Farson v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 11 May 1905
• Docket Number: 27,630.
• Citation: 138 F. 184
• Parties: FARSON et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

138 F. 184

FARSON et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.

No. 27,630.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

May 11, 1905

Chas F. Davies, for complainants.

J. W Beckwith, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for defendant.

KOHLSAAT Circuit Judge.

The bill herein is filed by John Farson and others to restrain the city of Chicago from enforcing two certain ordinances adopted by the city council on July 11, 1904, requiring persons to submit to an examination before a board therein provided, and to procure from said board a certificate of qualification, before operating on the streets of the city any automobile, autocar, or other similar vehicle, and requiring automobiles to display identification numbers of the size and character therein set out. The ordinance requiring examination provides certain qualifications on the part of the applicant as to the free use of both arms and both hands, absence of defects in hearing and eyesight freedom from hear disease, etc. It further provides that the applicant shall not be addicted to the excessive use of alcoholic liquors or be of a reckless disposition. Other requirements are set out touching applicant's knowledge of the machine to be operated, and his ability to handle same. Said ordinance further provides that, in order to defray the expense of this regulation, each applicant shall pay the sum of $3 to the city of Chicago, and, if the applicant shall be found competent to operate an automobile of the type mentioned in his application, a certificate shall be issued to him by the board. This certificate is renewable annually upon payment of $1. Both ordinances provide a fine for the violation thereof, not less than $5 nor more than $25 for each offense. The bill sets out that the city of Chicago is enforcing said ordinances, and that persons who have not complied therewith are arrested and fined; that complainants use automobiles for pleasure, and not for hire; that the city has only such powers as are conferred by statute; that said ordinances are in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that they deprive complainants of their property without due process of law, and deny them the equal protection of the laws. The bill prays that the city of Chicago and its agents be restrained from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of said ordinances, and for other appropriate relief. An answer has been filed by the city, which, while raising the question of the jurisdiction of this court, goes to the merits of the bill. The matter comes on now to be heard on the motion of complainants for a preliminary injunction, and the motion is supported by the usual affidavits. Counter affidavits are filed by the city. On the argument of this motion it was contended by the defendant that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and briefs on this question were submitted by the parties, as well as on the merits.

The burden rests upon complainants on this motion for a preliminary injunction to satisfy the court as to its jurisdiction of the parties or subject-matter, as well as upon the merits of the controversy. Huntington v. City of New York (C.C) 118 F. 683. The complainants are all citizens of Illinois. The jurisdiction of the court is invoked on the ground that the ordinances in question are in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and the attention of the court is directed to subsection 16 of section 629 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 506), which provides:

'The Circuit Courts shall have original jurisdiction as follows: Of all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state, of any right, privilege, or immunity, secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.'

The section above set out is clearly inapplicable to the case at bar, and has reference solely to those actions brought under the statute to redress the deprivation of the civil rights secured by section 1977 and 1979 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1259, 1262). Holt v. Indiana Mfg., 176 U.S. 68, 20 Sup.Ct. 272, 44 L.Ed. 374. The jurisdiction of the court to consider the bill must be sustained, if at all, under Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, as amended by Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508), which provides as follows:

'That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.'

There then arises for determination the question whether or not this is a suit of a civil nature in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. No serious question is made by the city as to the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill to make out a case for the consideration of a court of equity. Nor, in my judgment, can there be. It is contended, however, that the requisite jurisdictional amount is wanting. The bill alleges, and the answer denies, that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, as to each petitioner exceeds the value of $2,000. No showing is made by complainants as to this fact, other than the allegation to that effect in the bill. The amount involved in determining the jurisdiction of the ...