State v. Taubert

• Decision Date: 10 July 1914
• Docket Number: 18,726 - (11)
• Citation: 148 N.W. 281,126 Minn. 371
• Parties: STATE v. OSCAR TAUBERT
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

148 N.W. 281

126 Minn. 371

STATE v. OSCAR TAUBERT

Nos. 18,726 - (11)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 10, 1914

From a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county Montgomery, J., convicting him of a violation of the ordinance of the city of Minneapolis, and from an order denying him a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Constitution -- city ordinance valid.

The ordinance of the city of Minneapolis permitting tanneries already in existence to continue in operation, but providing that no tannery shall be established thereafter without first obtaining permission therefor from the city council, does not transgress the equality provisions of the Fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution.

George B. Leonard and M. Rose, for appellant.

Daniel Fish, City Attorney and W. G. Compton, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent.

OPINION

TAYLOR, C.

Defendant was convicted of maintaining a tannery in the city of Minneapolis without having obtained permission therefor from the city council. The ordinance under which he was convicted provides: "No person * * * shall hereafter erect, keep or maintain within the limits of the city of Minneapolis any * * * tannery * * * unless such person * * * shall have obtained permission from the city council of the city of Minneapolis authorizing the same: * * * provided that this ordinance shall not apply to any building or structure in the city of Minneapolis already used and occupied by any person" for such purpose. Defendant attacks the validity of the ordinance on the ground that it draws an arbitrary line between tanneries already established and those sought to be established in the future, and thereby violates the constitutional provision that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. He apparently assumes that the ordinance permits those persons already engaged in the tannery business to continue therein, but prohibits all others from engaging in such business, and contends that such a classification is arbitrary and void.

To regulate the establishment and operation of tanneries, and to provide for excluding them from localities where they would constitute a public nuisance, is a proper exercise of the police power. The business is of a nature likely to impair the health and comfort of the public and to become extremely offensive in populous or residential districts. To guard against the carrying on of such business at improper places or in an unnecessarily offensive manner,...