Morley v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 30 November 1927
• Parties: MORLEY et al. v. WILSON, Police Com'r.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

261 Mass. 269

159 N.E. 41

MORLEY et al.

v.WILSON, Police Com'r.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 30, 1927.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Henry T. Lummus, Judge.

Suit in equity by Austin Morley and others against Herbert A. Wilson, Police Commissioner of the city of Boston, to restrain defendant from suspending or revoking taxicablicenses. Defendant's demurrer to bill was overruled, and case reported. Demurrer sustained.William G. Tompson and Wendell P. Murray, both of Boston, for plaintiffs.

Herbert Parker, of Boston, for defendant.

SANDERSON, J.

The plaintiffs bring this bill in equity for themselves and any others having a like interest who may join therein, to restrain the defendant from suspending or revoking licenses held by them for the operation of taxicabs in the city of Boston. The case comes to this court on report of the trial judge after overruling the defendant's demurrer.

The defendant, as police commissioner of the city of Boston, upon petition of each plaintiff, issued a license to drive a hackney carriage within the city limits, a license ‘to set up and use one hackney carriage’ at a designated garage ‘on condition that the licensee shall comply with all the existing laws and ordinances relating to hackney carriages, and all rules made for the regulation of the same,’ and an order designating a special stand for each hackney carriage, which order also contained the condition above quoted. While the licenses and orders were in force, the defendant notified each of the plaintiffs that his license to drive and to set up and use a hackney carriage and his license for a special stand were suspended and made inoperative from the date of the notice for the period of three days, for reasons deemed satisfactory to the defendant, namely:

‘For the reason that the * * * suspensions are required for the maintenance and better promotion of public convenience, in the use of the public ways, and in the operation and regulation of hackney carriages and taxis operated for hire in the city of Boston; for the reason that you have refused to comply with the authorized orders of police officers of the city of Boston, respecting and requiring compliance by you with the obligations and terms of said licenses heretofore issued to you for driving and operating hackney carriages; for the reason that you have refused and neglected to maintain service and use of ‘special stand’ assigned to you for the public convenience, and described in your said license therefor; for the reason that your refusal to observe requirements and conditions of your said licenses, and your refusal to obey lawful orders and directions of police officers of the city of Boston, renders you, in the judgment of the police commissioner, an unfit person to further exercise any privileges or benefits under authority of any of said licenses.'

Under rule 58 of the Rules and Regulations of the Boston Police Department, the authority to issue to suitable persons licenses of the kinds above referred to and to make assignments of special stands is given to the police commissioner. Provision is also made forbidding trespassing by owners or drivers upon special stands to which they have not been assigned, and forbidding those having special stands from trespassing upon public stands. While awaiting employment by passengers drivers are forbidden to stand their carriages in any public street or place other than at or upon a public or special stand. Every person having charge of a hackney carriage is required to obey the directions of any police officer respecting the standing of such carriage while waiting for passengers. The licensees are prohibited from carrying any person sick or affected with any contagious disease. It is made the duty of police officers to observe the movements of hackney carriages, especially at night, and at all times to see that the rules regulating such carriages are obeyed. In these rules and regulations the police commissioner reserves to himself the right to take away, change, modify, or reassign any and all privileges in both special and public stands at his discretion.

By St. 1909, c. 221, entitled ‘An act to authorize the police commissioner of the city of Boston to revoke or to suspend licenses issued by him,’ that officer was given all the powers and duties then conferred or imposed by law upon the board of police of the city of Boston, and he was specifically given all the powers of that board in respect to revoking licenses issued by him, and in addition he ‘may, in his discretion, for any cause deemed satisfactory to him and without a hearing, suspend and make inoperative for such period as he may deem proper any license issued by him.’

The grounds of demurrer are in part that there are no sufficient allegations in the bill to entitle the plaintiffs to relief in equity as prayed for, and that it appears from the allegations that the defendant acted within and pursuant to the power and authority conferred upon him.

[1] The right to engage in the business of carrying people for hire upon public ways is subject to reasonable control. Commonwealth v. Gage, 114 Mass. 328, 330;Commonwealth v. Page, 155 Mass. 227, 29 N. E. 512;Burgess v. City of Brockton, 235 Mass. 95, 126 N. E. 456;Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 233 Mass. 535, 542, 124 N. E. 482. See Commonwealth v. Morrison, 197 Mass. 199, 203, 83 N. E. 415,14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 194, 125 Am. St. Rep. 338.

[2] The police commissioner had authority to make rules and regulations concerning this business. Commonwealth v. Gage, supra; Commonwealth v. Plaisted, 148 Mass. 375, 382.19 N. E. 224,2 L. R. A. 142, 12 Am. St. Rep. 566; Commonwealth v. Page, supra.

[3][4][5][6] The power to regulate the business gives the power to require those engaged in it to be licensed. The holder of a license cannot complain of limitations attaching to the privilege which, with full knowledge, he sought and accepted. McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 220, 29 N. E. 517. The holder takes it subject to the right of suspension and revocation authorized by statute (Rafferty v. Police Commissioner of Boston [Mass.] 156 N. E. 28), and subject to the rules and regulations and to the express conditions made a part of the license (Burgess v. City of Brockton, supra). The cases cited support the conclusion that the right given the police commissioner to regulate and license the transportation of passengers for hire is a valid exercise of the police power and is constitutional. Licenses such as the plaintiffs have are ‘mere privilege [s] or permission[s] and in no sense a contract or property.’ Burgess v. City of Brockton, 235 Mass. 95, 100, 126 N. E. 456, 459.

[7] The designation of stands for carriages licensed to transport passengers for hire would be a useless ceremony unless the drivers were required to operate from the stands designated. It well may be that the distribution of such stands in different parts of the city best serves the public convenience even though in certain cases the stands prove to be unprofitable to the licensees. This method of controlling and distributing the taxicab business may have a tendency to prevent congestion in street traffic at certain points, and if the licensees conduct their business from stands assigned, the police have a better opportunity to learn whether the conveyances are used for illegal purposes and whether the conditions of the licenses are being observed. The designation of stands and the requirement that licensees maintain service at them are justified for reasons based on the public welfare and convenience. The defendant by his orders of suspension is not undertaking to control the use which may be made of the private property upon which the plaintiffs have been maintaining their stands, but only acting within the limits of his authority to control the taxicab business. The designation of stands is one of the three licenses required, and it is within the power of the defendant to suspend or revoke all licenses of the driver who refuses to occupy a designated stand.

The bill states that the licensees refused to occupy the special stands assigned to them and occupied with their vehicles private stands in violation of the orders of...