Rogers v. Carr
| Decision Date | 12 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | 16206. |
| Citation | 47 S.E.2d 813,203 Ga. 594 |
| Parties | ROGERS v. CARR, Mayor, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a city ordinance providing for the issuance of licenses to operate taxicabs authorizes the mayor and council to grant or refuse a license in their discretion, the courts will not control their discretion by the writ of mandamus.
John R (Jack) Rogers filed a petition for mandamus against the Mayor and Councilmen of the City of Blairsville. He sought a license to operate a taxicab, and alleged that he had complied with all prerequisites of the city ordinance relating thereto, and he expressed a readiness to abide by all regulations imposed by the ordinance, but that his application had been denied without cause, which was arbitrary, illegal, capricious, was a gross abuse of discretion, and denied him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Code, § 1-815, and impartial and complete protection of the laws in violation of article 1, section 1 paragraph 2, of the Georgia Constitution, Code Ann.Supp., § 2-102. To his petition was attached a copy of the ordinance. A rule nisi was issued. The mayor and councilmen filed an answer, admitting that they had declined to issue the license, and asserting that they had authority so to do under the terms of the ordinance. At the hearing the issue was submitted to the trial judge without evidence except the admission of facts in the pleadings in the case. A mandamus absolute was denied, and to this order exceptions were taken.
Jack G Tarpley, of Blairsville, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
ATKINSON Justice (after stating the foregoing facts).
The ordinance here in question contains the following provision: 'Each and every applicant for a license shall and will be carefully considered by the Mayor and Councilmen of the City of Blairsville, and after a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances, any and all applications, in the discretion of the authority aforesaid, they will then grant or deny the applicant a license.'
The transportation of passengers for hire upon the streets of a city is not an inherent right, but a privilege which the municipality, in the exercise of discretion may grant or refuse. Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 161 Ga 148(2), 129 S.E. 861; Clem v. City of LaGrange, 169 Ga. 51(4), 149 S.E. 638, 65...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Brunswick v. Anderson
... ... 33, 43 S.E.2d 247. It ... is a privilege which the city may in the exercise of its ... discretion grant to one and deny to another. Rogers v ... Carr, 203 Ga. 594, 47 S.E.2d 813. Being a privilege ... only, it does not come under the protection of the State and ... Federal ... ...
-
Persons v. Mashburn
...according to his own judgment. Thomas v. Ragsdale, 188 Ga. 238, 3 S.E.2d 567; Moore v. Mauldin, 199 Ga. 780, 35 S.E.2d 511; Rogers v. Carr, 203 Ga. 594, 47 S.E.2d 813. It is therefore obvious that the remedy of mandamus against the Superintendent of Banks, as provided for by the statute, wa......
-
Hartsfield v. Salem
...Consolidated School District v. Selig Co., 195 Ga. 408, 24 S.E.2d 306; Harmon v. James, 200 Ga. 742, 38 S.E.2d 401; Rogers v. Carr, 203 Ga. 594, 47 S.E.2d 813; Murphy v. Withers, 204 Ga. 60, 48 S.E.2d 721. But mere authorization to act is insufficient unless the law requires performance of ......
-
Eason v. Dowdy
...to grant or refuse a license in their discretion, the courts will not control their discretion by the writ of mandamus.' Rogers v. Carr, 203 Ga. 594, 47 S.E.2d 813; City of Marietta v. Howard, 208 Ga. 719, 69 S.E.2d 246. If a city chooses to grant permission to individuals to conduct a taxi......