City of Chicago v. Degitis

• Decision Date: 20 May 1943
• Docket Number: No. 27013.,27013.
• Citation: City of Chicago v. Degitis, 383 Ill. 171, 48 N.E.2d 930 (Ill. 1943)
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. DEGITIS et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

383 Ill. 171

48 N.E.2d 930

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.DEGITIS et al.

No. 27013.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 20, 1943.

Bingeman Degitis and the Hastings Express Company were convicted of failing to obtain a public carter's license as required by a Chicago ordinance, and they appeal.

Reversed.Appeal from Municipal Court of Chicago; John N. McCormick, judge.

Harold E. Marks and Leonard Gordon, both of Chicago, for appellants.

Barnet Hodes, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago (J. Herzl Segal and Henry J. Brandt, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

FULTON, Justice.

The complaint in this case was filed on March 6, 1939, in the municipal court of Chicago charging the appellant, Bingeman Degitis, with the violation of section 2144 of the Revised Chicago Code of 1931 for failing to obtain a public carter's license as required by the ordinance.

Degitis is an employee of the defendant, Hastings Express Company, a corporation, and on the day of the violation in question was operating a motor vehicle owned, operated and controlled by the Hastings Express Company, which company by agreement was added as an additional party defendant to the cause. Section 2144 of the Revised Chicago Code of 1931 as amended, reads as follows:

‘2144. License required. Any person, firm or corporation that shall kept, use or operate, or be in charge, possession or control of, or cause to be kept, used or operated, upon any of the streets or public ways of the city any public cart as defined in this article, shall be deemed a public carter within the meaning of this article.

‘It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to engage in the business of, or act in the capacity of a public carter without first having obtained a license so to do as hereinafter provided.’

Section 2143 of the Revised Chicago Code of 1931 defines a public cart as follows: ‘Every express wagon, truck, dray, wagon, automobile, auto car, auto truck, or other vehicle of any kind * * * which shall be * * * used, operated, driven or employed for the purpose of transporting or conveying bundles, parcels, furniture, trunks, baggage, goods, wares, merchandise or other articles within the City for hire or reward * * *.’

The Hastings Express Company was organized in 1890 as a corporation under the laws of the State of Illinois chartered, among other things, to engage in the business of a public utility in the transportation of property for hire. Its registered office is located at 1501 South Jefferson street, Chicago, Illinois. This corporation operates tractors, trailers and trucks engaged in various types of motor-carrier work consisting of interstate, intrastate and intracity transportation of property.

On the trial in the municipal court a stipulation was entered into setting forth the facts upon which this action is based. According to the stipulation a public cart licensing ordinance was properly passed by the city of Chicago prior to the year 1922. This ordinance continued in force until repealed by a properly enacted ordinance of the city of Chicago on May 12, 1930. On June 25, 1931, a Revised Chicago Code of 1931 was published by authority of the city council of Chicago, in which there was set out article VII entitled ‘Public Carts' consisting of sections 2143 to section 2157, inclusive.

On August 5, 1937, as revealed by the report printed in the Journal of Council Proceedings for August 5, 1937, at page 4218, an ordinance was passed by the city council, effective January 1, 1938, as follows: ‘Section I. That Sections 2143 to 2157, inclusive, of the Revised Chicago Code of 1931, as they appear in the bound volume of said code as printed, be and the same are hereby re-enacted.’

On December 29, 1937, the city council was advised by the city clerk that the ordinances passed August 5, 1937, including the public carters ordinance, were officially republished, together with certain sections of the Revised Chicago Code of 1931, in the Chicago Journal of Commerce, the public carters ordinance being published on December 22, 1937, including the entire wording of sections 2143 to 2157, both inclusive, of the Revised Chicago Code of 1931.

The municipal court of Chicago on June 3, 1942, found the appellants guilty and entered judgment against them for $50 and costs. The municipal court certified that the validity of a municipal ordinance is involved and that public importance requires an appeal direct to this court.

In its brief the appellee concedes that during the period from May 12, 1930, when the vital sections of the public cart ordinance as then in effect were repealed, to August 5, 1937, there was no public cart ordinance in force in the city of Chicago. Notwithstanding the repeal, the entire public cart ordinance appears in the Revised Chicago Code of 1931 as sections 2143 to 2157. The sole question presented by this record is, therefore, as to whether or not the city council could re-enact the public cart ordinance as it did or whether it was required to re-enact the ordinance by setting it out in full in the re-enacting ordinance.

The appellee cites the cases of Culver v. People ex rel. Kochersperger, 161 Ill. 89, 43 N.E. 812;City of Charleston v. Johnston, 170 Ill. 336, 48 N.E. 985;Town of Cicero v. McCarthy, 172 Ill. 279, 50 N.E. 188, and People ex rel. Cant v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 103 N.E. 537, in support of the validity of the re-enacting ordinance.

In the Culver case [161 Ill. 89, 43 N.E. 814], it was said, ‘The general rule is that an act which adopts, by reference, the whole or a portion of another statute, means the law as existing at the time of the adoption * * *.’ In the Crossley case [261 Ill. 78, 103...