City of Chicago v. Dorband
| Decision Date | 13 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 39977. |
| Citation | 297 Ill.App. 617,18 N.E.2d 107 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO v. DORBAND. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Chicago; Francis Borelli, Judge.
Robert Dorband was convicted of violation of certain ordinances relating to operation of taxicabs in the City of Chicago, and he appeals.
Reversed.
Arthur F. Gruenwald, of Chicago, for appellant.
Barnet Hodes and L. Louis Karton, both of Chicago, for appellee.
By this appeal defendant, Robert Dorband, seeks to reverse a judgment wherein he was found guilty of violating certain ordinances of the City of Chicago and fined $5.
Dorband was a taxicab driver employed by the New Cab Company, which operated its cabs from its place of business in the City of Evanston, Illinois. Louise O'Connell, who lived on Lunt avenue, Chicago, telephoned the office of said cab company, requesting that a taxicab be sent to her home. When the taxicab arrived, upon entering same with her mother, she directed the driver thereof to take them to 30 North Michigan avenue, Chicago, wait for them and then drive them back to their home. She had used taxicabs of this company for similar trips on previous occasions but had not theretofore been driven by Dorband. When not engaged, the cab defendant drove was stationed at the New Cab Company's cab station on the Evanston side of Howard avenue. Prior to being dispatched to drive Miss O'Connell and her mother, defendant had made several other trips on the same day in response to telephone calls from Chicago for taxicab service. It was stipulated that defendant had no license to operate a taxicab in the City of Chicago, that the taxicab which he drove did not have a Chicago license, that the owner of same did not have a certificate of inspection of its taximeter and that said taximeter registered a rate which was not in accordance with the Chicago ordinances. While defendant was waiting for his passengers at 30 North Michigan avenue, Chicago, to drive them home, he was arrested and charged with violation of secs. 2078, 2103 and 2107 of the Chicago Municipal Ordinances, which provide:
“2078. Licensing of public passenger vehicles.) No motor vehicle other than a licensed public passenger vehicle shall be operated along or upon the streets and public ways of the city for the carriage of passengers for hire indiscriminately accepting and discharging such persons as may offer themselves for transportation.
“Applications for public passenger vehicle licenses shall be made by the owner upon blanks furnished by the commissioner and such application shall contain the full name and address of the owner, the class of vehicle for which a license is desired, the length of time the vehicle has been in use, the number of persons it is capable of carrying and the horsepower thereof. No public passenger vehicle shall be licensed until it has been thoroughly and carefully inspected under the direction of the commissioner and examined and found to be in safe condition for the transportation of passengers, clean, of good appearance and well painted and varnished, and no taxicab shall be licensed until a certificate of inspection of its taximeter shall have been issued.
“When any public passenger vehicle is licensed in accordance with the provisions hereof a card of such size and form as may be prescribed by the commissioner shall be delivered to the owner in addition to the license. Said card shall contain the public passenger vehicle license number of the vehicle, together with the date of inspection of same and a statement to the effect that in case of any complaint the commissioner shall be notified and the license number of the vehicle shall be reported. Such card shall be signed by the commissioner and shall contain blank spaces upon which an entry shall be made of the date of every inspection of the vehicle. Such license card shall be of a distinctly different color each year and shall contain the name of the person, firm or corporation owning such vehicle, and for taxicabs, the serial license number assigned hereunder shall in each case be the same as that assigned to the vehicle for the previous year.
“Every taxicab, licensed under the provisions of this article, shall have the name of the owner thereof and the public passenger vehicle license number plainly painted in letters at least two inches in height in the center of the main panel of the rear door of said vehicle.
“2103. Testing of taximeters.) It shall be the duty of every person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or operating any taxicab, to deliver either the taxicab together with the taximeter, or the taximeter detached therefrom, to the commissioner upon demand for test; provided, however, any such person, firm or corporation may be present or represented at the time such test is made. Every taximeter shall be tested to determine the accuracy of its recording mechanism with respect to distance traveled either by running the taxicabto which it is attached over a course a standard mile in length or by a mechanical test. Both of the foregoing tests may be made in the discretion of the commissioner.
“In order to determine whether any taximeter correctly registers waiting time, it shall be the duty of the commissioner to test such taximeter by comparing the time recorded as shown by the fare computed on the dial thereof with the standard time.
“When any test shows that a taximeter correctly records the charge or fare, measured by distance traveled, waiting time and extra passengers, it shall be sealed and a written certificate of the test shall be issued to the writer.
“2107. Rates of fare for taxicabs.) Any person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or operating any taxicab may charge, demand, collect or receive the following rates of compensation for the service of said taxicab:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦“For the first one-third of a mile or fraction thereof for one person¦15 ¦
¦ ¦cents ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦“For each additional two-thirds of a mile or fraction thereof for one¦10 ¦
¦person ¦cents ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦“For each additional person of the age of twelve years or more for ¦5 cents¦
¦the whole trip ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦“For each three minutes of waiting time or fraction thereof ¦10 ¦
¦ ¦cents ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
“Such waiting time shall include the time beginning ten minutes after call time at the place to which the taxicab has been called, when it is not in motion, the time consumed by unavoidable delays at street intersections, bridges or elsewhere and the time consumed while standing at the direction of a passenger.
“Every passenger under twelve years of age when accompanied by an adult shall be carried without charge.
“No taxicab shall carry more than five passengers of the age of 12 years or more at the same time.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or operating any taxicab to charge, demand, collect or receive greater or less or different rates of compensation for taxicab service than those established or fixed by the foregoing schedule.”
In our opinion the primary purpose intended to be served by the foregoing sections of the Municipal Code of Chicago, in so far as they are applicable to taxicabs, was to prohibit the use of the streets and public ways of the City of Chicago as a place of business by any motor vehicle used as a taxicab for the carriage of passengers for hire, whether Chicago owner or owned elsewhere, unless such taxicab had its meter tested and sealed and was licensed in accordance with the provisions of said sections of the ordinances. The language contained in sec. 2078 “for the carriage of passengers for hire indiscriminately accepting and discharging such persons as may offer themselves for transportation” is not susceptible of the narrow construction that it was intended to apply only to taxicabs which pick up passengers who are on the streets or sidewalks of Chicago and offer themselves as passengers. We think that the language quoted, while somewhat inaptly phrased, reasonably construed evidences an intention to include within its purview the indiscriminate acceptance of passengers for hire by taxicabs, whether such passengers request taxicab service over the telephone or by hailing a taxicab from a street or sidewalk or in any other manner.
The difficulty with the city's position in its endeavor to sustain defendant's conviction is not so much a matter of having a proper construction placed upon the ordinances before us but rather that the sections of the ordinances under which it prosecuted defendant are not applicable to drivers of taxicabs who are not also the owners thereof. Even a casual examination of the language contained in sec. 2078 clearly indicates that it was drawn to apply only to the owners of public passenger vehicles, including taxicabs. It requires the owner and not the chauffeur to apply for the license for the vehicle and it must be borne in mind that the license provided for in this section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. City of Chicago
...The powers granted under the Act have been held to include the regulation of safety measures used in taxis, City of Chicago v. Dorband, 297 Ill. App. 617, 18 N.E.2d 107 (1938), the method of issuing new licenses, Yellow Cab Co. v. City of Chicago, 23 Ill.2d 453, 178 N.E.2d 330 (1961); Peopl......
-
Village of Schaumburg v. Franberg
...requirements that residents of the municipality must adhere to. Our holding is buttressed by the case of City of Chicago v. Dorband (1938), 297 Ill.App. 617, 18 N.E.2d 107, where the court commented upon a municipality's power to subject nonresidents to its taxicab licensing scheme. Althoug......
-
Naseef v. Cord, Inc.
...414, 322 P.2d 548 (D.Ct.App.1958); Wechsler v. Novak, 157 Fla. 703, 26 So.2d 884, 887 (Sup.Ct.1946). In City of Chicago v. Dorband, 297 Ill.App. 617, 18 N.E.2d 107 (App.Ct.1938), a situation strikingly similar to the one at bar was present. The owner of a taxicab was convicted for violating......
-
United States v. Yellow Cab Co.
...Taxicab Co. v. Cermak, D.C.1932, 60 F.2d 608; People ex rel. v. Thompson, 1930, 341 Ill. 166, 173 N. E. 137; City of Chicago v. Dorband, 1938, 297 Ill.App. 617, 18 N.E.2d 107; City of Chicago v. Eagle Taxi Co., 1933, 273 Ill. App. 614; Yellow Cab Co. v. City of Chicago, Circuit Court of Coo......