State, ex rel. Oleson v. Graunke

• Decision Date: 28 February 1930
• Docket Number: 27334
• Citation: 229 N.W. 329,119 Neb. 440
• Parties: STATE, EX REL. ELEANOR A. OLESON, APPELLANT, v. BEN F. GRAUNKE, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL., APPELLEES
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

229 N.W. 329

119 Neb. 440

STATE, EX REL. ELEANOR A. OLESON, APPELLANT, v. BEN F. GRAUNKE, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL., APPELLEES

No. 27334

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 28, 1930

APPEAL from the district court for Cuming county: CHARLES H STEWART, JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 5, c. 148, Laws 1929, construed, and held to deny to any person, under 16 years of age, the right to a license to drive a motor vehicle.

The state, in the exercise of its police power, may limit the operation of motor vehicles on its highways to persons who have attained a specific age, if the age limitation is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Limiting to persons who have attained the age of 16 years the right to a license to operate motor vehicles is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

A statute that denies to persons under 16 years of age the right to a license to drive a motor vehicle does not have the effect of depriving persons, under 16 years of age, owning automobiles, of property without due process of law.

Appeal from District Court, Cuming County; Stewart, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of Eleanor A. Oleson, against Ben. F. Graunke, County Treasurer of Cuming County, and another. Judgment denying the writ, and the relator appeals. Affirmed.

A. R Oleson, for appellant.

C. A. Sorensen, Attorney General, and Clifford L. Rein, contra.

Heard before GOSS, C. J., ROSE, DEAN, GOOD, EBERLY and DAY, JJ., and MESSMORE, District Judge.

OPINION

GOOD, J.

Relator, a young woman under 16 years of age, sought a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the county treasurer of Cuming county and the secretary of the department of public works of the state of Nebraska to issue to her an automobile driver's license. The trial court denied the writ, and relator appeals.

The appeal involves a proper interpretation of section 5, ch. 148, Laws 1929, which is as follows: "If the application to operate a motor vehicle required by this act discloses that the applicant for such license suffers from a physical defect or defects of a character which may affect the safety of operation by such applicant of a motor vehicle, the examiner may require such applicant to show cause why such license should be granted, and may require such applicant through personal examination and demonstration as may be prescribed by the department of public works to show the necessary ability to safely operate a motor vehicle on the public highways; and if the examiner be satisfied, after such demonstration, that such applicant has the ability to safely operate such motor vehicle, a license may be issued to the applicant, subject, however, to a limitation to operate only such motor vehicles as the license shall designate at the discretion of the department of public works. No license shall, under any circumstances, be issued to any person who has not attained the age of full sixteen (16) years: Provided, however, that prior to January 1, 1930, licenses shall be granted without examination to all applicants as a matter of course, who have driven an automobile for more than six months prior to the date of application, and who shall so state in said application."

The record discloses that relator is a competent driver and had driven an automobile for a period of more than six months prior to the time of making application for a license. She contends that, under the proviso of section 5, she is entitled to a driver's license as a matter of course. We do not think the contention is sound....