Commonwealth v. Boyd

74 N.E. 255, 188 Mass. 79, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 1087
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 17, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 74 N.E. 255 (Commonwealth v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 74 N.E. 255, 188 Mass. 79, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 1087 (Mass. 1905).

Opinion

Loring, J.

This case is before us on exceptions taken at the trial in the Superior Court of a complaint originally made to the Municipal Court. At the trial in the Superior Court facts were agreed to which showed that the defendant was guilty. The complaint charges the defendant with having operated a duly registered automobile “ without having then and there plainly displayed thereon, in Arabic numerals not less than four inches long, the registered number and mark of said automobile.”

The defendant made six requests for rulings which take up two printed pages, but which were in effect that St. 1903, c. 473, is unconstitutional.

There can be no question of the right of the Legislature in the exercise of the police power to regulate the driving of automobiles and motor cycles on the public ways of the Commonwealth. They are capable of being driven and are apt to be driven at such a high rate of speed, and when not properly driven are so dangerous, as to make some regulation necessary for the safety of other persons on the public ways. In this connection see Commonwealth v. Stodder, 2 Cush. 562, 570.

Nothing in the act has been called to our attention which is not a proper exercise of this power. This act being passed by the General Court, it is not necessary to consider whether a somewhat similar act can be passed by a city, as to which see a decision in a county court of Illinois, Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill. App. 94, the case that seems to have inspired the defendant’s argument here.

A. R. Shrigley, for the defendant. F. H. Chase, Second Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

The registration fee of $2, required to be paid by § 1, is plainly a license fee and not a tax, as the fees were held to be which were imposed by the city ordinances in question in Chicago v. Collins, 175 Ill. 445 ; St. Louis v. Grone, 46 Mo. 574; and Livingston v. Paducah, 80 Ky. 656.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Silver v. Silver
143 A. 240 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1928)
In Re Carlson
262 P. 792 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Commonwealth v. Rice
158 N.E. 797 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
State v. Caplan
135 A. 705 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1927)
Opinion of the Justices to the House of Representatives
148 N.E. 889 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson
86 So. 629 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Commonwealth v. Slocum
230 Mass. 180 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Ex Parte Parr
200 S.W. 404 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Foshee v. State
72 So. 685 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Territory v. Field
23 Haw. 230 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1916)
Janes v. Graves
15 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 17 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 1913)
Daugherty v. Thomas
140 N.W. 615 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1913)
City of St. Louis v. Williams
139 S.W. 340 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
State v. Mayo
75 A. 295 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1909)
Dudley v. Northampton Street Railway Co.
89 N.E. 25 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Commonwealth v. Kingsbury
85 N.E. 848 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 N.E. 255, 188 Mass. 79, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 1087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-boyd-mass-1905.