Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati City

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati City

174 N.E. 613, 38 Ohio App. 29, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 427, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 523

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1930

DocketNo 3602

StatusPublished

This text of 174 N.E. 613 (Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati City, 174 N.E. 613, 38 Ohio App. 29, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 427, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 523 (Ohio Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

CUSHING, PJ.

The duty of the City with reference to its streets is defined by 3714 GC.

Section 3632 GC, provides in part:

“To regulate the use of x x x x coaches, omnibuses, automobiles, and every description of carriages kept for hire or livery stable purposes; to license and regulate the use of streets by persons who use vehicles, or solicit or transact business thereon; x x x x”

So that the municipality is not only charged with the duty of keeping the streets open, in repair, and free from nuisance, but it may license and regulate^ the use of the streets by automobiles for hire.

Plaintiffs claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional in that there is a taking of property of the plaintiffs without due process of law, and an interference with the inalienable rights of plaintiffs to acquire, possess, and protect their property. On authority of the case of State, ex rel McBride v. Deckebach, 117 Ohio St., 227, we hold that the ordinance is not a discriminatory or unreasonable exercise of the police power conferred upon the City by section 3 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio.

A decree may be presented accordingly.

Ross and Hamilton, JJ., concur.

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

CUSHING, PJ.

The duty of the City with reference to its streets is defined by 3714 GC.

Section 3632 GC, provides in part:

“To regulate the use of x x x x coaches, omnibuses, automobiles, and every description of carriages kept for hire or livery stable purposes; to license and regulate the use of streets by persons who use vehicles, or solicit or transact business thereon; x x x x”

So that the municipality is not only charged with the duty of keeping the streets open, in repair, and free from nuisance, but it may license and regulate^ the use of the streets by automobiles for hire.

Plaintiffs claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional in that there is a taking of property of the plaintiffs without due process of law, and an interference with the inalienable rights of plaintiffs to acquire, possess, and protect their property. On authority of the case of State, ex rel McBride v. Deckebach, 117 Ohio St., 227, we hold that the ordinance is not a discriminatory or unreasonable exercise of the police power conferred upon the City by section 3 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio.

A decree may be presented accordingly.

Ross and Hamilton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 N.E. 613, 38 Ohio App. 29, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 427, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodge-drive-it-yourself-co-v-cincinnati-city-ohioctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack