Moore v. City of St. Paul
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by the defendant, the city of St. Paul, from an order of the district court of Bamsey county, Kerr, J., made September 10, 1891, overruling its demurrer to the complaint. The complaint states that on April 22, 1890, the plaintiffs William S. Moore and A. H. Anderson were partners in business carrying on an employment agency for males at No. 283 Sibley street, St. Paul.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendant, the city of St. Paul, from an order of the district court of Bamsey county, Kerr, J., made September 10, 1891, overruling its demurrer to the complaint. The complaint states that on April 22, 1890, the plaintiffs William S. Moore and A. H. Anderson were partners in business carrying on an employment agency for males at No. 283 Sibley street, St. Paul. On that day the defendant city caused Anderson to be arrested for carrying on said business without a license. He, while so under arrest and in custody, paid under protest, into the city treasury, $150 of the firm’s…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
If the ordinance in question (No. 766 of the city of St. Paul) had provided for a uniform fee of $150 for a license for one year to carry on the business of “an intelligence or employment office for males, ” it would not have been so excessive or unreasonable as to justify us in holding the ordinance void. Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 43 Minn. 418, (45 N. W. Rep. 719.) But under the provisions of this ordinance, no matter at what time in the year the application is made, the applicant is required to pay the fixed and invariable sum of $150 for a license for the unexpired part of the current…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moore v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Park v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- People v. BrazeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Dohs v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Moore v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895