Zemansky v. Board of Police Commissioners

California Court of Appeal Nov 23, 1943 No. Civ. No. 14223Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Board of Police Commissioners has the implied power to deny a business license based on an applicant's fitness, and the Board's finding that the appellant was unfit was supported by substantial evidence of his past financial dealings with police officers and involvement in gambling.

Issues

Did the Board of Police Commissioners have the implied power to deny a license based on the applicant's fitness?
Was there substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the appellant was not a fit person to conduct the business?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“when by ordinance it is provided that a license shall not be issued until a permit has been granted by the Board of Police Commissioners, said board is vested with power to determine whether the applicant is a fit and proper person”

“the board was clearly justified in drawing an inference that appellant accepted loans from members of the police department and paid them a high rate of interest on the expectation that they would not scrutinize too closely”

McCOMB, J. Appellant filed a petition in the superior court seeking a writ of mandate directing the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter referred to as the board) to issue appellant a license to conduct [452]a (1) pawn shop, and (2) second-hand jewelry business at 466 South Main Street, Los Angeles. This appeal is from the judgment in favor of respondents predicated upon the sustaining, without leave to amend, of their demurrer to appellant’s petition.

The record of the testimony before the respondents was attached to appellant’s petition, and was thus before the trial court. The evidence discloses the following material facts:

Section 24.10(b) of the Municipal Code of Los Angeles reads in part as follows :

“ (b) Permit required. No person shall engage in, conduct, manage, carry on or deal in any business mentioned in subsection ‘a’1 of this section without first applying for and receiving a written permit from the Board2 as hereafter provided.

“(c) Requisites of Permits.

“ (1) Persons desiring to obtain a permit to conduct, manage or deal in any business mentioned in subsection ‘a’ of this Section shall file an application in writing with the Board specifying by street and number the place where such business is proposed to be conducted or carried on; junk collectors having no fixed place of business shall specify in such application their residence by street number. The application shall be signed by the applicant and shall contained his residence address. . . .

“(3) Upon receipt of such application the Board shall cause to be investigated the business of the applicant and location at which applicant proposes to engage in business as specified in said application. Thereafter the Board may issue a permit to the applicant which shall be effective for the remaining portion of the current year. . . .

“(5) No person holding a permit to conduct, manage, carry on or deal in any business mentioned in subsection ‘a’ of the Section shall buy, sell or otherwise deal in secondhand merchandise without first applying for and receiving a special permit therefore from the Board in the manner provided in this Section for securing ordinary permits. . . .

“(e) Compliance with Law:

Zemansky v. Board of Police Commissioners

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief