-
I agree that the bill should be dismissed on two grounds. First. None of the sixty-three parties plaintiff has been refused a license; until then, none should be heard to complain of the licensing provisions: compare Interstate Buses Corp. v.Holyoke Street Railway Co.,
273 U.S. 45 ,52 ; Smith v. Cahoon,283 U.S. 553 ,562 . Second. The pawnbroking business is subject to regulation by the state. This record shows that some of the plaintiffs, though complying with the statute, can make a reasonable profit. The fact that others cannot, does not permit the court to say that the statute takes property without due process; such persons are not required to stay in the business. But, while I think the *Page 463 argument that the act is confiscatory as applied to such a business cannot be raised at all, if it can be raised the bill is bad for misjoinder of parties plaintiff, each party having a separate interest depending on separate evidence: see Equity Rule No. 36; Komenarsky v. Brode,307 Pa. 156 ,158 ,160 A. 713 ;Ryan v. Reddington,240 Pa. 350 ,353 ,87 A. 285 ; Bishop v.Demonstration Co.,276 Pa. 101 ,119 A. 831 .
Document Info
Citation Numbers: 14 A.2d 316, 339 Pa. 449
Judges: SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SCHAFFER:
Filed Date: 4/15/1940
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023