From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Duluth v. Rosenblum

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 16, 1930
230 N.W. 830 (Minn. 1930)

Opinion

No. 27,786.

May 16, 1930.

Ordinance void because of excessive license fee.

An ordinance requiring the payment of $25 per day as a license fee to operate as a transient merchant is void for the reason that the fee is unreasonably high.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Duluth, McDevitt, J. convicting him of operating as a transient merchant without a license contrary to the provisions of a city ordinance. Reversed.

Ell M. Roston, for appellant:

Bert W. Forbes, City Attorney, and John F. Ball, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent.



Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction of the offense of operating as a transient merchant in Duluth without first having obtained the license so to do. He operated as a wholesale dealer in fruit and produce.

A local ordinance required the payment of $25 per day as a license fee. The amount is uniform per day, whether the applicant seeks to operate a day, week, month or year. The ordinance is not concerned with the amount of business done, nor does it seem to have any reference to the cost of issuing the license and the possible amount of police supervision required. The authorities are collated in the briefs.

We are of the opinion and hold that the ordinance is void because the amount of the license fee is unreasonably high.

Reversed.


Summaries of

City of Duluth v. Rosenblum

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 16, 1930
230 N.W. 830 (Minn. 1930)
Case details for

City of Duluth v. Rosenblum

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF DULUTH v. SAM ROSENBLUM

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: May 16, 1930

Citations

230 N.W. 830 (Minn. 1930)
230 N.W. 830

Citing Cases

National Exhibition Co. v. City of St. Louis

(1) State v. Cody (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S.W. 267; Park v. Morgan, 64 Fla. 414, 60 So. 347; Hale v. State, 217…

Craig v. Mills

. 334, 117 S.W.2d 736; Buchanan v. Bechtel, 57 Ariz. 363, 114 P.2d 227; Bramley v. State of Georgia, 2 S.E.2d…