Meeks Motor Freight, Inc., v. Ballard

• Decision Date: 07 June 1940
• Citation: 283 Ky. 404
• Parties: Meeks Motor Freight, Inc., v. Ballard, Police Judge of Mt. Vernon.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 404

283 Ky. 404

Meeks Motor Freight, Inc., v. Ballard, Police Judge of Mt. Vernon.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 7, 1940.

1. Prohibition. — Where police judge of Mt. Vernon was proceeding erroneously within her jurisdiction by imposing fine on holder of truck line permit from State Tax Commission for violation of Mt. Vernon ordinance requiring any person receiving or discharging freight into or from any mechanically-driven vehicle operated within city limits to pay license fees and holder of permit, by reason of fact that maximum punishment for violation of ordinance was fine of $5, had no appeal and would undoubtedly suffer great and irreparable injury if its drivers were regularly arrested and fined under invalid ordinance, writ of prohibition would be granted (Ky. Stats., sec. 2739j-42 et seq.).

2. Automobiles. — Mt. Vernon ordinance requiring any person receiving or discharging freight into or from any mechanically-driven vehicle operated within city limits to pay certain designated license fees was invalid as to motor carrier holding permit from State Tax Commission (Ky. Stats., secs. 2739j-42 et seq., 2739j-79).

In Court of Appeals.

Fritz Krueger for petitioner.

No counsel for respondent.

OPINION BY JUDGE FULTON.

Granting writ of prohibition.

The petitioner, Meeks Motor Freight, Incorporated, operates a truck line through the city of Mt. Vernon, a city of the sixth class, and is the holder of a permit from the State Tax Commission under the provisions of chapter 104, Acts of the General Assembly of 1932, Kentucky Statutes, Sections 2739j-42 et seq. One of its truck drivers was fined $5 by the respondent in the police court of Mt. Vernon for violation of an ordinance of that city requiring any person receiving or discharging freight into or from any mechanically-driven vehicle operated within the corporate limits of the city to pay certain designated license fees and providing a fine of not less than $1 nor more than $5 for each violation.

In this original proceeding filed in this court it is claimed by appellant that the ordinance in question is invalid as to it, the holder of the permit above mentioned; that the respondent is threatening to and will continue to prosecute and fine its drivers under the ordinance and that it has no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and will thereby suffer great and irreparable injury.

If the ordinance is invalid as to holders of permits under chapter 104 of the Acts of 1932, this is a...