Scott v. Hart

• Citation: 91 So. 17,128 Miss. 353
• Decision Date: 13 March 1922
• Docket Number: 22412
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: SCOTT, Mayor, et al. v. HART et al

91 So. 17

128 Miss. 353

SCOTT, Mayor, et al. v. HART et al

No. 22412

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 13, 1922

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Ordinance requiring taxi drivers to satisfy mayor and council of their fitness held not arbitrary or unreasonable.

An ordinance which provides that no person shall drive, operate or control, while in use for hire on the streets of a city, a public taxi or vehicle for carrying passengers, until he shall satisfy the mayor and councilmen that he is a person of sufficient age and discretion, of fair character and integrity, and not addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotics, is not an arbitrary or unreasonable provision.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Right to transport property over street is common to all citizens.

The right of a citizen to use the highway and transport his property over it in the ordinary course of life and business is the usual and ordinary right---a right common to all citizens.

3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Use of streets as a place of business for private gain is really a privilege and subject to legislative or municipal regulations.

The right to use the streets of a city for a place of business and private gain by the operation of automobiles for hire is a special, unusual, and extraordinary right, over which the powers of the legislature or the city to regulate are very broad. It is really a privilege instead of a natural right.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Use of streets as place of business is mere privilege and not matter of natural right.

No private individual or corporation has a right to the use of the streets in the prosecution of the business of a carrier for private gain without the consent of the state or municipality, nor except upon the terms and conditions prescribed by the state or municipality. The use of the streets as a place of business is accorded as a mere privilege and not as a matter of natural right.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Ordinance relating alone to the licensing of operators of automobiles for hire and the regulation thereof held reasonable classification.

A municipal ordinance relating alone to the licensing of operators of automobiles for hire and the regulation thereof upon the public streets of a municipality is a reasonable classification.

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Ordinance providing for licensing and use of streets by automobiles for hire held reasonable.

In this case an ordinance providing for the licensing and use of the streets of the city by automobiles for hire held to-be reasonable.

HON. V J. STRICKER, Chancellor.

APPEAL in chancery court of Hinds county, HON. V. J. STRICKER Chancellor.

Bill by Brit Hart and others against W. A. Scott, Mayor of the City of Jackson, and others. From a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, the city appeals. Reversed, and bill dismissed.

Decree reversed, and bill dismissed.

Howie &amp Howie, for appellant.

Green & Green, for appellees.

OPINION

SYKES, P. J.

The appellees are engaged in the business of operating taxicabs for hire in the city of Jackson. They allege in their bill that--"The business of operating a taxicab for hire is such that in its very nature the complainants are compelled to be on the street at all times where they can see those desiring taxicabs and where they can be found. In order for their business to be profitable they of necessity have to be around and near those places where customers are likely to be found. There are only two ways that a business of this kind can be handled, one is to have a garage somewhere near the depot and hotels, or an office in such place and keep cars in a garage and let the customers look up the taxi, and the other is to have the taxi handy so that those operating can locate the customer."

That complainants operate under the second method. The bill alleges that an ordinance passed by the city of Jackson regulating the use of the streets by taxicabs for hire is unreasonable, discriminatory, and therefore void. The sections of the ordinance in question are as follows:

"Section 1. That no person shall drive, operate or control, while in use for hire on the streets of said city, any public taxi or vehicle for carrying passengers in the city of Jackson, until he shall satisfy the mayor and councilmen thereof that he is a person of sufficient age and discretion, of fair character and integrity, and not addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotics, and shall have received from said mayor and councilmen a permit so to do as hereinafter provided; and the owner of such taxi or vehicle shall not place in charge of said taxi or vehicle any person not having such permit.

"Sec. 2. That before any person shall drive, either for his own account or for some other person any public taxi or vehicle carrying passengers for hire in the city of Jackson he shall make application to the council of the said city for a permit; and if it shall appear that the applicant is of sufficient age and discretion, and is a suitable person to engage in the business of operating and driving a public taxi or vehicle carrying passengers for hire in said city, said board shall make an order directing the clerk of said city to issue a permit to such applicant, and such permit shall be issued under seal of said city and shall be good until revoked by said mayor and councilmen for good cause upon hearing of which the party shall have a reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.

"Sec. 3. That no person in charge of any public taxi or vehicle carrying passengers for hire shall permit the same, except when receiving or discharging passengers or when instructed by their passengers so to do, to stand on any of the streets, avenues or alleys in the city of Jackson for any longer period than five minutes, except as otherwise herein provided.

"Sec. 4. That no driver of any such taxi or vehicle used for carrying passengers shall use any vulgar or profane language while in charge of such taxi or vehicle, and he shall not leave his taxi while operating same upon any of the streets or alleys of said city; and that he shall not carry or permit to ride in his said taxi or vehicle any person except a bona fide passenger, or permit any loitering in his taxi or vehicle while same is being held out for public hire upon the streets of said city.

"Sec. 5. That no public taxi or vehicle for carrying passengers or any public transfer, wagon or vehicle, shall be permitted to use any of the public streets of said city as a station or stand for the carrying on of their business; provided that such taxi, vehicle, wagon or transfer may be stationed on Esau street in suitable manner so as not to impede or block traffic, for a period of ten (10) minutes before and five (5) minutes after the arrival of passenger trains at the Union Depot of said city.

"Sec. 6. That no taxi, automobile or other vehicle for hire shall be permitted to park in the alleys of said city, within the paved area of business district thereof."

The cause was tried upon bill, answer, and testimony, and the chancellor held certain portions of these sections unreasonable. From which decree the city prosecutes this appeal.

The chancellor held that part of section 1 void which provides that the applicant "shall satisfy the mayor and councilmen thereof that he is a person of sufficient age and discretion, of fair character and integrity. The qualifications necessary to be possessed by the applicant are set forth in both sections 1 and 2 and must be construed together.

We have various statutes in this state requiring an applicant to be examined upon his good moral character before being granted a license to practice certain professions. Namely, one on pharmacists (3671); physicians (3682); and even lawyers (208). In all of these sections the examining board must be satisfied of the good moral character of the applicant just as the board...