Laserfiche WebLink
It [pawnbroking] is a business subject to the strictest regulation <br /> under the police power. At common law, the taking of money for <br /> the use of money was prohibited. It was only by express legislative • <br /> grace that the business of pawnbroking, or for that matter the <br /> charging of interest by anyone was permitted. A privilege was <br /> given which the common law denied, and which the sovereigns can <br /> withdraw or limit at any time. <br /> It will hardly be denied that the business of pawnbroking is almost <br /> certain to become inimical to the public good if conducted without <br /> restrictions. The history of the business is not encouraging. <br /> Thousands of men and women who patronize these establishments <br /> are driven by their necessities to accept loans upon any terms <br /> offered. It is so easy to take advantage of people in these <br /> circumstances, and the temptation to do so is so great that the State <br /> must protect them. <br /> Equitable Loan Soc. v. Bell, 14 A.2d 316, 320 (Pa. 1940); see also City of <br /> Hobbs v. Biswell, 81 N.M. 778, 473 P.2d 917 (1970); Solof v. City of <br /> Chattanooga, 180 Tenn. 296, 174 S.W.2d 471(1943);Medias v. City of <br /> Indianapolis, 216 Ind. 155, 23 N.E.2d 590 (1939); see also Note, <br /> "Validity of Statutes or Ordinances which Impose Duties upon <br /> Pawnbrokers as Regards Identity of Persons with whom They Deal or <br /> Other Means of Enforcing Criminal Law Against Theft," 125 ALR 598 <br /> (1940 & 1994 Supp.). <br /> B. Liberty to Contract <br /> The constitutional right of liberty to contract is subservient to the public <br /> welfare in the case of pawnbrokers. See Handler v. Department of <br /> Commerce, 14 Ohio Misc. 9, 233 N.E.2d 147 (1967). <br /> C. Photographing/Videotaping Customers <br /> There is no constitutional infirmity in a city ordinance requiring <br /> pawnbrokers to take photographs of customers and make them available to <br /> 6 <br />