Ex parte Packman

• Decision Date: 27 June 1927
• Docket Number: 28244
• Citation: 296 S.W. 366,317 Mo. 732
• Parties: Ex Parte Victor Packman, Petitioner
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

296 S.W. 366

317 Mo. 732

Ex Parte Victor Packman, Petitioner

No. 28244

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 27, 1927

Petitioner discharged.

Jesse E. Bishop and Victor Packman for petitioner.

(1) No ordinance of the city of St. Louis is valid unless authority for the passage of same is expressly provided for in the charter of the city, or is a necessary implication of the city's police power. St. Louis v. Kaine, 180 Mo 309; City of St. Louis v. Atlantic Quarry & Construction Co., 244 Mo. 479. (2) There is no express authority for the passage of Sections 1098 and 1099 of Ordinance 30013 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of St. Louis 1914. (3) All ordinances of the city of St. Louis must be in harmony with and subject to the laws and Constitution of the State. Art IX, Sec. 23, Constitution of Missouri. (4) Sections 1098 and 1099 of Ordinance 30013 are in conflict with, and not in harmony with, the exclusive powers of the State and the State Public Service Commission. State v. Public Service Commission, 270 Mo. 429; Sec. 10456, part 5, R. S. 1919; St. Louis v. Public Service Commission, 276 Mo. 509 527; State v. Public Service Commission, 275 Mo. 201.

Julius T. Muench and Oliver Senti for respondent.

(1) The Public Service Commission Act was not intended to prevent cities from exercising their police powers in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or welfare. (2) The charter of the city is its organic law. All ordinances enacted pursuant thereto are valid unless they violate the Constitution or are in conflict with the laws of the State. Constitution of Missouri, Art. IX, secs. 22, 23. (3) Wherever a charter authorizes a thing to be done, and an ordinance undertakes to carry out the powers granted by the charter, the ordinance will be liberally construed, with a view to sustaining its validity. State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272. (4) It is the duty of courts to resolve all doubts in favor of the validity of a legislative act, and they are reluctant to declare such act invalid. State ex rel. v. Shehan, 269 Mo. 427; Bledsoe v. Stallard, 250 Mo. 154; State v. Layton, 160 Mo. 474; Wagner v. St. Louis, 284 Mo. 411. (5) The courts will indulge in the presumption that the Legislature did not intend to violate the organic law of the State. State ex rel. v. Shehan, 209 Mo. 427. The courts will have the same reluctance to declare an ordinance, duly enacted, void, and the same presumption as to its validity obtains. State v. Murta, 283 Mo. 81.

OPINION

Ragland, J.

Habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted in the Court of Criminal Correction in the City of St. Louis of having theretofore, on August 24, 1926, violated Section 1098 of Ordinance No. 30013, in that he had sold to one Bishop for a consideration, namely, lawful money, a street railway transfer ticket issued by the United Railways Company, a corporation operating street railways within the city of St. Louis, which transfer ticket purported to give the holder thereof the right to transfer without the payment of additional fare from one car to another, to-wit, a transfer from the Olive Street car line to the Bellefontaine Street line. He was thereupon adjudged to pay a fine of $ 10, and the costs of the proceeding; not having satisfied said judgment, he is now detained and imprisoned by the respondent, the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis. He asserts that his imprisonment is unlawful because the ordinance provisions which he was convicted of violating are "void, illegal and of no force or effect." The validity of the ordinance is therefore the only question presented for determination.

The section in question and the succeeding one are as follows:

"Section 1098, It shall be unlawful for any person:

"First. To sell, barter or exchange for any consideration whatsoever, any street railway transfer ticket or other instrument issued by any person or corporation operating any street railway within the city of St. Louis, giving or purporting to give to the holder of such transfer ticket or other instrument the right to transfer, without the payment of additional fare, from one car to another car on the same line or route, or from one line or route to the car or cars operated upon another line or route.

"Second. Or for any person to give away any such transfer ticket or other instrument as aforesaid to another for the purpose of enabling or with intent to enable, the latter to use or offer the same for passage upon any street railway car or cars.

"Third. Or for any person to whom or for whom any such transfer ticket or other instrument as aforesaid was not issued, to use, or attempt to use, or offer the same for passage upon any street railway car or cars.

"Fourth. Or for any person to counterfeit any such transfer.

"Fifth. Or for any person to punch or alter or change the punching of any such transfer.

"Sixth. Or for any person knowingly to make or attempt to make a round trip by use of such transfer.

"Provided, however, that nothing in this ordinance relates to nor in any manner affects the issuing of transfers by the agents or employees of any person or corporation operating a street railway to passengers thereof lawfully entitled thereto.

"Section 1099. Any person who shall violate any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine of not less than five dollars."

The validity of the ordinance is challenged on a number of grounds. One of these, namely, the ordinance is in conflict with the Public Service Commission Law, we regard as substantial. As the others, where not wholly fanciful, take life from this one, they need not be considered....