French v. City of Toledo
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county. The plaintiffs in error, Elenry E. French and Frank Beck, were convicted of violations of an ordinance of the city of Toledo entitled, “An ordinance to regulate and license chattel mortgage and salary loan brokers.” The ordinance was passed September 25, 1905, and is substantially the saíne as the ordinance set out in the next preceding case, Sanning v. The City of Cincinnati, excepting that the license fee is only fifty dollars.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county. The plaintiffs in error, Elenry E. French and Frank Beck, were convicted of violations of an ordinance of the city of Toledo entitled, “An ordinance to regulate and license chattel mortgage and salary loan brokers.” The ordinance was passed September 25, 1905, and is substantially the saíne as the ordinance set out in the next preceding case, Sanning v. The City of Cincinnati, excepting that the license fee is only fifty dollars. On error the judgments were affirmed in the court of common pleas and in the circuit court.
1Opinion of the CourtSummers, J.
The affidavit upon which the prosecution of French was based, is as follows:
“affidavit for city warrant.
“The State of Ohio, Lucas County, City of Toledo, ss.:
“Before me, Frampton Price, Deputy Clerk of the Police Court of the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, personally appeared Charles S. Northup who being duly sworn according to law, on his oath deposes and says, that on the 27th day of November A. D. 1906, at the city of Toledo, county of Lucas and state of Ohio, one Flenry E. French was unlawfully engaged, under the name of Union Loan Company, in the business of loaning money upon loans…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People ex rel. Goldberg v. BusseIllinois Supreme Court · 1909
- City of Portland v. O'NeillOregon Supreme Court · 1856