City of Portland v. O'Neill
Oregon Supreme Court
Adjourned from Multnomah—Action to recover penalty for Violation of City Ordinance. Holmes, city marshal, complained of defendant as follows: “ that said O’Neill is engaged in the business of money brokerage, or sale of bills of exchange, within the limits of said city, and has failed to take out a license therefor,” &c.
Read the full summary
Adjourned from Multnomah—Action to recover penalty for Violation of City Ordinance. Holmes, city marshal, complained of defendant as follows: “ that said O’Neill is engaged in the business of money brokerage, or sale of bills of exchange, within the limits of said city, and has failed to take out a license therefor,” &c. Defendant was found guilty by the recorder of the city under this charge, and fined $100. He appealed to the District Court, and the case has been adjourned for the decision of this court. Defendant, as it appears from the evidence, is the salaried agent of Wells, Fargo &…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, O. J.
Beyond dispute, defendant has violated the ordinance as charged, for that prohibits the sale of “ bills of exchange” without a license. Defendant, however, denies the validity of the ordinance. The city charter provides that the mayor and common council shall have power, among other things, “to license, tax and regulate brokers, pawnbrokers and money-changers.” Now, unless the business of defendant is that of a “ broker,” it is not pretended that the city authorities, under the charter, have any power to prohibit or license it. Webster defines a “broker” to be “an agent or…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rodman v. ManningOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Franklin Park Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- French v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1909
- Porter v. SchroerDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1946