Vest v. Kansas City

Decision Date30 April 1946
Docket Number39513
Citation194 S.W.2d 38,355 Mo. 1
PartiesThomas B. Vest v. Kansas City, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, L. M. Dixon, and Dr. Hugh L. Dwyer, Appellants
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Harold Marshall Special Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).


Douglas, J.

The plaintiff is a barber. He sues to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance of Kansas City providing for the physical examination of barbers and for the inspection of barber shops on the ground the ordinance conflicts with similar provisions of the State statute which regulates barbering.

Barbering has long been regarded as an occupation properly subject to regulation for the protection of the public health. Ex parte Lucas, 160 Mo. 218, 61 S.W. 218. Such regulation has been exercised both by the State and by municipalities. Cities of the first, second, and third classes are expressly authorized by statute to do so. See Sections 6293, 6609, 6986, R.S. 1939. Kansas City is empowered to regulate barbering by its charter.

The statute regulating barbering does not attempt to assert sole control over the subject matter. It does not exclude the concurrent power of municipalities authorized to regulate such occupation. But a city ordinance being subordinate to a State law is void if it conflicts with the State law. The State law is paramount. The ordinance must conform. This principle is now embodied in our statutes in Section 7442, R.S. 1939.

There is nothing in the constitution or laws of the State which prohibits a city council from enacting supplemental ordinances in addition to State laws. City of St. Louis v. Klausmeier, 213 Mo. 119, 112 S.W. 516. The fact that a state has enacted regulations governing an occupation does not of itself prohibit a municipality from exacting additional requirements. So long as there is no conflict between the two, both the statute and ordinance will stand. "As a general rule, additional regulation to that of the state law does not constitute a conflict therewith. The fact that an ordinance enlarges upon the provisions of a statute by requiring more than the statute requires creates no conflict therewith, unless the statute limits the requirement for all cases to its own prescriptions." 43 C.J. Mun. Corps., sec. 220(b).

In this case plaintiff makes two claims of conflict between the ordinance and the statute. The first claim is based on the requirement for physical examination. The statute, Section 10128, R.S. 1939, requires each barber to whom a certificate of registration is issued to be examined at least once a year and as often thereafter as the Board of Barber Examiners may deem necessary, by a licensed physician designated by the State Board of Health. The purpose of the examination is to enforce the requirements that a barber must be free from contagious or infectious diseases. Ordinance 6628 of Kansas City requires a barber to be examined at least once every six months by the Director of Health. Such requirement of the ordinance does not in any way conflict with the statute, it merely supplements it by imposing requirements for additional physical examination. The purpose of the additional examination is to enforce the same standard exacted by the statute,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • City of Springfield v. Stevens
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1949
    ...Control Act. Sec. 6609, subj. XI, XVIII, XX, R.S. 1939; State v. Womach, 196 S.W.2d 809; McGill v. St. Joseph, 38 S.W.2d 725; Vest v. Kansas City, 194 S.W.2d 38; State v. White, 263 S.W. 192. (9) City violation prosecutions are governed by the rules of civil procedure on appeal. If the judg......
  • Nickols v. North Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1948
    ... ... regulate and control the sale of non-intoxicating beer within ... their city limits and such cities have the power to exact ... additional requirements as to such sales. Regulation by ... forbidding sale on Sunday is within power. State ex rel ... Hewlett v. Womach, 196 S.W.2d 809; Vest v. Kansas ... City, 194 S.W.2d 38; City v. Ameln, 235 Mo ... 669, 139 S.W. 429; Zinn v. City of Steelville, supra; ... Village of St. Anthony v. Brandon, 10 Idaho 205, 77 ... P. 322; Corporation of Minden v. Sieverstein and ... Dittmer, 36 La. Ann. 912. (4) It is not necessary that ... an ... ...
  • State ex rel. Hewlett v. Womach
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1946
    ... ... Ruel N. Womach (substituted for Herschel Bennett), Commissioner of Revenue of the City of Springfield, Missouri No. 39828 Supreme Court of Missouri September 9, 1946 ... M. Proctor , City Counselor, and John J ... Cosgrove , Assistant City Counselor, for Kansas City, ... Missouri, amicus curiae ...          (1) By ... Liquor Control Act, ... #1 of this court has recently spoken in an analogous ... situation, Vest v. Kansas City, 355 Mo. 1, 194 S.W ... 2d 38, and which we regard as controlling. It was there ... ...
  • Tietjens v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1949
    ... ... housing nor to control evictions. City of St. Louis v ... Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 96 Mo. 623, 10 S.W ... 197; Turner v. Kansas City, 354 Mo. 857, 191 S.W.2d ... 612; Carter Carburetor Co. v. St. Louis, 346 Mo ... 646, 203 S.W.2d 438; State ex rel. Spencer v ... Anderson, ... constitutional as a valid exercise of the city's police ... power. City of St. Louis v. Klausmeier, 213 Mo. 119, ... 112 S.W. 516; Vest v. Kansas City, 355 Mo. 1, 194 ... S.W.2d 38; Ex parte Williams, 345 Mo. 1121, 139 S.W.2d 485; ... St. Louis Gunning Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 235 Mo ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT