Case Name: HODGE DRIVE-IT-YOURSELF CO et v. CINCINNATI (city) et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1930-03-24
Citations: 8 Ohio Law Abs. 427
Docket Number: No 3602
Parties: HODGE DRIVE-IT-YOURSELF CO et v CINCINNATI (city) et
Judges: Ross and Hamilton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 8
Pages: 427–427

Head Matter:
HODGE DRIVE-IT-YOURSELF CO et v CINCINNATI (city) et
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
No 3602.
Decided March 24, 1930
Julius R. Samuels, Cincinnati, for Companies.
John D. Ellis, City Solicitor and Milton H. Schmidt, Assistant City Solicitor, Cincinnati, for city.

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.