Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. v. Cooperative Cab Co.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | 35855. |
| Citation | 7 So.2d 353,199 La. 1063 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOYE BROS. YELLOW CAB CO. v. COOPERATIVE CAB CO., Inc., et al. |
Rehearing Denied March 30, 1942.
T. S. Walmsley and A. D. Danziger, both of New Orleans, for appellant Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co.
Clay & Kohlman, of New Orleans, for appellee Cooperative Cab Company, Inc.
Francis P. Burns and William Boizelle, both of New Orleans, for appellee City of New Orleans.
The plaintiff, Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company, a partnership engaged in the business of operating taxi cabs on the streets of the City of New Orleans, brought this suit against the Commission Council of the City of New Orleans and the Cooperative Cab Company Inc., seeking to enjoin the City from issuing permits to the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., to operate taxi cabs and to annul and cancel the permits under which the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., is now operating.
The petition for an injunction is predicated on the grounds: (1) That Ordinance 14,856 of the Commission Council Series, amending Ordinance 13,825 C.C.S., under which permits were issued to the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., is violative of the Constitution; (2) That the City issued permits to the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., without requiring it to comply with the provisions of Ordinance 13,825 C.C.S., as amended and the laws regulating trading corporations and/or insurance companies.
The plaintiff alleges that the illegal operation of taxi cabs by the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., is causing it irreparable injury by subjecting the plaintiff to illegal and unfair competition, and that it has no adequate remedy at law.
The defendants, in their answer, deny that the ordinance complained of is unconstitutional; deny that the ordinance and laws of the State were not complied with in the issuance of the permits; and deny that the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., is engaging in the insurance business.
The defendants interposed an exception of no cause of action.
The plaintiff attacks the constitutionality of Ordinance 14,856 C.C.S. on various grounds by special plea.
Ordinance 13,825 C.C.S., adopted December 30, 1932, Section 3 provides:
'All persons, firms, or corporations applying for a permit to operate, under the same ownership, more than one public motor vehicle, must file an indemnity bond, or deposit with the City, cash or United States bonds or bonds of the City of New Orleans, in an equal amount of the bond required by such person or persons, firm or corporation, covering all such motor vehicles in amounts as follows:
'One only, $11,000;
'Two to five inclusive, $11,000, plus $750 for every vehicle over one;
'Six to ten inclusive, $14,000.00 plus $500, for each vehicle over five;
'Eleven to twenty-five inclusive, $16,500, plus $200 for each vehicle over fifteen;
'Twenty-six and over, $20,000, the maximum required.'
The plaintiff applied for and secured a permit to operate taxi cabs posting bond in the amount of $20,000, under Ordinance 13,825 C.C.S. Subsequently, on February 14, 1939, the Commission Council amended the Ordinance by the adoption of Ordinance 14,856 and by adding the following provision:
'Whenever any person or persons, firms or corporations jointly apply for a permit to operate twenty-six or more cabs, they may jointly deposit a cash bond of $20,000.00; provided that such person or persons, firms or corporations when making such joint application may, before commencing business, deposit not less than $5,000.00, provided thereafter on the first day of every successive month they deposit:
'$250.00 a month for not more than 100 cabs;
'$500.00 a month for not more than 150 cabs;
'$1,000.00 a month for more than 151 cabs, until the maximum of $20,000.00 is reached and maintained.'
A number of independent cab owners in the City of New Orleans organized the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., defendant herein, for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of this Ordinance, 14,856 C.C.S. The Cooperative Cab Company, Inc. applied for and secured permits under the provisions of the amendment to the Ordinance, and made the required deposit of $5,000. It appears that two men who were not cab owners obtained and continued complete control of the Cooperative Cab Company Inc., without permitting the cab owners any voice in their affairs, until March, 1940. At that time, the Cooperative Cab Company, Inc., was in arrears of the monthly deposits in the amount of $2,250, which amount had not been paid to the City. The cab owners raised this amount and deposited it with their bond to the City. This increased the deposit to a total of $8,050. Since that date, the cab owners have been operating the affairs of the company.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.—E. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., Civil Action No. 13–5410.
...261 La. 1110, 262 So.2d 339, 348 (1972) (Summers, J., dissenting)).68 Id. at p. 31.69 Id. (citing Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. v. Coop. Cab Co., 199 La. 1063, 7 So.2d 353, 354 (1942) ).70 Id. at p. 32.71 Id.72 Id. (citing City of Shreveport v. Gulf Oil Corp., 431 F.Supp. 1 (W.D.La.1975), aff'd......
-
Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Memorial Park
...p. 598; New Orleans, Mobile & Texas Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166, 26 L.Ed. 1015 (1882); Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. v. Cooperation Cab Co., 199 La. 1063, 7 So.2d 353 (Sup.Ct.1942). Cf. New Jersey Bankers' Ass'n v. Van Riper, 1 N.J. 193, 62 A.2d 677 (1948); Newark Twentieth Century T......
-
People ex rel. J. H. Anderson Monument Co. v. Rosehill Cemetery Co.
...183, 87 A. 358; New England R. Co. v. Central Railway and Electric Co., 69 Conn. 47, 36 A. 1061. In Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. v. Cooperative Cab Co., Inc., 199 La. 1063, 7 So.2d 353, decided in 1942, the plaintiff cab company sought to enjoin the operation of a rival cab company on the grou......