Cloe v. State

• Decision Date: 31 May 1923
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 917.
• Citation: 209 Ala. 544,96 So. 704
• Parties: CLOE, COM'R OF PUBLIC SAFETY, v. STATE EX REL. HALE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

96 So. 704

209 Ala. 544

CLOE, COM'R OF PUBLIC SAFETY, v. STATE EX REL. HALE.

6 Div. 917.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 31, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.

Petition by the State of Alabama, on the relation of W. S. Hale, for writ of mandamus to W. B. Cloe, as Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of Birmingham, requiring him, as such Commissioner, to issue or cause to be issued to petitioner a city license for the operation of a motor car, or "jitney bus," over the route known as the West End route for jitney service. From a judgment for petitioner respondent appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The petition shows that, prior to January 15, 1923, petitioner was operating three such cars on said route under license from the city commissioner, and that, on application to said commissioner for license to operate said three cars for the year 1923, he was granted license to operate two cars over said route, but was denied license for the third, on the ground that in said commissioner's opinion two cars were enough for petitioner to operate on any one route in said city and on this particular route. It is further alleged that there is no such limitation as to the number of cars one person may operate; that the total number that may be operated on said route is limited to 30 cars, but that that number has never been reached, the maximum number in the service being 25 cars.

It is alleged that petitioner's cars are the same that were operated by him in 1922, under license and without objection but with the knowledge and approval of said commissioner that said rejected car is in like good order and condition as in 1922, and was to be driven by one Stansell, a licensed chauffeur, and duly qualified for such service. It is charged that the respondent has no discretionary right to refuse said license to petitioner, and that the refusal in question was arbitrary and unreasonable.

As to the authority of respondent as such commissioner, it is alleged that he "claims and exercises the power and authority of granting and refusing license for the operation of motor cars or jitneys for hire in the city of Birmingham and (claims) to be in charge of the regulation and supervision and control of said jitney service."

Ordinance 759-C, as amended by Ordinance 827-C, of the city of Birmingham, provides that any owner of a motor vehicle desiring to operate it in the city for the carriage of passengers for hire must obtain a license to do so, and must make written application to the commissioner of public safety on a form to be furnished by the city, setting out: (a) A detailed description of the vehicle to be used; (b) the name of the owner, and of every person having any lien or claim thereon; (c) the route on which it is to run; (d) the name age, residence, and business address of the applicant; (e) the same information as to the chauffeur who is to drive the car, and his license number. The application must be verified by oath, and the said commissioner must within five days inspect the proposed vehicle, and ascertain the qualifications of the chauffeur, and report his findings to the next regular adjourned or special meeting of the city commission-

"which body shall, after making further investigation, examination and inspection, if deemed necessary, by resolution grant or refuse to applicant a license to use or operate each motor vehicle described in the application as a motor or jitney bus or taxicab, as the case may be, and, if the license be for a motor or jitney bus, the resolution ordering the license and the license itself shall designate by name the route for which said license is issued. If the license applied for be to operate a motor bus or jitney bus on any one of the urban...