Fred Geiger & Sons v. Schmitt
| Decision Date | 18 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 23,137 |
| Citation | 116 N.E. 50,186 Ind. 292 |
| Parties | Fred Geiger and Sons v. Schmitt |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Vanderburgh Superior Court; F. M. Hostetter, Judge.
Action by Alvin J. Schmitt against Fred Geiger and Sons. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Albert W. Funkhouser, Arthur F. Funkhouser, Robert D. Markel and Albert C. Funkhouser, for appellant.
O. R Luhring and A. C. Hawkins, for appellee.
Appellant prosecutes this appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee for $ 125 on account of damage to his motorcycle. On April 29, 1915, appellee left his motorcycle standing at the north curb line, between Sixth and Seventh streets on Main street in the city of Evansville, which is alleged to be one of the principal business thoroughfares, and most congested by travel, in said city. Appellant, as the complaint alleges, on said date did carelessly and negligently leave one of its wagons or moving vans with a span of horses harnessed thereto without being hitched, chained, tied or fastened, and unattended, near Eighth street and on the north side near the curb line of said Main street, in violation of § 9 of a certain ordinance then and there in force in said city, which ordinance is entitled:
"An Ordinance to regulate the use of streets and highways by vehicles, to regulate traffic and travel thereon and imposing penalties for the violation thereof."
Section 9, in so far at it is material here, reads as follows:
"No horse shall be left unattended in any street or highway unless securely fastened, or unless the wheels of the vehicle to which it is harnessed are securely tied, fastened or chained, and the vehicle is of sufficient weight to prevent it being dragged at a dangerous speed with the wheels so secured."
Section 13 fixes the penalty at not less than $ 5 nor more than $ 25 for each offense. The complaint further alleges that without appellee's fault the horses became greatly frightened and ran away, causing said wagon to run against and over the motorcycle to its damage.
The only error assigned and not waived is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. Under this assignment the only points made by appellant challenge the validity of the ordinance. Appellant asserts that the ordinance is void for the reason that it is indefinite, vague and uncertain; that the phrases "securely fastened", "securely tied, fastened or chained", "of sufficient weight to prevent it being dragged", and "at a dangerous speed," are not technical phrases having a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, and are to be taken in their plain, ordinary and usual sense; that they are all comparative terms, without definition or standard of comparison fixed by the ordinance.
Meeting the question presented, it may be stated as a general rule that one of the requisites of a valid ordinance requires that it be precise, definite and certain in expression. However it is well settled that courts will not, by construction, defeat the purposes and objects intended by an ordinance, if it is sufficiently definite to be understood with reasonable certainty. Smith v. City of New Albany (1910), 175 Ind. 279, 93 N.E. 73. Horr & Bemis, Mun. Ordinances § 78. Ordinances ordinarily are not carefully drawn, and but few would stand a hard and fast rule of construction. While the rules applicable to the construction of statutes may be applied to the construction of ordinances, yet the courts in many instances have held that ordinances are specially entitled to a more reasonable construction, because they are usually less carefully expressed than other laws. Horr & Bemis, Mun. Ordinances § 193. Looking to the phrases pointed out and criticised, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial