Wolfe v. City of Lansing

• Decision Date: 16 April 1884
• Citation: 53 Mich. 367,19 N.W. 38
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WOLFE v. CITY OF LANSING.

19 N.W. 38

53 Mich. 367

WOLFE v. CITY OF LANSING.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 16, 1884

The ordinance of the city of Lansing of April 26, 1881, is not invalid by reason of licensing by indirection the sale of intoxicating drinks; it is general, but it discriminates between the fees demanded in favor of those whose business is so restricted as to be unaccompanied by the evils generally attendant on saloons.

The discretion to fix the amount of the license is confided to the local legislatures, and not to the judiciary.

The state may give towns large powers of regulation in respect to subjects which are regulated to some extent by state laws also.

Error to Ingham.

M.V. & R.A. Montgomery, for plaintiff.

A.F Rouse and E.C. Chapin, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY C.J.

The charter of the city of Lansing provides that "no person shall engage in or exercise the business or vocation of tavern-keeper, inn-holder, or saloon-keeper within the limits of said city, until he is first licensed as such by the common council; all hotel or tavern-keepers, inn-holders, or common victualers who shall keep a bar in connection with their hotel, tavern, inn, or common victualing establishment and all grocers, druggists, and all other persons who shall sell beverages by the glass or cup in their respective establishments, which are usually sold in a saloon, shall be deemed saloon-keepers within the meaning of this act, and shall be required to take a license as such: provided, that nothing in this act shall be construed as licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage." Charter, tit. 4, � 21; Laws 1875, vol. 2, p 172.

April 26, 1881, the common council of the city passed an ordinance, the first section of which provided that "no person or persons shall engage in or exercise the business or occupation of tavern or hotel keeper, either personally or by agent, until he or they shall have obtained a license therefor." Another section makes a similar provision for some other occupations. Section 5 of the ordinance provides that "no license shall be issued under the provisions of this ordinance until the applicant or applicants shall pay to the city treasurer the sum hereinafter specified, and presents the treasurer's receipt for the same to the mayor. For each hotel, tavern, or inn license, five dollars; for each eating-house or common victualer's license, two dollars; for each saloon license, one hundred dollars; for each bagatelle, billiard, or other gaming table, five dollars; for each bowling alley, five dollars; for each shooting gallery, gaming board, or machine of any kind whatever, five dollars per day." When this ordinance took effect there were 17 saloon-keepers in the city of Lansing who were engaged in the sale of intoxicating drinks, the plaintiff in this suit being one of them. The plaintiff's business was selling such drinks, together with cigars. The license fee being demanded of him, he paid it under protest, and subsequently brought this suit to recover it back.

On the trial the plaintiff proved that he had paid the state tax of $200, and had executed and delivered to the county treasurer the bond required of liquor dealers by the statute, which bond had been approved by the common council of the city. He also proved that the entire police force of the city, not including constables, consisted of four men, each of whom was paid two dollars a day; that the actual cost of issuing a license under the ordinance would not exceed fifty cents; that aside fro said saloons there were seven restaurants, which, under the literal meaning of the term, might be called saloons, where eatables, ice cream, nuts, candies, etc., were sold, and of none of these was the $100 demanded. These are all the facts bearing upon the legal questions which have been raised.

The plaintiff contends that the ordinance...