Joyce v. the City of East St. Louis.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Parties: MAURICE JOYCEv.THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

77 Ill. 156

1875 WL 8278 (Ill.)

MAURICE JOYCE

v.THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the City Court of East St. Louis.

Mr. M. MILLARD, for the appellant.

Mr. L. H. WHITE, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a prosecution for the alleged violation of an ordinance of the city of East St. Louis. The ordinance is as follows:

“No person, firm, company or corporation, shall, without complying with the provisions of this ordinance, use, or cause to be used, any wagon, dray, cart or other vehicle of burden to convey loads, within this city, or on the streets of this city, or hire out, or keep for hire or use, or cause to be used for hire, in the transportation of persons or property from one part of the city to another, or from places within to places without the city, or from places without to places within the city, any hackney-carriage, omnibus, baggage-wagon, buggy, dray, cart, wagon or other vehicle.”

Then follow provisions requiring the owner or owners of the vehicles mentioned above to take out a license, fixing the rates. The authority claimed for the passage of the ordinance is under this provision of the city charter of 1869, giving power--

“To license, tax and regulate and control wagons and other vehicles conveying loads in the city; to prescribe the width and tire of the same, the weight of loads to be carried and the rates of carriage.”

The admitted facts were, that defendant kept a family grocery store in the city, and had used a one-horse spring-wagon, without having a license therefor, in delivering goods sold by retail, to his customers, and in bringing loads of goods from St. Louis, Mo., where he purchased stock for retail at his store; that he never used the wagon for hire, or otherwise than in the prosecution of his business as a grocery merchant.

The question made is, whether defendant was required, under the ordinance and provision of the charter, to take out a license.

The charter authority is, to license vehicles conveying loads, and prescribe the rates of carriage.

To license and to prescribe the rates of carriage, alike apply to the vehicles named; so, it is only such vehicles which are in contemplation as the subjects of license, in respect to which the rates of carriage are to be prescribed. It can not be supposed that it was intended to fix rates of carrying in respect of such vehicles as should only be used by persons in the prosecution of their ordinary private business. Any provision of that sort is unknown in our legislation, and the enactment or the authorizing of such a provision can...