Sullivan v. Police Com'r of City of Boston

• Decision Date: 25 October 1939
• Citation: 23 N.E.2d 106,304 Mass. 113
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. POLICE COM'R OF CITY OF BOSTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

304 Mass. 113

23 N.E.2d 106

SULLIVAN

v.POLICE COM'R OF CITY OF BOSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County; Donahue, Justice.

Proceeding by Henry F. Sullivan for a writ of certiorari to quash the record of suspension of petitioner's license to operate a taxicab after approval of such suspension by the Police Commissioner of the City of Boston.

Petition dismissed.A. L. Brown and J. J. Crehan, both of Boston, for petitioner.

Andrew J. Gorey, of Boston, for respondent.

H. W. Corbett, C. H. Innes, and C. J. Innes, all of Boston, amici curiae.

LUMMUS, Justice.

In Boston at the time when this case arose the operation of taxicabs was governed by a statute which included a taxicab in the expression ‘hackney carriage.’ St.1930, c. 392, § 2. No person was permitted to ‘set up and use’ or to ‘drive or have charge of’ such a vehicle, without a license from the police commissioner. St.1930, c. 392, §§ 2, 3, 4; St. 1934, c. 280. The petitioner was both the owner, and the ‘driver’ or operator, of a taxicab, and was duly licensed in both capacities.

The statute provided for both ‘public’ and ‘special’ hackney stands on public ways. A ‘public’ stand was open to all ‘hackney carriages' not assigned special hackney stands. St. 1930, c. 392, § 8. A ‘special’ stand had to be ‘abutting [a] hotel, station, pier or [public or semipublic] building,’ the owner, lessee or official representative of which had requested the establishment of such a stand, and had to be assigned by the police commissioner to a particular licensee or particular licensees. Section 5.¹ The police commissioner was given ‘exclusive authority to make rules and orders for the regulation of hackney carriages and hackney stands, * * * within the limits of said city, with penalties for the violation thereof not exceeding twenty dollars for each offence.’ Section 1. The rules (1936), section 11, provided that special stands ‘shall not be occupied by any vehicle other than a hackney carriage licensed therefor.’ By section 25 of the rules, ‘Any person or corporation violating any of the provisions of the foregoing sections shall forfeit and pay a fine not exceeding twenty dollars for each offense; and any licensed owner or driver who violates any of the provisions of the foregoing sections shall, in addition to said penalty, thereupon become liable to suspension or forfeiture of his license, and may be disqualified to hold a license thereafter.’ See also St. 1909, c. 221.

In June, 1937, the petitioner, who had no special stand, violated the rules by trespassing upon a special stand of the Checker Taxi Company at the South Station. From a suspension of his license for five days for that offence, he appealed to the police commissioner. The latter, after hearing, ordered on July 1, 1937, ‘that the suspension was proper, it shall stand as a matter of record in this department; and that no further action be taken in this case.’ The petitioner, contending that the record would injure him in his dealings with the police department, brought this petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the record.

This case involves no question as to the right to establish a taxicab stand or parking space on a public way against the will of an abutting owner. See Opinion of the Justices, Mass., 8 N.E.2d 179. The question relates solely to the right of the Commonwealth as against persons engaged in the taxicab business to establish a taxicab stand to which certain taxicabs are admitted and from which others are excluded. The system of special stands is assailed as denying ‘the equal protection of the laws' in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, U.S.C.A. and as contravening certain provisions of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which have been declared to ‘contain ample guaranties for equal protection of equal laws without discrimination or favor based upon unreasonable distinctions.’ Brest v. Commissioner of Insurance, 270 Mass. 7, 14, 169 N.E. 657, 660; Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine Transportation Co., 282 Mass. 345, 351, 185 N.E. 40.

The business of operating taxicabs is plainly subject to regulation in the public interest. Morley v. Police Commissioner of City of Boston, 261 Mass. 269, 276, 159 N.E. 41;Commonwealth v. Rice, 261 Mass. 340, 158 N.E. 797, 55 A.L.R. 1128;Rafferty v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 259 Mass. 145, 156 N.E. 28; Burrell v. Checker...