The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Linn:
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 . gecond. 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
*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 .