Case Name: THE CITY OF OSWEGO, Appellant, v. MARTIN B. COLLINS, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-11
Citations: 45 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 171
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE CITY OF OSWEGO, Appellant, v. MARTIN B. COLLINS, Respondent.
Judges: Boardman, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 45
Pages: 171–174

Head Matter:
THE CITY OF OSWEGO, Appellant, v. MARTIN B. COLLINS, Respondent.
City ordinance — when a hotel omnibus is not a “public comeycmce.”
An ordinance of the city of Oswego provided that “all hacks, baggage wagons- and public conveyances are hereby prohibited from standing on West Utica street at any point between the Oswego river and West Third street; and, further, all hacks, baggage wagons and public conveyances are hereby prohibited from standing on West First street and West Second street at any point on said West First street and West Second street between Albany and Mohawk streets; and the driver or drivers, and the owner or owners, of said, vehicles violating this section shall be subject to a penalty of five dollars for each said violation.”
Held, that an omnibus owned by the proprietor of a hotel in the city, and used to convey free of charge guests of the hotel to and from the different railroad stations and steamboat landings in the city, was not a “ public conveyance ” within the meaning of the ordinance. (Follett, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, entered in the-County Court of Oswego county, upon tbe report of a referee.
Tbe action was brought to recover sundry penalties for alleged violations of section 15 of chapter 11 of tbe ordinances of tbe said city of Oswego, which were passed on August 7, 1877. Tbe language of tbe ordinance was, viz.; “All backs, baggage wagons and public conveyances are hereby prohibited from standing on WestUtica street at any point between tbe Oswego river and "West Third street; and further, all backs, baggage wagons and public conveyances are hereby prohibited from standing on West First street and West Second street at any point on said West First street and West Second street between Albany and Mohawk streets, and tbe driver or drivers and tbe owner or owners of said vehicles violating this section shall be subject to a penalty of five dollars for each said violation.” Tbe referee found that tbe defendant was in tbe employ of proprietors of tbe Doolittle bouse, a public bouse in tbe said city, as tbe driver of an omnibus, belonging to said public bouse; that at various times in tbe month of August, 1877, tbe omnibus-stood on tbe streets at tbe prohibited points; also, “ that said omnibus on said occasions and at all times during said month was used solely for tbe purpose of carrying the guests of said public house to- ■and from the different railroad stations and steamboat landings in •said city, and that no compensation was charged or received for such carrying.”
The referee found as matter of law “ that said omnibus was not a hack or baggage wagon, and was not a public conveyance within the meaning or sense of section 15 of chapter 11 of said •ordinances,” etc.
J. B. O’ Gorma/n, for the appellant.
C. & G. F. WMtney, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.:
According to the finding of fact made by the referee, persone •who had been guests, or who intended to be guests of, the Doolittle house, were accustomed to ride in the omnibus driven by defendant. Such persons only were entitled to use the omnibus. Had it been a public conveyance, as for instance a stage ooach run for the general public, or a street car, the whole public would have been entitled to( use it, and could not have been excluded from it. If the omnibus] had been in use at a seminary to carry students to and from the seminary to railroad stations and steamboat landings, it would have been known as a private conveyance with which the general public would have had no concern or right to use. If the ordinance had •omitted the word " public " as a word qualifying " conveyance,", the omnibus in question would have been within the words of the •ordinance. We are asked to give the same effect to the ordinance .as though the word " public " was omitted therefrom. On the contrary, we must give effect to the word " public " when we construe the ordinance.
Inasmuch as the public were not entitled to use the conveyance in question, as the public at large is entitled to use a " public conveyance," we should not give the proper construction to the facts •disclosed if we were to declare the omnibus which the defendant drove a " public conveyance."
If the defendant had taken the same omnibus and driven to and from a fair ground, soliciting passengers from the public, and receiving patronage from the public, and compensation for riding in it, then it would have fallen under the class known and denom inated " public conveyances." (City of Brooklyn v. Breslin, 57 N. Y., 591.) Upon tbe facts stated in. tbe referee's report, we are of tbe opinion that his conclusion of law, that the omnibus in question was not a "public conveyance" is correct. We, therefore, should affirm the conclusion reached by the referee.
Judgment of the County Court of Qswego County affirmed* with costs.
Boardman, J., concurred.