People v. Sackett

6 Cal.App.2d Supp. 763 (1935) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

v.

J. P. SACKETT et al., Appellants.

California Court of Appeals.

April 13, 1935. C. P. Von Herzen for Appellants.

Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Newton J. Kendall, Assistant City Attorney, and W. Jos. McFarland and Albert E. Forster, Deputies City Attorney, for Respondent.

Schauer, J., pro tem.

Defendants severally appeal from judgments of conviction of violation of section 2 of Ordinance No. 71,485 of the city of Los Angeles, contending, among other things, that such ordinance is violative of constitutional [6 Cal.App.2d Supp. 765] limitations and beyond the power of a municipality to make or enforce.

[1] Such ordinance declares it to "be unlawful for any owner to operate or cause to be operated, any interurban stage without first having obtained (from the Board of Public Utilities and Transportation of the City of Los Angeles) a permit in writing ... so to do". The term "interurban stage" is so defined as to include motor carriers of either persons or property who use the streets of Los Angeles in carrying on a public transportation business between points one or more of which are within, and one or more without, the limits of said city. Before a permit is issued it requires that the owner file with the board, and thereafter keep in full force and effect, "a bond or policy of insurance in such form as said board may deem proper ... insuring the public against loss by reason of damage that may result to any person or property from the operation of" his interurban vehicles and a further bond in the sum of $2,500 "payable to the Board ... for the use and benefit of any interested person ...", conditioned upon the prompt payment to the shipper of collections made on C. O. D. shipments.

We think that such matters so attempted to be regulated by the ordinance are not local or municipal. The regulations imposed are not upon the use of the city streets as is contended, but upon the conduct of a business irrespective of the use of streets, except as such use is incidental to entry into or departure from the city in the carrying on of the business sought to be regulated; the bonds required are not limited for the protection of pedestrians, property owners, or shippers within, or shipments or collections originating or terminating within the corporate limits of the city of Los Angeles. The bonds so required would apply alike to business of the carrier throughout the state or elsewhere. "While the use of the streets may be regulated the city has no power to convert them into toll roads and thus exact tribute from those who in the conduct of business elsewhere have occasion to use them solely as highways." (In re Smith, 33 Cal.App. 161, 164 [164 P. 618].)