State v. Conragan
| Decision Date | 11 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 587.,587. |
| Citation | 171 A. 326 |
| Parties | STATE v. CONRAGAN et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Action by the State against Aram K. Conragan and others in which a constitutional question was certified to Supreme Court under Laws 1923, c. 348, § 1.
Questions determined and papers in cause sent back to Superior Court for further proceedings.
John P. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., and John J. Cooney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Edward F. McElroy, Joseph C. Cawley, and William I. Matzner, all of Providence, for defendants.
Constitutional question certified to this court under General Laws 1923, c. 348, § 1.
This bill in equity was brought to enjoin the respondents from using a shop at No. 8 Broad street in the city of Providence for the conduct of a barber school. The bill alleges that the respondents are tenants of said premises and for nine months prior to the filing of the bill had conducted therein an unauthorized barber school; that they had solicited the patronage of the public by signs and devices, exhibited in the windows of said premises, of such a character that the public were led to believe that services commonly rendered in licensed barber shops could be secured therein at a less cost than in licensed shops; that as a consequence barbers conducting licensed shops have suffered irreparable injury; that said shop has been conducted continuously in violation of the provisions of chapter 1961, P. L. 1932; that such use constitutes a common or public nuisance and that the respondents will continue to occupy said shop for the same purpose indefinitely unless enjoined by decree of the court.
In their answer respondents admit the operation of a barber school without a certificate of registration; they allege that the board of examiners arbitrarily refused to grant their application for a certificate because they made charges for the services rendered in their shop. Respondents also admit the soliciting of business, the maintenance of signs, the practicing of the trade of barber, and the instructing of others in said trade. But they deny the allegation that said school is a menace to public health or a common nuisance, and claim that their business is conducted in a sanitary manner.
The order of certification is as follows: "The question of the constitutionality of chapter 1961 of the public laws of 1932 has been brought in question upon the record of this cause in this, that the respondents have claimed by their answer, in which they have incorporated a claim of the same benefit as if they had demurred to the bill of complaint filed herein, that said chapter 1961 of the public laws of 1932, and particularly that portion of section 1 thereof which amends section 9 of chapter 156 of the general laws of 1923 chapter 1892 of the public laws of 1932, as follows: 'No barber school shall charge any fee, price or compensation for any work or service performed in said school, except the regular charge for tuition' is uncoustitutional and void: (1) because it is in violation of Section 10, Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island, in that it deprives the respondents of property; (2) because it is in violation of Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States for like reason. * * *"
The statute now under consideration (G. L. 1923, c. 156) was first enacted in 1903 (P. L 1903, c. 1100). The statute provides that it shall he unlawful to practice the occupation of barber in any city of the state without first securing a certificate of registration from the state board of examiners. An amendment of the statute (P. L. 1932, c. 1961) prohibits the maintenance of a barber school without a certificate of approval issued by the state board and provides that such certificate be granted only to suitable persons authorized to practice the trade of barbering in this state. It is further provided that no barber school shall advertise, or display any sign, as being anything but a barber school or charge any fee or price for any work or service performed therein, except for tuition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists
...to the same regulations which apply to services of the licensed barker.' (188 Okl. at 218, 107 P.2d at 1020) In State v. Conragan et al., 54 R.I. 256, 171 A. 326 (1934), the trial court certified to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island the issue of the constitutionality of a 1932 amendment to ......
-
School Committee of Springfield v. Board of Ed.
...175 Iowa 245, 274, 154 N.W. 1037, 157 N.W. 145 (1915). Alongi v. Schatzman, 57 N.J. 564, 574, 274 A.2d 33 (1971). State v. Conragan, 54 R.I. 256, 259, 171 A. 326 (1934). See In the Matter of Brown, 439 F.2d 47, 51 (3d Cir. 1971); State ex rel. Bland v. St. John, 244 Ala. 269, 277, 13 So.2d ......
-
Eckdahl v. Hurwitz
... ... 17 R. C. L. 1226; Paulk v. Land ... Co., 22 So. 495; People v. McPhee, 103 N.W ... 194; Burks v. Harris, 120 N.W. 979; State v ... Home Company, 92 N.W. 763; Hall v. Hughes, 56 ... N.Y. 424; Fleming v. Bills, 3 Ore. 286; Loan ... Company v. Warring, 44 S.E. 320; People ... the court has no authority to hear and determine that ... particular case." See also State v. Conragan, ... 54 R.I. 256, 171 A. 326; Corchine v. Henderson, 70 ... S.W.2d 766; Carolina Motor Service, Inc., v. Atlantic ... Coast Line Railroad Co., 210 ... ...
-
Schneider v. Duer
... ... Richard F. Schneider against Arthur W. Duer, Robert W. Smith, ... and Vincent A. Cinquegrani, as members of the State Board of ... Barber Examiners, and another. From a decree of dismissal, ... complainant appeals ... Reversed ... and remanded, ... 132, 171 N.E. 154; Clark v ... State, 169 Miss. 369, 152 So. 820; State v ... Lockey, 198 N.C. 551, 152 S.E. 693; State v ... Conragan, 54 R.I. 256, 171 A. 326; Mundell v ... Graph, 62 S.D. 631, 256 N.W. 121; State v ... Nolan, 161 Tenn. 293, 30 S.W.(2d) 601; Gerard v ... ...