Stark v. Backus

• Decision Date: 26 October 1909
• Citation: 123 N.W. 98,140 Wis. 557
• Parties: STARK v. BACKUS, DIST. ATTY., ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

140 Wis. 557

123 N.W. 98

STARK

v.BACKUS, DIST. ATTY., ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 26, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; George W. Burnell, Judge.

Suit by Albert W. Stark against August C. Backus, as District Attorney, and others, to restrain the enforcement of St. 1898, § 4595, as amended by Laws 1909, p. 331, c. 300, regulating the observance of Sunday. From an order vacating a preliminary injunction, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

To the point that the remedy by injunction was proper the appellant cited: 22 Cyc. 903; 16 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 372; 5 Pom. Eq. Jr. 632, 636; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. 699, 35 L. Ed. 363;Davis, etc., Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 23 Sup. Ct. 498, 47 L. Ed. 778;Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 25 Sup. Ct. 18, 49 L. Ed. 169;Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932;Cain v. Daly, 74 S. C. 480, 55 S. E. 110;Bryan v. Mayor, etc., 154 Ala. 447, 45 South. 922;Deems v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164, 30 Atl. 648, 26 L. R. A. 542, 45 Am. St. Rep. 339;Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Carroll (C. C.) 125 Fed. 121;Milwaukee, etc., Co. v. Bradley, 108 Wis. 467, 84 N. W. 870;Jos. Schlitz Brg. Co. v. Superior, 117 Wis. 297, 93 N. W. 1120;Bonnett v. Vallier, 136 Wis. 193, 116 N. W. 885, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 486;State v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 90 N. W. 1098, 58 L. R. A. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934;Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 29 L. R. A. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315. That the injunction should have been continued pendente lite: Valley Iron Works v. Goodrick, 103 Wis. 436, 78 N. W. 1096;Quayle v. Bayfield Co., 114 Wis. 108, 89 N. W. 892;Bartlett v. Bartlett, 116 Wis. 450, 93 N. W. 473;De Pauw v. Oxley, 122 Wis. 656, 100 N. W. 1028, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 173. To the point that the statute in question (chapter 300, p. 331, Laws 1909) was unconstitutional: Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296, 43 N. E. 1108, 32 L. R. A. 659, 52 Am. St. Rep. 365; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803, 32 L. R. A. 664;State v. Granneman, 132 Mo. 326, 33 S. W. 784;State v. Lorry, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 95, 32 Am. Rep. 555;Ragio v. State, 86 Tenn. 272, 6 S. W. 401;People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707; Ex parte Westerfield, 55 Cal. 550, 36 Am. Rep. 47;Armstrong v. State, 170 Ind. 188, 84 N. E. 3, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 646;Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238, 27 Pac. 604. To be distinguished: Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164, 20 Sup. Ct. 666, 44 L. Ed. 716;Id., 74 Minn. 376, 77 N. W. 225;People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707;People v. Bellet, 99 Mich. 151, 57 N. W. 1094, 22 L. R. A. 696, 41 Am. St. Rep. 589; Ex parte Northrup, 41 Or. 489, 69 Pac. 445;State v. Sopher, 25 Utah, 318, 71 Pac. 482, 60 L. R. A. 468, 95 Am. St. Rep. 845;State v. Bergfeldt, 41 Wash. 234, 83 Pac. 177. To the point that the statute was not enacted in response to any public need: State v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 90 N. W. 1098, 58 L. R. A. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934;State v. Redmon, 134 Wis. 89, 114 N. W. 137, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 229, 126 Am. St. Rep. 1003;State v. Whitcom, 122 Wis. 110, 99 N. W. 468. The amendment of 1909 was special legislation: State v. Currens, 111 Wis. 431, 87 N. W. 561, 56 L. R. A. 252;Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205, 89 N. W. 522, 90 Am. St. Rep. 853;Huber v. Merkel, 117 Wis. 355, 94 N. W. 354, 62 L. R. A. 589, 98 Am. St. Rep. 933;State v. Board of Trustees, etc., 121 Wis. 44, 98 N. W. 954;Bingham v. Supervisors, etc., 127 Wis. 344, 106 N. W. 1071;State v. Evans, 130 Wis. 381, 110 N. W. 241;Servonitz v. State, 133 Wis. 231, 113 N. W. 277, 126 Am. St. Rep. 955;Phipps v. Railway Co., 133 Wis. 153, 113 N. W. 456; and several of the cases cited to other points. To the point that the proviso of 1909 was unreasonable: Bonnett v. Vallier, supra; State v. Redmon, supra, and Milwaukee Medical College v. Chittenden, 127 Wis. 468, 107 N. W. 500. The Supreme Court had already put a construction on this statute: Jensen v. State, 60 Wis. 577, 19 N. W. 374;McArthur v. Green Bay, etc., Ry. Co., 34 Wis. 139. And the proviso added in 1909 amounts to an assumption by the Legislature of the judicial power of construing statutes: Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 25 L. Ed. 496;Com. v. Warwick, 172 Pa. 140, 33 Atl. 373;James v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 78 S. W. 951.

Respondents, to the point that without reference to the constitutionality of the act in question this was not a proper case for the interposition of equity to arrest the enforcement of the criminal law, cited: Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U. S. 401, 26 Sup. Ct. 66, 50 L. Ed. 246;Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819;In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 8 Sup. Ct. 482, 31 L. Ed. 402; Story's Eq. Jur. § 893; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 Sup. Ct. 269, 43 L. Ed. 535;Logan & Bryan v. Postal Tel. Co. (C. C.) 157 Fed. 570;Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 Fed. 616, 51 C. C. A. 122, 65 L. R. A. 864;Christian Moerlein B. Co. v. Hill (C. C.) 166 Fed. 140;Denver v. Beede, 25 Colo. 172, 54 Pac. 624;Poyer v. Des Plaines, 123 Ill. 111, 13 N. E. 819, 5 Am. St. Rep. 494;Pleasants v. Smith, 90 Miss. 440, 43 South. 475, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 773, 122 Am. St. Rep. 317;Chicago v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 222 Ill. 560, 78 N. E. 890;Delaney v. Flood, 183 N. Y. 323, 76 N. E. 209, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678, 111 Am. St. Rep. 759;Eden Musee Am. Co. v. Bingham, 125 App. Div. 780, 110 N. Y. Supp. 210;Suesskind v. Bingham, 125 App. Div. 787, 110 N. Y. Supp. 213;Shepard v. Bingham, 125 App. Div. 784, 110 N. Y. Supp. 217, and many other cases. Even if the proviso added in 1909 was void, the whole act is not void, and the officers should be permitted to prosecute under the valid remainder of the act, citing: 1 Lewis, Sutherland, Stat. Const. (2d Ed.) 296, 297; Lynch v. Steamer Economy, 27 Wis. 69;Wilcox v. Hemming, 58 Wis. 144, 15 N. W. 435, 46 Am. Rep. 625; and other cases. Upon the point that the statute was constitutional the respondent relied upon the cases cited and sought to be distinguished by the appellant supra, and added: Judefind v. State, 78 Md. 510, 28 Atl. 405, 22 L. R. A. 721;Quarles v. State, 55 Ark. 10, 17 S. W. 269, 14 L. R. A. 192;State v. O'Rourk, 35 Neb. 614, 53 N. W. 591, 17 L. R. A. 830; Phillips v. Innes, 4 Clark & Fin. 234; Commonwealth v. Waldman, 140 Pa. 89, 21 Atl. 248, 11 L. R. A. 563;State v. Frederick, 45 Ark. 347, 55 Am. Rep. 555;Stone v. Graves, 145 Mass. 353, 13 N. E. 906;Mills v. Charleton, 29 Wis. 400, 9 Am. Rep. 578;Bound v. Railway Co., 45 Wis. 543.

Kronshage, McGovern, Goff, Fritz & Hannan, for appellant.

Boden & Beuscher, for respondent Barbers' Ass'n.

August C. Backus, Dist. Atty., and Norman L. Baker, Asst. Dist. Atty., for respondents District Atty. and Sheriff of Milwaukee County.

TIMLIN, J.

The appellant brought this suit in equity, in his own behalf and in behalf of all others similarly situated, against the sheriff and district attorney of Milwaukee county and a guild or association of barbers and several members and officers of that guild, praying that a certain act of the Legislature of this state, hereinafter referred to, be declared unconstitutional and void, and that the defendants and each of them be enjoined from issuing or attempting to issue any warrant or other criminal process against the appellant or his agents or servants, and from instituting or attempting to institute or maintain any proceeding, action, or suit, civil or criminal, against the plaintiff, for violation of said pretended law. Appellant based his claim to this relief upon the facts: That he is a citizen duly licensed or registered as a barber and resides in Milwaukee, where he has conducted for more than 10 years last past, and now conducts, in or adjacent to a great hotel called the “Plankinton House,” a large barber shop, with manicuring, bathing, shoe polishing, and clothes cleaning adjuncts; that he employs therein a large number of barbers and others, and he has expended large sums of money in fitting up said shop for these purposes and has been accustomed to keep the shop with all its adjuncts open on Sunday for the accommodation of the public generally, and for that of the guests and patrons of said hotel particularly, and for its own gain. He avers that he has thereby built up and established a large and profitable trade, larger and more profitable on Sunday than on any other day and dependent on this Sunday patronage. Great and irreparable loss will fall upon the appellant and great inconvenience result to his said patrons if this business is not permitted to continue as it has heretofore been carried on. The defendant Milwaukee Branch of the Wisconsin Barbers' Association, and the other defendants (except the sheriff and district attorney), and other persons unknown, did prior to the passage of the act in question, “combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake, and concert together for the purpose of willfully and maliciously depriving the plaintiff of the good will of his business and to bring about his personal and business ruin, and in furtherance of such conspiracy were active in and responsible for the passage of the act in question, and caused said statute to be prepared and introduced in the Legislature, and used their efforts, influence, and persuasion to have it enacted.” Then, in furtherance of the same unlawful conspiracy, and to degrade the plaintiff and prejudice him before the public, and to injure and destroy plaintiff's business, they now, after the passage and publication of the act in question, threaten and intend to prosecute the plaintiff and his agents and servants under the said law by many and continued prosecutions, if plaintiff keeps open his said shop or place of business on Sunday for the purpose of engaging in the business before described. Repeated prosecutions and many arrests of ...