Ritholz v. City of Detroit

Michigan Reports. by Comp. as defined Laws is a dne course holder § § (Stat. 19.94). coming Ann. to this necessary it was to find: that the law, conclusion regular complete upon face; was its note Corporation T. the C. I. fore was became the holder of it be- without overdue, notice that it had previously corpo- been dishonored; that defendant good ration took the faith note and for value; and negotiated that at time it to the I. C. T. Corporation, infirmity any it had no notice of in the instrument or defect in the title of the asbestos com- pany. finding The record sustains such a of facts. decree the trial court is affirmed, with costs Corporation. to defendant C. I. T. C. J., North, Starr, Wiest, Bush- Bhtzel, JJ., concurred.

nell, Boyles, Reid,

RITHOLZ v. CITY OF DETROIT. Right Engage 1. Constitutional Law — in Business. guarantees to general The Constitution citizens right to en- gage public. not business which does harm the Health, of Public Safety, 2. Same —Preservation Morals Welfare —Eraud. General engage subject The constitutional business is to the sovereign police power preserve public State general safety, prevent morals or welfare and fraud. City ok Ritholz Remedy Purpose 3. Same —Police Power —Relation to Public Must Be Reasonable —Judicial Question. police In the power exercise of the there must be not a public to be wrong welfare conserved or corrected, to be but there must be also a reasonable relation between the rem- edy adopted public purpose and the and whether such relation question is exists a for the courts to determine. Merchandising—Advertising—Due 4. Same — Process. price Since truthful legitimate is a incident to a merchandising business, deprivation lawful of the toso is a violation process advertise (17. due clause S. Const, Id). am. Eyeglasses Advertising. 5. Same —Sale of —Prohibition of City prohibiting price of the advertisement of lenses complete eyeglasses including or of with lenses connection sale has thereof no an relation unlaw- private selling eyeglasses, ful with interference business of Const, (17. Id; and unconstitutional S. Detroit Ordinance am. 288-D).' No. Advertising. 6. Costs —Constitutional Law —Prohibition of validity city in suit to of ordi- No costs are allowed determine eyeglasses prohibiting nance engaged thereof, in the sale a constitutional parties Const, Id; being (17. Detroit Ordinance S. am. involved 288-D). No. dissenting. Bushnell, JJ., Butzel J. Wayne; (Chester P.), O’Hara Appeal from No. Cal- (Docket 6, 1943. October Submitted 24, 1944. Re- February Decided No. 42,461.) endar 1944. April denied hearing against D. Ritholz others by Benjamin Bill an restrain the enforcement Detroit City Opticians, Association of Michigan ordinance. others nonprofit corporation, inter- Michigan defendants,, parties vened as defendant. Decree for appeal. Plaintiffs Reversed. D.

Alvin Hersch and Paul B. Barak, for plaintiffs. Reports. Michigan Corporation Counsel, Walsh, Assistant James defendant. (Slyfield, Waples Hart- Klein, Brucker

Clark, & counsel), Reitz, for interveners. man, Mercer & (dissenting). factory- Plaintiffs own a J. Butzel, throughout Chicago officesor stores and maintain They country. fill orders for manufacture and They parts eyeglasses do business thereof. and the National name of under the assumed in Detroit Company. Optical stores or One Stores building where in a downtown office located officesis prescriptions taken for orders on op- prescriptions from doctors and These frames. Chicago filled. The to to be sent tometrists manufactured articles are forwarded the Detroit to delivered to the there, from and, office customer. eye- charged prices for the Plaintiffs advertised the glasses newspapers, et cetera. circulars, in the Better Business Bureau of

Controversies with plaintiffs’ and, methods, Detroit arose over business accepted by advertising was not the for a newspapers. Finally, plaintiffs signed their time, agreement

an any engage further in unethical business not practices. Shortly thereafter the common council of city passed of Detroit an that became the ordinance 19, 1942, effective November known as on Ordinance entitled: 288-D, misleading" prohibiting statements “An ordinance eye- with sale of in connection

in advertisements glasses, mountings. eyeglass and frames and lenses, prohibiting supporting'accessories; advertis- their regulating ing price lenses; or of the price mountings and of the frames providing supporting accessories; and and ’’ provisions penalties thereof. the violation for

[1] City ok Detroit. Bitholz reads as follows: 2 of Section agent corporation partnership person, or or “No engaged employee in or connected with thereof, or the any eyeglasses, include lenses, sale of or shall by newspaper, dis- radio, window advertisement, any poster, play, ing any of advertis- other form handbill, lenses or statement including complete eyeglasses, either with lenses, of or without any gift, professional offer services; or eye premium, special price or free exami- discount, ’’ nation such advertisement. plaintiffs 1943, November filed bill to re 18, On particularly They its enforcement. strain assail validity claiming that, of section of the ordinance contrary and Federal to both State Constitu right speech deprives plaintiffs of the of free tions, press property proc and and takes their without due right ess of law. to advertise one’s merchan purpose creating- public for the demand dise subject securing trade for the advertiser is, liberty police power, included Corporation property. Utah, Packer U. S. (52 Sup. 76 L. Ed. A. L. B. Ct. practices have no detrimental which effect Business safety morals, welfare on by. prohibited legislative body, not be deprivation prohibition would result such liberty property process due law. If without they practices, do have such an however, effect, these subject any necessary regulation be safety protection health, morals, of the for People general Victor, 287 Mich. welfare. and 506 (124 A. L. R. suggested argument case, the oral we

At might any plaintiffs not be entitled to relief they come, if we found that did not into whatsoever question, was however, clean hands. The with court Michigan Reports. not and we shall consider defendants not raised plaintiffs, they di,d whether However, it. exclusively, dispensing opticians had claiming to be constitutionality challenge or- of the a fitting regard sale and to its effect on the dinance in -the Nevertheless over the counter. of trial

judge view held that the broader took public welfare, entire ordinance was so related safety a valid ex- was health, morals plaintiffs police power and he denied ercise of it- case, therefore, The issue in the resolves relief. whether or not these interests self into they must are, are involved. If the ordinance valid; otherwise, held condemned. usually necessary it would not be to review

While testimony involving in a the constitution- case ality brought of an believe facts ordinance, we fully out in the instant case demonstrate that the proper police calls for a exercise of the city power by the common council of the years ago plaintiffs placed charge of their Several building, Detroit located in a office, a downtown manager previously engaged selling who had been goods. ladies’ One the rooms this suite rented by plaintiffs was turned over to-a doctor of medicine practice per- he his own also where conducted optometry plaintiffs’ formed work for customers. ’ patients plaintiffs they As called at were told offices, required prescription that a from a doctor' they plaintiffs’ were referred to the doctor offices. prescriptions plaintiffs’ left with man- were ager Chicago had de- who them filled and who glasses livered the to the customers and collected years ago them. the office the doctor was Several ' plaintiffs completely separated from those of adjoined Although partition. officestill those of plaintiffs, the entrance into the doctor’s office City ok Ritholz hallway. record leaves some The from the was relationship was between exact as to what the doubt judge plaintiffs. who heard trial The doctor and the testimony as the doctor’s characterized the case any, worthy The doctor being if credence. little, of lavatory plaintiffs’ his to wash offices the used ’manager, hand, on the other Plaintiffs instruments. telephone. testified that doctor The doctor’s used the plaintiffs’ a month manager office paid $12 he -the signed manager space, the that use of for the manager denied that receipts The for the rent. but later the doctor rent from had received he he returning that upon admitted the witness stand envelope once a doctor from the a received sealed Chicago The doctor office. it to the and sent month testified prescriptions kept copy all the he plaintiffs’ This Detroit offices. filled at were prescriptions doctors which of outside included patients plaintiffs.

brought man The office every prescription ager upon the measurement wrote temple length bridge and other data. size, for the acting question might doctor, arise whether the plain optometrist, with the an was not associated eyeglasses. How tiffs in prosecuted being plaintiffs not under ever, Optical optometry Co., act. See Buhl Seifert ordinance forbids 276 Mich. 692. The general. prices plaintiffs advertised the The record shows that Prospective eyeglasses for customers sale of $2.87. plaintiffs upon prescrip- being told that filled usually adjoining tions went to the doctor kept charged office. The doctor a fee $2 brought eye- prescription. his This the cost of the glasses up stop Plaintiffs did not there. $4.87. average price It exacted from was shown that the pair eyeglasses. customers over for a $14 Reports. Michigan plaintiffs clearly deceiv- were indicates that This advertising. by misleading price ing the deny they was extra that the sum of $2 do not While prescription, by party it is for a a third exacted willing they to sell were that claimed of Business Bureau An of the Better officer $2.87. Detroit testified pur- that when customers called to they price, glasses told were chase at the advertised they “cheapest glasses, that form that of were satisfactory, piece metal, the frames were not as a they eye, nose would their skin about the stain grip piece, play it, no to was one and there was only person a on the comfort; fact, and no that buy pair glasses a such these.” welfare would as plaintiffs shown not the It was further that were advertising. Even offenders in such “bait” plaintiffs prove, and introduced evidence to claimed, prices stopped, that when the was heavy very In re decline. business showed plaintiffs’ manager buttal that he told cus testified any physician they pleased go tomers to to for their prescriptions. Plaintiffs also claim that even if they guilty advertising, were of fraudulent there proper stop practice. or remedial statutes to such (Comp. See Act No. Supp. Pub. 328, §33, Acts Laws § 28.222). 19-10, Ann. §17115-33, Stat. One readily practical difficulty securing can see the con falsely advertising viction for an article offered the prospective alluring price at an customers named in advertising, disparaged by when the article is so unwilling a salesman that the customer becomes take, persuaded purchase it and is a much more expensive Optical article. See Co., v. Buhl Seifert “ ” supra, regard advertising. to bait stipulated parties

It was in the record all that: eye important “The care of the human to the eye health of the individual; no human is like City ok Bitholz éye, improper lenses and that human other directly human eyeglasses eye the condition affect health.” was that the ordinance claim, however, Plaintiffs competitors, passed as is in order benefit their Michigan the fact that the Association evidenced of County Wayne Opticians and the Association appeared Optometrists interven have in the case appellees. nothing ing There is defendants this claim. The ordinance the record sustains regularly passed by the common council city council of the common of Detroit. The motives inquired be into members thereof cannot or the validity determining purpose of its or the the of People may Gardner, v. 143 nor 104; Mich. dinances, ground on of the unwisdom of a statute courts depart the Kings plain meaning. Village from of Cudlip, 258 144. decision as v. Mich. Ultimate ford designed safeguard regulation a to the wisdom of to public legislature, interest the Little the rests with Dearborn, Mich. 645. v. American State Bank of arbitrary showing act is is no that the either There or oppressive. the The sole is whether purpose appropriately are related the measures to tendency accomplish it. and have Parkes Judge (47 Court, R. 236Mich. 460 A. L. Recorder’s of public agree that it the interest of the

We is to nothing keep prices glasses of down. There is the in the which the sale whatsoever ordinance forbids may engage glasses of as merchandise. Merchants op- optical goods of without the aid of in the sale price they only if exact a reasonable and tometrists quickly good fact that becomes merchandise, and sell necessary the to advertise It should not be known. open price to fraud and deceit the door and thus can It amply facts this case. the is shown so eye- price of readily if seen that be Michigan Reports. permitted, necessary public glasses, so plaintiffs. lower than advertise at a others public, account of on would be result poor purchase glasses very price, might of low equipped poorly workmanship with material, ill-fitting ground believe that frames. lenses We the health, bears relation to such safety general welfare morals, that constitutionality questioned. cannot its Our . attention has been to a number of cases. We called only precise question one in which the find the squarely brought the court was in Common- before (25 Ferris, [2d] wealth v. and we 305 Mass. 233 N. E. freely quote opinion supreme from the judicial court Massachusetts as follows: ground regulation “A familiar or restric tion of contracts or of in a commercial prevention business is the of fraud and mistake. Where the their islature deception (Commonwealth not are cautious or watchful in likely buying leg habits misled, to be may require not absence active Reilly, 248 Mass. 1 915]), E. [142 N. but also affirmative measures to prevent misunderstanding. reported Of this, cases many furnish illustrations. Commonwealth v. Crane, 187) (seller oleomargarine Mass. N. E. give it). must notice he sells Common Libbey, (103 wealth v. 216 Mass. 356 N. E. 923, 49 L. 659) (ad [N. R. A. S.] 879, Ann. Cas. 1915B, for vertisement laborers must disclose existence of disturbance). labor McArthur, Commonwealth v. (25 836). 152 522 Baking Mass. N. E. P. F. Petersen Bryan, (54 Sup. Co. v. 290 U. S. 570 Ct. 277, 78 L. 1285) (bread 90 Ed. A. 505, L. R. must be sold in weight). loaves of standard Armour & Co. v. North (36 Sup. Dakota, 240 U. S. 510 Ct. 440, 60 L. Ed. 771, 548) (lard Ann. 1916D, Cas. packages must be in sold weight). of standard States Box & Basket Pacific City v. 267 of Ritholz Sup. (56 80 L. 159, Ct. 296 S. 176 White, U. v.Co. 853) (berries in sold must be R. 101 L. Ed. 138, A. Hauge shape). v. standard size of containers (57 Sup. Ed. 81 L. 241, Chicago, 297) (coal Ct. 387 299 U. S. weigher). by public weighed be must Eddy, Refining 249 U. S. v.Co. Corn Products (39 Sup. National Fertiliser Ed. 63 L. 325, Ct. (57 Sup. Bradley, 301 S. 178 Association, Inc., U. v. ingredients 990) (disclosure of the 81 L. Ed. 748, Ct. required). v. compounds Products Co. Carolene of 235) (197 R. 119 A. L. Atl. Harter, 329 Pa. infants’). In (filled for be marked ‘unfit milk must Fitch Police case of the recent Slome Chief of 133), (23 burg, statute N. E. [2d] 304 Mass. every required dealer held constitutional pumps prices on the advertise his in motor fuel to * * * premises. his elsewhere on and not against ‘advertising or prohibitions lenses “The price,’ including eyeglasses complete a fixed lenses at policy laying against to a ‘claim and or advertisements underselling generally continuing practice of ’ may together. They be competitors, treated be interest of the measures sustained as unquestioned ground the exercise an police power. Ward, 279 U. S. Roschen 722), (49 Sup. held" L. Ed. a statute was Ct. eyeglasses which forbade the sale constitutional or physician optometrist unless a licensed lenses place charge of and attendance at the be should they plain impli The where sold. the store has an interest the decision is that State cation of eyesight seeing im its citizens is not in paired that the eyeglasses unskill or lenses use fully as the themselves; that, even selected, (D. Kresge had declared Co. v. Ot court below tinger, S. 29 Fed. sale [2d] 762, prohibited they might should lenses unless by competent persons. and fitted be selected actually go in that did not so but far, statute case page 339), at ‘A stat- said U. S. Holmes, J., Michigan Reports. it because not under the Constitution invalid ute it might gone did, than it or because farther have bringing that about result not succeed Judge produce.’ in the said A. N. Hand it tends to optometrist (page ‘To render an below court available wherever certainly eyeglasses are sold is * * * existing long step correcting evils. toward tendency would It seems to us that the inevitable * * * If the effect consult him. customers to finally requirement render should be to of the new product unprofitable, so the sale of a standardized that the customers but would have glasses purchase it, the end would not eyes carefully their tested according special prescriptions, it made to might not the whole cannot be that result on said be desirable.’ chap. by Laws, §72, “Gen. as amended Stat. 112, § anyone chap. forbade not a licensed 321, 2, ‘spectacles, eyeglasses correcting optometrist to or lenses sell purpose for the defective vision.’ Kresge Co., Mass. Commonwealth S. S. (160 558), although E. the facts N. showed some by determining kind the defendant in assistance required eyeglasses by said customer, it was ‘ that the deals with the sale to the individual statute eyeglasses designed particular his de- to correct legislative fects of ‘it is within vision,’ competence to and trained determine scientific * * * adjustment eyeglasses likely -willbe complete effect a more healthful correction of poor eyesight than the untrained and selec- unaided eye- tion glasses.’ the customer himself from a mass thought

Apparently competent the court legislature prohibit for the of af- business- fording such a selection. See United States Sup. Co., Carotene Products S. 144 Ct. U. 778, 82 L. Ed. evidently legislature prepared “The was not prohibit and lenses as mer- the sale buyer. chandise, to be selected But it was City 269 Ritholz ok v. prepared discourage by eliminating temp it, tbe pressure upon tation customers that result price from the assurance that no more than a named charged, will be or that is less than com petitors ask. in Ward, As Roschen v. 279 U. S. 337 (49 Sup. Ed. 722), step Ct. L. 336, 73 that shorter consistent with the Constitution. It is not unlike the prohibition drugs of the sale of or medicinal com pounds by itinerant in vendors, sustained Baccus v. (34 Sup. Louisiana, 232 334 U. S. Ct. 58 L. Ed. 439, 627). public policy There well be reasons of re quiring prohibition to sell mer the actual chandise, sale of which is not forbidden. Clapp, Mass.) (22 Commonwealth v. 5 Pick. 41. Nutting, (55 Commonwealth v. 175 154 Mass. N. E. Rep. 483), Nutting 895, 78 Am. St. sachusetts, 183 U. affirmed v. Mas (22 Sup. 553 S. L. 238, Ct. 46 Ed. 324). (27 Dakota, Delamater v. South 205 U. 93S. Sup. 733). Ct. 51 L. Ed. 447, 724, 10Ann. Cas. Both (48 Sup. well v. Buckbee, Co., Mears 275 U. 274 S. 277). Corp. Ct. 72 L. 124, Utah, Ed. Packer v. 285 (52 Sup. 105 U. S. Ct. L. Ed. A. L. R. 273, 643, 76 79 546). 710). 288 (151 State v. Hollinshead, 77 Ore. 473 Pac. Publishing State v. P. Co., J. Bass 104 Maine, (71 495). Atl. L. [N. R. A. S.] The fol lowing support cases tend to our conclusion that prohibitions ap these are constitutional in plication to sale lenses and complete eyeglasses. Optical v. Buhl Co., Seifert Jersey Op Mich. 698. New State Board Kresge tometrists v. Co., S. S. 113 N. Law, 287, J. (174 by Attorney State, Atl. General, v. (288 157).” Goodman, 206 Minn. 203 N. W. coming to our conclusion we have not over State, Booth,

looked the ease of ex rel. v. Beck Enterprises, Jewelry Inc., 220 Ind. 276 E.N. by plaintiffs [2d] A. 622, 141 L. R. stressed in which there is some dictum favorable to them. The court, had the same however, before it that Michigan Reports. Kindy Opticians, Inc., with we were confronted Optometry, 291 Mich. Examiners Board State also called Attention was cited. 152, which plaintiffs as (evidently opinion same Rithols Regis- case) Indiana Board State in the instant Optometry, 45 Fed. and Examination tration consisting Supp. court case, 423. In the latter judges per judge in a and two district of one circuit upheld opinion law as conclusion of curiam Indiana section of the and valid the constitutional optometry forbidding person persons any or to law eye- prices published publish glasses, to or cause State, ex rel. frames, et cetera. lenses or Enterprises, supra, Jewelry Inc., Booth, Beck v. attempted explain how the Federal court court at its conclusion. arrived appellants Plaintiffs and claim that optometry Comp. act, the State Laws contravenes § seq. (Stat. § seq.). et 1929, 6781 Ann. 14.641 The et solely optometrists optometry act is limited State (Kindy Opticians, Inc., v. State Board Examiners of 152) reg Optometry, way 291 Mich. in no and dispensing opticians merchandisers of ulates or eyeglasses. express It does not contain either or im plied or that are inconsistent irreconcil conditions ordinance. The able with the cases National Johnson, v. Amusement Co. Mich. and People apply. McDaniel, 303 Mich. 90, do not accompanying opinion Sharpe

Justice in his states forbidding advertising that the ordinance of the price eyeglasses no has relation to health general and testimony welfare. The that shows after prospective prescrip- customer had secured a by appellants’ agent eye- tion, he was told that the glasses price sold at advertised were cheapest eye, would skin form, stain the about the unsatisfactory many respects, such were City ok Detroit. Ritholz purchase. The person would the welfare on aas price advertising in itself nevertheless low purchase many persons to such influence would impair eyesight. neglect or their glasses thus successfully prosecuted might not he advertiser glasses at the offered since he for false might not price. manufacturers Other advertised disclosing quality of the inferior as frank he parties price. All they the advertised glasses at sold directly improper lenses or that concede eyesight also knowl- health. It is common affect edge eyesight, impaired, rule cannot once

that The advertis- former condition. to its he restored particu- public, cheap price ing influences at a purchase larly inferior with lower incomes, those impairment glasses to the it thus contributes eyesight. agree I that there be merit the.claim way fixing price directly or of haircuts in in- no directly health; also affects the welfare does the neither orthopedic health or other articles shoes underwear, public clothing public affect health. the The can readily quickly they get- see or ascertain what are they ting. money lose their have most, At or some public amply temporary pro- discomfort. The is purchase prepared tected in the medicines, foods, by drug the cetera, et and cosmetic act. 52 food, § p. chap. (21 Stat. at L. 675 1040, 301 USCA, et seq.). eyeglasses, However, in the matter of eyesight already impaired invariably with public any degree certainty cannot tell with whether proper glasses being pub- furnished or The not. protected against advertising lic has a which to be by unwary the low attracts the named n purchase glasses. inferior Reports. Michigan forth law is set the correct rule of I believe supra, have Ferris, from which we Commonwealth largely upon fully quoted relies and which so opinion in Roschen Mr. Holmes written Justice (49 Sup. Ed. Ward, S. Ct. 73 L. 279U. opinion by Judge Augustus Hand in The N. written Kresge Ottinger, (2d) also D. Co. v. Fed. S. upon. relied the other cites hand, Sharpe On Justice State, point. Booth, no v. Beck Jew cases ex rel. elry Enterprises, [2d] N. E. Inc., Ind. 276 only 622, 141A. L. R. is the one cited Justice any Sharpe this that bears resemblance from quoted. dictum is selling glasses it comes to over the counter When price, possibly without rule emptor applies, public caveat but when the is lured by aprice purchase glasses'which “bait” to inferior pro- cause that results, deleterious price advertising bearing hibits on has a direct the. general health and welfare. affirmed, decree of the trial court should be question being costs,

but without involved. J., J. Btjshnell, Btjtzel, concurred with accept reasoning J. I am unable to Sharpe, Btjtzel Mr. Justice ordinance in safety such relation “bears to the health, morals, general welfare of the consti- its tutionality questioned.” cannot be construing I ordinance, have mind that cheap glasses damaging there is no claim made that grade to health were sold that the sale of a better glasses than advertised had detrimental buyer. upon effect nothing

It is to be noted that the ordinance has to regulation practice optometry. do with the n fraud-' prevention purpose is Its real the false, ok Detroit. Ritholz v. Citt misleading or ulent,' and lenses. 276 Mich. Thomson, Co. v. Products

In Carotene said: we gen guarantees to citizens “The Constitution engage does not right business which to eral People, public. Ber Valentine, v. ex rel. harm the (50 Judge, L. A. 493, R. 124 Mich. rien Circuit Rep. Am. to The constitutional St. police sovereign subject engage to business safety, preserve public power health, the State to general prevent In fraud. welfare and morals or police power not must be there exercise of the public public to be conserved a welfare wrong a be also rea there must corrected, to be but adopted remedy sonable relation between p. public purpose. 12 J. 929.” C. People Snowberger, (67 Mich.

In Am. 449), Rep. we said: St. “Generally, legislature is for to determine it regulations protect to are needed

what laws and public public and secure the comfort and health ostensibly safety. passes for the If it an act away prop- destroys thereby or takes liberty, erty it the citizen or interferes with his it relates to whether is for the courts to determine appropriate promote health.” and is such Jewelry State, Booth, Beck Enter ex rel. prises, [2d] A. Inc., 220Ind. 276 N. E. L. 622, 141 alleged had it violation R. the court before an optometry portion A act act. of the made un publish any any person “for lawful advertisement ’’ quotes prices glasses. The court held that which on optometrists provision applied only to and not this selling eyeglasses. merely The case those who are does whether such mer not decide not as that be unlawful chant would Reports. Michigan upon expressed views its however, The court, issue.. with; I am in accord in a manner that this it said: by optometrist price advertising is an “To forbid practice. price regulation ad- But to of his forbid by appellees regulation

vertising merchandising. merely * * * legitimate in- is a “Truthful Depri- merchandising business. cident to a lawful held to to advertise has been vation of violate the due Amendment. so process clause of the Fourteenth * * ** that the cannot assume We legislature as permit intended to the sale of deprive merchandise but to the dealer one procuring pur- the reasonable and lawful means of chasers for such merchandise.” Bontempo,

The case Jones St. 634 137 Ohio against (32 N. E. was an action [2d] the State board of barber examiners to set vacate or aside, modify suspending plaintiff’s an order cer license plaintiff’s tificate a barber. The as board revoked certificate because he advertised on the window of shop: twenty-five contrary “Haircutting his cents” establishing to an act board of State barber ex aminers. The court there said: barbering, operating “The trade of as does directly person on the of the customer, affects the safety comfort and regulated legislative within reasonable limits government power branch of under that known police power, as the ‘conceded to reside people’s representatives, rightfully which is exer regulation, private prop cised of the use of erty, restraining personal or so action, to secure, protection or tend to the or comfort, health, of community.’ Gardner, 599, State 58 Ohio St. op City v- Bitholz Rep. 41 R. A. 785, 65 Am. L. 136, N. E. St. § p. p. 229; 11 Am. Jur. Jur. See, also, Ohio § 247. occupation engaged in those “Therefore, pursue desiring barbering may business those competency be examined as to their and fitness supervision subject in and control cleanliness, sanitation, conduct, habits, matters of contagious things diseases, infectious *** that kind. “How the mere hair- plaintiff any cuts as done could wise affect or welfare is difficult to understand. health absolutely prohibiting legislation, “If this the ad- vertising prices of barber were to services, upheld, necessary uphold it would likewise be to’ legislation, prohibiting groceries, the vendors of advertising prices meats from or other commodities thereof manner, unreasonableness apparent. which is at once unanimously opinion

“This is court particular legislation complained the unduly inof this case prerog-

interferes with the constitutional plaintiff speech atives of as to freedom of action, property rights.” my opinion sought the evil to be corrected is a evil. business The ordinance has no relation to health and is an unlawful inter- private being ference with business. It void violation of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. decree the trial is reversed, court without

costs as a constitutional is involved. J., C. and Starr, Wiest, and Boyles, JJ., North, part concurred with J. Beid, J., took no Sharpe, the decision of this case.

Case Details

Case Name: Ritholz v. City of Detroit

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Feb 24, 1944

Citation: 13 N.W.2d 283

Docket Number: Docket No. 27, Calendar No. 42,461.

Court Abbreviation: Mich.