State ex rel. Lorantos v. Terte

• Decision Date: 30 December 1929
• Docket Number: 29824
• Parties: The State ex rel. Sam Lorantos and George Lorantos, Doing Business as Lexington Blue Bus Line, v. Ben Terte, Judge of Circuit Court of Jackson County
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 S.W.2d 120

324 Mo. 402

The State ex rel. Sam Lorantos and George Lorantos, Doing Business as Lexington Blue Bus Line, v. Ben Terte, Judge of Circuit Court of Jackson County

No. 29824

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 30, 1929

Preliminary rule discharged.

E H. Henning, Otto & Potter and John D. Wendorff for relators.

(1) Since plaintiff and defendants at all the times since the alleged date of plaintiff's alleged injuries and the institution of said suit in Jackson County were and still are all residents of Lafayette County, suit can only be instituted and maintained in the Circuit Court of Lafayette County. Sec. 1177, R. S. 1919. (2) Section Thirteen of Motor Bus Regulation Act, Laws 1927, p. 409, is unconstitutional. Sec. 28, Art. 4, Constitution of Missouri; Southard v Short, 8 S.W.2d 903; State v. Hurley, 258 Mo 275; State v. Sloan, 167 S.W. 501; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; State ex rel. School District v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; Mayes v. United Garment Workers, 6 S.W.2d 333; State v. Mullinix, 301 Mo. 385; Clark v. Railway, 6 S.W.2d 954.

S. L. Trusty, Edw. E. Pugh, Jr., and John F. Cook for respondent.

Section 13 of the Public Service Commission Act, Laws 1927, p. 409, providing for supervision, regulation and conduct of transportation of persons for hire over the public highways of the State by motor vehicles is not unconstitutional, and does not violate Sec. 28, Art. 4, Constitution of Missouri. Said Section 28 should be liberally construed. State v. Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1; St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 590; State ex rel. Garvey v. Buckner, 272 S.W. 941; State v. Brodnax, 228 Mo. 25. Matters contained in Sec. 13, Laws 1927, p. 409, are germane and congruent with the subject-matter contained in the title of both the amendment and the title of the original Public Service Commission Act, Laws 1913, p. 556. Cunningham v. Railway Co., 215 S.W. 5; Westgate v. Adrian Township, 126 N.W. 422; Wilson v. Supreme Forest, 119 S.E. 394; State v. Cox, 234 Mo. 605; State v. Peyton, 234 Mo. 517; State v. Ross, 245 Mo. 36; State v. Brodnax, 228 Mo. 25; State ex rel. v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390; State v. Tallo, 274 S.W. 467; St. Francis Levee District v. Dorroh, 289 S.W. 925.

OPINION

Gantt, J.

Original proceeding in prohibition. Relators seek to prohibit respondent, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, from proceeding with the trial of Mary Ethel Dishman v. Sam and George Lorantos. Our preliminary rule was granted and respondent demurs to the petition alleging it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or authorize the court to grant any relief to relators. The facts summarized from the petition follow:

Mary Ethel Dishman claims to have been injured while a passenger in a motor bus owned and operated by relators, from Lexington (Lafayette County) to Kansas City (Jackson County). She brought suit against relators in the Circuit Court of Jackson County and charges her injuries were caused by the negligence of relators in operating the bus. Summons directed to the Sheriff of Cole County was issued commanding relators to appear in the Circuit Court of Jackson County and answer said petition. The sheriff executed the writ in Cole County by serving the same on the Secretary of the Public Service Commission as provided in Section 13, Article VIII, Chapter 95, Laws 1927, page 409.

Relators filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court and a motion to quash the sheriff's return of summons, for the reason Section 13 is unconstitutional in that it contravenes Section 28, Article IV, of the Constitution, and that relators and Mary Ethel Dishman being residents of Lafayette County, the venue is fixed by Section 1177, Revised Statutes 1919, in said county. The judge indicated he would overrule the plea and motion and proceed with the trial of the cause. Thereupon, relators petitioned this court for relief.

Relators contend the title to the act does not cover the service and venue provisions of Section 13.

The title and section challenged follow:

"AN ACT amending chapter 95, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919, by adding thereto a new article to be numbered article VIII providing for the supervision, regulation and conduct of transportation of persons for hire over the public highway of the state of Missouri by motor vehicles; conferring jurisdiction upon the public service commission to license and regulate such transportation; providing for the enforcement of the provisions of this act and for the punishment for violation thereof; and repealing all acts or parts of acts or laws inconsistent with the provisions of this article."

"Sec. 13 -- Suit may be brought in any county where cause of action may arise. -- Suit may be brought against any motor carrier as in this act defined in any county where the cause of action may arise, in any town or county where bus line operates, or judicial circuit where the cause of action accrued, or where the defendant maintains an office or agent, and service may be had upon such carrier whether an individual person, firm, company, association, or corporation, by serving process upon the secretary of the public service commission."

The subject of the bill is single in that the title clearly expresses the only intention to be the supervision, regulation and conduct of those engaged in transporting persons in motor vehicles for hire over the public highways. It is then stated that provision will be made for the Public Service Commission to license and regulate such carriers. It is then stated that provision will be made for the enforcement of the act and for the punishment for violations thereof. The statute is a comprehensive effort in that behalf.

Those so engaged are declared to be common carriers. And among the many rules for conducting the business, it is provided that before carriers are licensed they must be covered by liability insurance binding the obligors to make compensation for injuries to persons and damages to property resulting from the negligent operation of the motor vehicle. It is further provided that certain safety rules set forth in the act must be included in the rules promulgated by the commission; and one rule provides the carrier must make a detailed report covering accidents arising from the operation of motor vehicles. Further, and as indicated by the title, the act provides for the issuance of licenses and such additional regulation as may be deemed necessary by the commission. Of course, provisions for the enforcement of the act and punishment for violation thereof are necessary to the main purpose announced in the title. Promulgation of rules without means for enforcement would be no regulation. Thus it appears the protection of the traveling public was the purpose of the act.

We have not hesitated to rule an act or part of act unconstitutional when the legislation was clearly outside the title. This is evidenced by cases cited by relators, which follow: Southard v. Short, 8 S.W.2d 903; State v. Hurley, 258 Mo. 275, 167 S.W. 965; State v. Sloan, 167 S.W. 500, 501-2; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131, 112 S.W. 520; State ex rel. School District v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27, 237 S.W. 742; Mayes v. United Garment Workers of America, 6 S.W.2d 333; State v. Mullinix, 301 Mo. 385, 257 S.W. 121.

On the other hand we resolve the doubt, if any, in favor of validity, if the challenged legislation is germane and relates either directly or indirectly to the main subject. [State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 496; State ex rel. v Mead, 71 Mo. 266; DeBoth v. Coal & Mining Co., 141 Mo. 497, l. c. 503, 42 S.W. 1081; St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578; State ex rel. v. Slover, 134 Mo. 10, 31 S.W. 1054, 34 S.W. 1102; State ex inf. v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1, l. c. 45, 52 S.W. 595; State v. Doerring, 194 Mo. 398, l. c. 47, 92 S.W. 489; O'Connor v. Transit Co., 198 Mo. 622, l. c. 633, 97 S.W. 150; State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242, l. c. 255, 135 S.W. 465; State v. Brodnax, 228 Mo. 25, l. c. 53, 128 S.W. 177; ...