THE STATE OF ARIZONA, by Joe Conway, Attorney General, Intervener-Appellant,
TSUTOMU IKEDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, JOHNSON-PEARCE COMMERCIAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. Thomas J. Croaff, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellant.
Mr. Alfred C. Lockwood, for Appellee.
[61 Ariz. 42] HALL,
Tsutomu Ikeda, hereinafter called the plaintiff, brought this action against Johnson-Pearce Commercial Compnay, a corporation, hereinafter called the defendant, to secure a declaratory judgment that Chapter 89, of the Regular Session Laws of 1943, being an act which limits business dealings with "persons whose movements are restricted," is in violation of the Constitutions of Arizona and of the United States, and is therefore invalid.
Said act reads, so far as material, as follows:
"Section 1.... Any person who... pruchases... any... personal property... from a person whose movements are restricted by operation of law or by any executive or other order authorized by law... shall give notice of the transaction... by publication not less than three times in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county in which the principal place of business of such person is located. Upon the completion of notice and at least ten days prior to the consummation of the proposed transaction, he shall file in the office of the secretary of state a copy of the notice, accompanied by detailed information regarding the transaction, and a report thereon not later than the fifth day of each month....
"Sec. 2.... Failure to comply with any provision of this act is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of... etc."
The plaintiff is a native-born citizen of the United States, of Japanese ancestry, engaged in a truck farming business near Mesa, Arizona. The defendant is a mercantile concern, doing business in the County of Maricopa. The State of Arizona, by
Joe Conway, Attorney General, has properly intervened and is the appellant herein.
[61 Ariz. 43] The facts disclose that the plaintiff has, for many years last past, purchased from the defendant a considerable portion of the supplies necessary for conducting his said business; that subsequent to the effective date of said act, the plaintiff attempted to purchase from defendant 20 pounds of turnip seed to be used in plaiting on plaintiff's farm. The defendant refused to sell the seed to plaintiff without first giving notice as provided in said act, and had it not been for said act it would have sold plaintiff said seed and continued to do business with him as it had in the past. The movements of plaintiff were at said time restricted under the terms of the act.
The plaintiff in his complaint asked the court to determine that said Chapter 89 was void and of no effect for the following reasons:
(a) That said Chapter 89 is contrary to and violates Section 13 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Arizona in that it denies to plaintiff privileges granted to other citizens upon the same terms.
(b) That it is contrary to and violates Section 4 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Arizona in that it deprives plaintiff of ...