State v. Amor & Co.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 23071.,23071. |
| Citation | 153 Minn. 244,190 N.W. 59 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. AMOR & CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Minneapolis; Frank E. Reed, Judge.
Amor & Co., a corporation, was convicted of operating an undertaking business without municipal permit, and it appeals. Affirmed.
An ordinance of the city of Minneapolis providing that no person shall carry on the undertaking business in the city without a permit from the city council is constitutional and valid.
If the council arbitrarily denies a permit, the applicant has his remedy; but he is not by that fact justified in defying the ordinance by doing the prohibited act.
A permit to carry on such business in one location does not give permission to carry on the business in another location. George S. Grimes, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Neil M. Cronin, City Atty., and Thomas Kilbride, Asst. City Atty., both of Minneapolis, for the State.
Defendant is engaged in the undertaking business in Minneapolis. Prior to March 1, 1922, it conducted its business at 829 Second Avenue South and had a permit from the city council to do so. It applied to the city council for a permit to conduct its business at 2300 Hennepin avenue. The permit was refused. Defendant nevertheless conducted its business at 2300 Hennepin avenue and this prosecution was commenced charging defendant with operating said business without a permit from the city council. Defendant was convicted and takes this appeal.
[1] 1. An ordinance of the city of Minneapolis provides that no person shall maintain or use any building or place in said city as an undertaking establishment or carry on the undertaking business in said city without having first obtained permission from the city council authorizing the same. This is the ordinance which defendant is charged with violating. It is contended that this ordinance is unconstitutional and void, in that it vests in the council arbitrary power to say where such business may be conducted or who shall conduct it, that it abridges the privileges of the defendant as a citizen, deprives it of its property without due process of law and denies to it the equal protection of the laws. No particular constitutional provision is mentioned but presumably defendant's contention has reference to the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. This contention was determined adversely to defendant in State v. Dirnberger (Minn.) 187 N. W. 972. It was there held, following Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U. S. 361, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Houghton
...restricted in use, by requiring a permit or license, or by an injunction at the suit of a private party who is injured. State v. Amor & Co., 153 Minn. 244, 190 N. W. 59 (undertaking); State v. Rosenstein, 148 Minn. 127, 181 N. W. 107 (lumber yard); State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44, 187 N. ......
-
State v. Clarke Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 35802
...but rather that certain provisions of the ordinance itself are invalid. For cases involving the former defense, see State v. Amor & Co., 153 Minn. 244, 190 N.W. 59; State v. Rosenstein, 148 Minn. 127, 181 N.W. 107; State v. Lindquist, 171 Minn. 334, 214 N.W. 260. Furthermore, we do not mean......
-
Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna
...businesses of certain types can be established in certain districts of the municipality, have been generally upheld. State v. Amor & Co., 153 Minn. 244, 190 N.W. 59; Standard Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 163 Minn. 418, 204 N.W. 165; State ex rel. Rose Bros. L. & S. Co. Inc. v. Clousing, ......
-
State v. Clousing
...a laundry without first obtaining a permit from the council was within the charter-granted powers of the city. In State v. Amor & Co., 153 Minn. 244, 190 N.W. 59, an ordinance providing that no person carry on the business of undertaking in the city without a permit was held to be valid. An......