dissenting. I concur in the ruling stated in the first division of the decision, with reference to the constitutionality of the ordinance of the City of Atlanta. I dissent from the ruling in the second headnote, because, under the facts of the case, there was no sufficient ground for the interference of a court of equity, *50and the exercise of the drastic remedy of injunction. Long v. Railroad Commission, 145 Ga. 353 (supra); Cathcart v. Atlanta, 169 Ga. 791 (151 S. E. 489).