{
  "id": 1561050,
  "name": "McDonald v. City of Paragould",
  "name_abbreviation": "McDonald v. City of Paragould",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "226",
  "last_page": "230",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 Ark. 226"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326144
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ark. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1517074
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/88/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ark. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1509533
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/70/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ark. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1894438
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/43/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Am. Rep. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Mo. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "case_ids": [
        977594
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo/51/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 Pa. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S. E. 944",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Am. Dec. 679",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "703"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Mass. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        1981905
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/56/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326071
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Atl. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N. J. Law, 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.L.",
      "case_ids": [
        333509
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/njl/49/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Pa. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        985086
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/31/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ark. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1354020
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/102/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Am. Dec. 679",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Mass. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        1981905
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/56/0562-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 447,
    "char_count": 8186,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.425,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4578976305753934e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8052176014895077
    },
    "sha256": "ffff3f7fa667e561de51b7bc24528b179324712dd986fc38c36cdd8729a94ba8",
    "simhash": "1:1b0b848bc7bc9559",
    "word_count": 1449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:47:48.789730+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "McDonald v. City of Paragould."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.,\n(after stating the facts). The authority of the city to enact the ordinance under section 5450 of Kirby\u2019s Digest is not questioned, and there is no contention that the license fee required to be paid thereunder is unreasonable. It is contended only that the city is without power to regulate or restrict the operation of automobiles outside its limits, and that the business carried on by appellant was not within the limits of the city and subject to regulation by it under the terms of the ordinance.\nIt is argued in support of this contention that if the city of Paragould, within which the passengers were collected and 'discharged in the business of carrying to and from the fair grounds beyond the city limits and to and from the other town, has the power to require the payment of any such license, that each city or town through and into which the automobile might go upon its different trips would have a libe power and that the payment of a license to each of them would toe so onerous and (burdensome as to be .absolutely prohibitive, /and that only that municipality in which the business or occupation is wholly carried on or conducted has any such power.\nThere is no attempt upon the part of the city to extend its jurisdiction beyond its territorial limits in the passage of the ordinance, and it has .already been held that the owner of an automobile or motor vehicle .shall not ibe required to obtain any other license or permit to use and operate the same, than that required by Act 134 of the Acts of 1911. Helena v. Dunlap, 102 Ark. 131.\nBut section 13 of said act expressly declares it shall not be construed \u201cto affect the power of municipal corporations to make .and enforce ordinances, rules and regulations affecting motor vehicles which are used within their limits for public hire.\u201d\nThe court is of opinion that the ordinance, properly construed, means only to require the owner or keeper of an automobile \u201cfor the transportation of passengers for hire within the limits of the city\u201d to pay the license fee, and, since the .appellant did not keep or operate his automobile for the transportation of persons for hire from iand to points within the city, that he was not using it for transportation of passengers for 'hire within the limits of the city, in violation of the ordinance.\nThe terms of the ordinance are satisfied by holding that license taxes are to be imposed only by that municipality in which the business or occupation is carried on or conducted. Bennett v. Birmingham, 31 Pa. 15; Cary v. North Plainfield, 49 N. J. Law, 110, 7 Atl. 42; Common wealth v. Stodder, 56 Mass. 562, 48 Am. Dec. 679; Gettysburg v. Zeigler, 2 Pa. Co. R. 326.\nAppellant\u2019s 'business, not being .conducted within the city limits, a refusal to pay the license did not constitute a violation of the ordinance, and the judgment is reversed and the cause dismissed.\nMr. Justice Kirby thinks the judgment should be affirmed, and .dissents from the court\u2019s opinion. He is of opinion -that the statutes authorize the passage of such an ordinance which, by its terms, necessarily includes the business of operating an automobile for the transportation of passengers f or hire within the city limits, whether the journey of the passenger is begun and completed therein, or not. That since appellant took on his passen'gers at any place\u2019in the city designated by 'him or where persons desired to embark, and, returning from outside the limits, discharged passengers likewise, and kept his machine within the city where isuch business was conducted, that he was violating the ordinance in the conduct thereof; that the .city not only had the authority to fix the license for the carrying on of business, as conducted by appellant, but has done so in the passage of the particular ordinance. Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. Arkadelphia, 56 Ark. 370.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. P. Huddleston \u00aband Robert E. Fuhr, for appellant.",
      "J. C. Shane, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "McDonald v. City of Paragould.\nOpinion delivered October 4, 1915.\nMunicipal corporations \u2014 automobile licenses \u2014 passenger service. \u2014 A city ordinance provided for the payment of a license fee by automobile owners when passengers were transported for hire within \u25a0the limits of the city. Defendant transported passengers only between a point inside the city and a point outside the city limits. Held, defendant was not required to procure a license under the ordinance.\nAppeal from Greene Circuit Count; W. J. Driver, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe city of Paragould enacted 'an ordinance prescribing a license fee of $15, and providing:\n\u201cEvery person owning, keeping or running any hackney coach, automobile or any other vehicle or conveyance for the transportation of passengers for hire within the limits of the city of Paragould is hereby required to take out and procure a license from the city clerk for each hackney coach, automobile or other vehicle or \u00abconveyance soused.\u201d\nAppellant resides in the city and \u00abowns and keeps an automobile therein upon which he paid the State license, and which was used in carrying passengers for hire from within the city limits to the fair grounds \u00aboutside thereof, and from the fair grounds back to different portions of the city, and from within the \u00abcity limits to the town of Walcott, twelve miles distant, and from Walcott back into the limits of the city of Paragould. He at no time \u00abcarried persons for hire from one point to another within the city limits. He refused to\u00ab pay the license required by the ordinance \u00aband was convicted and fined for a violation thereof, and, upon appeal to the circuit court, was again convicted, \u00aband prosecuted this <ap\u00abpeal from the judgment of \u00abconviction.\nM. P. Huddleston \u00aband Robert E. Fuhr, for appellant.\nUnder the agreed statement of facts, there was no violation of the ordinance. There is no \u00abambiguity in it. 1 \u2018Within \u00abthe limits of the city\u201d \u00abcan have \u00abbut one meaning. To construe the ordinance \u00abso \u00abas to \u00abauthorize the city o\u00abf Paragould to regulate a transaction like this, would be to give its ordinance extra-territorial \u00abeffect, contrary to law. In attemp'ting to enforce the \u00abordinance \u00abas against the appe\u00abllant, the city seeks to exercise a police power in the regulation of a \u00abbusiness not \u00abconfined to the boundaries of the \u00abcity, a power which has not been conferred upon it by the Legislature. See Act 134, Acts 1911. It is inconsistent for two or more municipalities each to have power to regulate the same thing or transaction. If the city of Paragould has the power to regulate this business, the other municipalities to \u00aband from \u00abwhich appellant carries passengers have equal power, ,and will not be backward in \u25a0exercising it, which would result in endless \u00abconfusion, \u00aband become \u00abunreasonably \u00abburdensome. 56 Mass. 562, 48 Am. Dec. 679; 28 \u00abCyc. 266: Id. 703; 52 S. E. (Ya.) 174; 41 PaC. (\u25a0Cal.) 1093; 64 S. E. 944; 331 Pa. 15; 51 Mo. 122, 11 Am. Rep. 440 ; 43 111. App. 276; 2 P,a. Co. R. 326 ; 31 Pa. St. Rep. 15; 54 111. App, 87.\nJ. C. Shane, for appellee.\nSection 5454, Kirby\u2019s Digest, is authority for the enactment of the ordinance, and it is not superseded or repealed by the \u201cmotor vehicle law,\u201d Act 134, Acts 1911, in so far as the facts in this case are concerned.\nThe power of a city to regulate includes the power to tax a.s a means of regulation. 43 Ark. 82; 70 Ark. 28; 88 Ark. 263.\nHauling passengers for hire from a point within the city to some point without does not imply that the party doing the hauling is not hauling within the city for hire; \u2022and the fact that the owner of \u00a1an automobile goes upon the,streets, contracts to transport and does transport passengers for hire, is doing business within the limits of the city, regardless of whether or not the passengers are transported to some point without the city. It is not to be implied that, because the Federal Government has power to regulate interstate commerce, a city may not regulate the proportionate part of any business originating and 'being done within its limits, if given power in the first place by legislative ena'ctment to regulate such business.\nThe State map regulate intercity business, 'but a city may also regulate that part of it originating and being done within the city\u2019s limits. 56 Ark. 350."
  },
  "file_name": "0226-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 254
}