Samuels v. Couzens

• Decision Date: 27 April 1923
• Docket Number: No. 90.,90.
• Citation: 193 N.W. 212,222 Mich. 604
• Parties: SAMUELS et al. v. COUZENS, Mayor, et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

222 Mich. 604

193 N.W. 212

SAMUELS et al.

v.COUZENS, Mayor, et al.

No. 90.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 27, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Harry J. Dingeman, Judge.

Action by Joseph Samuels and another against James Couzens, Mayor of the City of Detroit, and other. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE and STEERE, JJ.Walter Barlow, of Detroit (Clarence E. Wilcox, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

Allan P. Cox, of Detroit, for appellees.

WIEST, C. J.

In July, 1919, the common council of the city of Detroit adopted the following ordinance:

‘An ordinance to regulate and license the business of selling jewelry, other than secondhand jewelry, in the city of Detroit.

‘Section 1. No person, firm or corporation shall engage in the business of selling jewelry, other than secondhand jewelry, without first having obtained a license from the mayor of the city of Detroit.

‘Sec. 2. Any person, firm or corporation desiring to engage in the business of selling jewelry shall make application in writing to the mayor of the city of Detroit, stating the location in which he desires to engage in business, and containing an agreement on the part of the applicant that he will accept the license, if granted him, and that it may be revoked at the will of the mayor.

‘Before granting a license it shall be the duty of the mayor to require a sufficient surety bond in the amount of two hundred ($200) dollars to cover any loss or damage to any citizen doing business with such licensee. A fee of one ($1.00) dollar shall be charged for the issuance of this license which shall be granted for a period of one year, but all licenses shall expire July first of each year.

‘When complaint is made to the mayor that property has been lost or misrepresented by said licensee, or any person acting in his behalf, it shall be his duty to make inquiry into the circumstances surrounding such loss or misrepresentation and adjust same or revoke such license if such action is warranted by the facts. No licensee under this ordinance shall by virtue of one license maintain or conduct more than one place of business for the selling of jewelry as mentioned in section 1.

‘Sec. 3. If any licensee operating under the provisions of this ordinance shall violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of said ordinance applicable to such licensee, such act mentioned on the part of such licensee shall be cause for revocation of such license.

‘Sec. 4. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinance or shall fail to comply with same shall upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25) dollars or more than one hundred ($100) dollars or by imprisonment in the Detroit House of Correction for a period of not less than thirty days or more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

‘Sec. 5. This ordinance does not in any way affect Ordinance No. 617-A entitled ‘An ordinance to regulate and license the buying and selling of second-hand jewelry and similar articles,’ which said ordinance shall remain in full force and effect as heretofore.'

Plaintiffs, as copartners, are now and for some time have been engaged in the retail jewelry business on Woodward avenue in the city of Detroit. They are not engaged in selling secondhand jewelry. They have no license, and have been complained against, in the recorder's court for the city of Detroit, for conducting their business without a license. They filed the bill herein to restrain...