Frisbie v. Columbus (City)

Citations

• 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 125

Syllabus

<p>LICENSES — VEHICLES.</p> <p>1. Act 99 O. L. 538, Does not Prevent Municipal Regulation of Motor Vehicles. Act 99 O. L. 538, providing for the registration, identification, regulation and licensing of motor vehicles neither inhibits municipal councils from passing ordinances requiring a license of the same vehicles,' nor from enforcing ordinances for such purpose in force at the time of the passage of such act.</p> <p>'2. Repeal of Unconstitutional Statute Does not per se Invalidate Ordinance Previously Enacted.</p> <p>Act 98 O. L. 320, compelling owners of such vehicles to register, and forbidding local authorities from passing and enforcing ordinances to regulate and license such vehicles, being clearly unconstitutional, its repealing clause was not effective to prohibit the imposition of municipal licenses.</p> <p>'3. Expense of Police Regulation of Motor Vehicles a Matter of License. Police regulations, supervision and control of the operations of motor vehicles in municipalities and the additional expense in construction and maintenance of streets required thereby justify the imposition of special licenses by way of municipal reimbursement, notwithstanding the imposition ■ of state licenses and regulation thereof by the state.</p> <p>4. “Use” Contemplated by Columbus Vehicle Ordinance is “Continuous and Repeated.”</p> <p>The doctrine announced in Pegg v. Columbus, 29 O. C. C. 390 (10 N. S. 199), that the “use” contemplated by the vehicle ordinance of the city of Columbus for the exaction of the annual license fee, provided for therein, must be in its nature “continuous and repeated” is hereby approved and followed.</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]</p>