# Gardner v. City of Reidsville

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · March 8, 1967 · 269 N.C. 581

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568442

## Case

- **Full name:** THOMAS L. GARDNER, a Citizen and Resident Taxpayer of the City of Reidsville, on Behalf of Himself and of Other Citizens, Residents and Taxpayers of Reidsville, Similarly Appected and Situated, v. CITY OF REIDSVILLE, a Municipal Corporation, CLAUDE S. BURTON, CLIFFORD MOORE, and JAMES EVERETTE, Members of the Purported City of Reidsvilie ABC Board
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** March 8, 1967
- **Citations:** 269 N.C. 581; 153 S.E.2d 139; 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1113
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lake
- **Judges:** Branch, Parker
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568442

## Opinion text

*597 LAKE, J.,
dissenting. The systematic purchase and resale oí a commodity for profit is trade. This is true even though the one engaged in such course of action be a municipal corporation or an agency thereof. It is true even though the commodity purchased and resold be an alcoholic beverage. A law which provides that one person can engage in a trade within a certain locality and no one else can do so is a regulation of that trade. It is nonetheless a regulation because its primary purpose is to protect the public morals. Article II, § 29, of the Constitution of North Carolina provides, “The General Assembly shall not pass any local, private, or special act or resolution * * * regulating * * * trade * * The Act under which the defendants propose to establish and operate liquor stores within the city of Reidsville is a special or local act. Consequently, it is unconstitutional and the establishment and operation of such stores within the city is not authorized thereby.
It is no answer to say that this Act is an exercise of the police power. Of course it is. So is every valid regulation of trade. It is nonetheless a regulation of trade. This exercise of the police power in regulation of trade is unconstitutional because it is done by a local act, which Article II, § 29, of the Constitution forbids the General Assembly to do.
The majority of the Court say they “cannot conceive that the people of North Carolina, speaking through their representatives, contemplated under § 29 of Article II that the sovereign state would enter any trade or business venture for profit.” I am sure this correctly represents the political philosophy of the people and their legislators when this provision was put into the Constitution. The implication, however, that the statutes authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages in county and municipally operated stores do not put these governmental units into a “trade or business venture for profit” attributes to the members of the General Assembly a degree of naivety which I believe is unwarranted in view of their demonstrated awareness of conditions in North Carolina and their astute judgment with reference to fiscal matters. The State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board publishes an annual report of “Public Revenues From Alcoholic Beverages — North Carolina ABC Boards,” unit by unit. The report for the fiscal year July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966 shows Gross Sales $118,304,628.51; Net Revenue (to the counties and municipalities operating stores) $14,979,597.67; State Tax (in addition to the Net Revenue to counties and municipalities) $12,404,408.60. In other words, the State and local governments combined derived from the sales of these beverages in those 12 months a total profit of $27,384,006.27, which is over 23% of the gross sales. The share designated for “Education” was $316,683.76; *598 that for “Law Enforcement” was $1,187,085.26; and that for “Rehabilitation Contribution” $1,990,671.28. These figures leave one with some reasonable basis for concluding that the profit motive is not wholly divorced from the sale of alcoholic beverages by these governmental agencies.
I am authorized to say that Sharp, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568442. Public record. Not legal advice.