Court Opinion

ID: 9678583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:24:40.598309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.847813
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(concurring). I do not think we need to decide or imply in this case that because the county is referred to in ch. 114, Stats., as a “municipality,” the county airport is therefore a “municipality” as used in sec. 349.24 (2), Stats. All we need to decide now is that sec. 349.24 (2) authorizes a licensed taxicab operator to carry passengers on trips where either the point of origin or destination is within the city or village in which he is licensed, but does not authorize him to carry passengers on trips where neither the point of origin nor point of destination is in the city or village in which he is licensed. There has been no claim in this case that the county has, pursuant to ch. 114, Stats., enacted any ordinance which is in conflict with the taxicab ordinance of the city, and the county is not a party to this action claiming that its operation of the county airport under ch. 114, Stats., is burdened by enforcement of the Milwaukee ordinance, or that ch. 114, Stats., impliedly empowers the county to authorize cab operators licensed in one city or village to carry passengers from the airport to others, notwithstanding sec. 349.24. Cf. Milwaukee County v. Lake (1951), 259 Wis. 208, 48 N. W. (2d) 1.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Martin and Mr. Justice Brown join in this opinion.