Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 86 Wash. 594
• 150 P. 1134
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1018

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Police Powers — Taxicab Drivers — Solicitation— Ordinances- — -Construction. An ordinance regulating the conduct of taxicab and other drivers forbidding them to be at certain places or upon the property of transportation companies, “while engaged in such occupation and soliciting customers or passengers for hire,” does not prohibit them from entering such places when they are not soliciting patronage; nor does it attempt to regulate transportation companies; and the same is a lawful regulation of such solicitations, as a protection of the public.</p> <p>Same — Police Powers — Ordinances—“Soliciting.” -In an ordinance regulating solicitation by taxicab and other drivers, and confining the same to certain places, “soliciting” within the meaning of the ordinance is to ask for and seek to obtain the right to carry passengers or their baggage for hire by actual persuasion or persistent entreaty, and the mere presence of a driver, whether in uniform or not, and whether alone or accompanied by a vehicle, is not “soliciting.”</p> <p>Same — Officers—Actions—Personal Liability for Costs. In an action against a city and its chief of police to enjoin the enforcement of certain ordinances, in which the chief was acting without personal interest and as the mere agent of the city, it is error, on giving judgment against the defendants, to enter judgment for costs against the chief personally.</p> <p>Injunction — Actions — Issues and Relief — Remedy at Law— Criminal Process. In an action to enjoin certain acts of police officers in the enforcement of an ordinance regulating solicitation by taxicab and other drivers, it is error, in granting the relief sought, to enter a decree enjoining the plaintiff from soliciting passengers and baggage for hire in any other manner or places than that fixed by the ordinance, where the defendant had asked no such relief, and where the enforcement of the ordinance by criminal process is a sufficient protection against vi