulation adopted by the State Board of Health, and there was nothing in the record on which to base the statement in the opinion of the trial judge that the two were in conflict.

Held: That the finding of the trial court could not be sustained.

2. ORDINANCES — Validity of Ordinance Regulating the Trade of Barbers — Whether Ordinance Was a Special, Local and Private Law — Case at Bar. — In the instant case complainants challenged the validity of an ordinance of the city of Roanoke regulating the trade of barbers and beauty culturists within the city. The trial court found that the ordinance in question was a private, special and local law and within the inhibition of section 65 of the Constitution of 1902, and the legislature had passed no general law empowering municipalities to adopt such regulations.

Held: That the city of Roanoke under its charter had authority to enact such an ordinance and that the ordinance in question was valid.

3. BARBERS — Ordinance Regulating the Trade of Barbers — Validity of Ordinance. — It is a matter of common knowledge that the trade, science or profession which is sought to be regulated by the ordinance deals with the treatment of the persons of the patrons by direct application with the hands or mechanical instruments manipulated by the operator. Careless or unsanitary practice in this trade may induce or spread contagious or infectious diseases, hence such trades or callings are subject to reasonable rules and regulations by the legislative branch of the government.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Charters — Rights and Powers Different from Those Conferred by General Statutes. — It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of Appeals that charters of municipal corporations, or amendments thereto, conferring rights and powers different from, and in addition to, those conferred by general statutes are authorized by the Constitution when enacted in accordance with article 4 (sections 40-68) and section 117 of the Constitution of 1902.

5. BARBERS — Ordinance Regulating the Trade of Barbers — Power of City to Enact Such Ordinance — Delegation of Legislative Authority — Local and Special Legislation — Case at Bar. — In the instant case under its charter the city of Roanoke had express authority to pass an ordinance regulating the trade or calling of barbers and beauticians if the provisions of the charter were valid. However, it was held by the trial court that the General Assembly was prohibited by section 65 of the Constitution of 1902 from delegating any such authority to the municipality except by general law, and that the legislature had passed no general statute on the subject. In other words, that the provisions of the city charter constituted "local and special legislation," applicable only to the city of Roanoke, and for that reason such grant of power was within the prohibition of section 65.

Held: That the provisions of the city charter did not constitute local and special legislation, and were not prohibited by section 65 of the Constitution of 1902.

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Charters and Amendments Thereto — Presumption in Favor of Validity — Case at Bar. — In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a prima facie presumption that the charter or an amendment thereof was enacted in the manner required by the Constitution, and that the rights and powers conferred are within the legislative power to grant. In the instant case there was not a suggestion in the record tending to show that the charter in question was not enacted in the manner required by article 4 and section 117 of the Constitution of 1902.

7. ORDINANCES — Validity of Ordinance Regulating the Trade of Barbers — Whether Ordinance Arbitrary and Unreasonable — Case at Bar. — In the instant case a compliance with an ordinance of the city of Roanoke regulating the trade of barbers would not require an outlay for each operator of more than $10.00.

Held: That this requirement was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.

Appeal from a decree of the Hustings Court of the city of Roanoke. Decree for complainants. Respondent appeals.

The opinion states the case.

Robert C. Jackson, for the appellant.

No appearance for the appellees.

HUDGINS, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

S. K. Craft and O. H. Ridgeway, barbers, filed their bill in equity, challenging the validity of an ordinance¹ adopted July 15, 1932, by the Roanoke city council, regulating the trade or operation of barbers and beauty culturists within the city. The allegations of the bill are rather vague, but the material charges seem to be (1) that complainants on January 1, 1932, obtained a license from the city for the purpose of conducting a barber's shop therein for the year 1932, and that the city had no right in the license year to change the manner or method of operating the business; (2) that the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive; (3) that the passage of the ordinance was ultra vires — i.e., the city council was without authority to adopt such regulations.

Respondent C. B. Ransone, health officer of the city of Roanoke, filed an answer to the bill denying the material allegations and averring that the city of Roanoke had full authority and power to pass the ordinance in question. Depositions of several witnesses in support of the allegations in the bill and the answers were duly taken and filed. The court declared the ordinance invalid and void and by decree perpetually enjoined the city health officer from enforcing any of its provisions. From that decree, respondent obtained this appeal.

The complainants below filed no brief in this court hence we have been denied the benefit of the views of their counsel. Under these circumstances, we have confined our consideration of the case to the two grounds upon which the trial court in its written opinion based its conclusion. These grounds are:

(1) That the State Board of Health, under the general power conferred upon it by the legislature, had made rules and regulations on the same subject, with which the ordinance in question was in conflict and therefore void. The bill of complaint does not allege that the ordinance is in conflict with any rule or regulation adopted by the State Board of Health, and there is nothing in the record on which to base the statement in the opinion of the trial judge that the two are in conflict. Under these circumstances, the finding of the trial court on the point is not sustained.

2, 3 (2) That the legislature had passed no general law empowering municipalities to adopt such regulations and that the ordinance in question was a private, special and local law and within the inhibition of section 65 of the Virginia Constitution.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the trade, science or profession which is sought to be regulated by the ordinance deals with the treatment of the persons of the patrons by direct application with the hands or mechanical instruments manipulated by the operator. Careless or unsanitary practice in this trade may induce or spread contagious or infectious diseases, hence such trades or callings are subject to reasonable rules and regulations by the legislative branch of the government. See State Reeve (Fla.) 139 So. 817, 79 A.L.R. 1119; State Zeno, 79 Minn. 80, 81 N.W. 748, 48 L.R.A. 88, 79 Am.St.Rep. 422; State Armeno, 29 R.I. 431, 72 Atl. 216; Hanzal San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 221 S.W. 237, 239.

The charter of the city of Roanoke, among other things, empowered its council:

"To provide for the preservation of the general health of the inhabitants of said city, make regulations to secure the same; * * * prevent introduction or spread of contagious or infectious disease, and prevent and suppress disease generally; to provide for the organization of a department of health to have the powers of a board of health, for said city, with the authority necessary for the prompt and efficient performance of its duties, with power to invest any or all the officers or employees of such department of health with such powers as the police officers of the city have; * * *

"To do all things whatsoever necessary or expedient for promoting or maintaining the general welfare, comfort, education, morals, peace, government, health, trade, commerce or industry of the city or its inhabitants. * * *

"To make and enforce all ordinances, rules and regulations necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying into effect the powers conferred by this charter or by any general law, and to provide and impose suitable penalties for the violation of such ordinances, rules or regulations, or any of them, by fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment nor exceeding six months, or both. The enumeration of particular powers in this charter shall not be deemed or held to be exclusive, but in addition to the powers enumerated herein, implied thereby, or appropriate to the exercise thereof, the said city shall have and may exercise all other powers which are now or may hereafter be possessed or enjoyed by cities under the Constitution and general laws of this State." See section 2, subsections 28, 31 and 32.

4, 5 It...