Van Baalen v. People

40 Mich. 258, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 537
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 28, 1879·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Graves, J.

Van Baalen was fined in the Recorder’s court in the city of Detroit for having carried on the business of a pawnbroker without license, contrary to a city ordinance, and he has brought the case here by certiorari.

The ground taken is that the ordinance, which among other regulations not complained of, exacts a fee of $200, is unreasonable in consequence of the magnitude of the charge, and is therefore invalid.

The recorder found the facts, and among others, that the business of pawnbroking gives rise to a heavy city expense, and especially in the increase of police duty and supervision which it necessitates, and he ascertained [259]*259and found in terms that the sum charged • does not greatly exceed the incidental and consequential expense, and it appears plainly enough from his explanations and from matters subject to judicial notice that it is quite impossible to say the city can derive a particle of profit from the rate objected to.

Of course the subject will not admit of nice calculation, and it would be futile to require anything of the kind. Where the power to license is not evidently abused and made a pretext for doing what is a violation of constitutional right, the courts ought not to interfere with municipal discretion.

The case is governed by former decisions. Ash v. The People, 11 Mich., 347; Kitson v. The Mayor, 26 Mich., 325.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Van Baalen v. People, 40 Mich. 258, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 537 (Mich. 1879).

40 Mich. 258 (Van Baalen v. People) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Newman
38 N.Y. Crim. 169 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1919)
Ex Parte Cramer
136 S.W. 61 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
City of Columbus v. Jeffrey
1 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 265 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 1903)
City of Ottumwa v. Zekind
95 Iowa 622 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)
Littlefield v. State
28 L.R.A. 588 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Denver City Railway Co. v. City of Denver
2 Colo. App. 34 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1892)
Shuman v. City of Fort Wayne
11 L.R.A. 378 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Atkins v. Phillips
26 Fla. 281 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1890)
City of Fayetteville v. Carter
52 Ark. 301 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1889)
Ex parte Gregory
20 Tex. Ct. App. 210 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1886)
City of Mankato v. Fowler
20 N.W. 361 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1884)
Tulloss v. City of Sedan
31 Kan. 165 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1883)
City of Newton v. Atchison
31 Kan. 151 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1883)
People v. Russell
14 N.W. 568 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1883)
In re Watson
15 F. 511 (D. Vermont, 1882)
Baker v. State
12 N.W. 12 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)