Court Opinion

ID: 9829684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:31:59.57724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.202917
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees for the first time call our attention to the following cases which, they contend, are in conflict with our holding regarding R. S. art. 6698; Booth v. Dallas, 179 S. W. 302, Gill v. Dallas, 209 S. W. 209, Graham v. Seal, 235 S. W. 671, and Prater v. Storey. 249 S. W. 871, by the Courts of Civil Appeals, and Ex parte Parr, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 200 S. W. 405, and Ex parte Beck, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 20, 241 S. W. 174, by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Booth v. Dallas and Prater v. Storey are manifestly not in point and need not be further noted.
While in Dallas v. Gill the statute in question was construed and the general powers of cities to regulate and license was upheld, it does not appear that the particular question of the power to charge a license fee was involved, and the question was not discussed.
In Graham v. Seal the case was decided on other grounds, and the holding on the question now before us was clearly dictum. It may be noted that the Supreme Court refused a writ of error in that case “for want of jurisdiction.”
In Ex parte Parr the exact question appears to be decided adversely to our former holding, in the following language:
“With reference to the conflict with the-state law, it appears that section 25 [R. S. art-*4286698] of the 'act mentioned [Laws 1917, c. 190] contains the following:
“ ‘But this provision shall not affect the right of incorporated cities and towns to license and regulate the use of motor vehicles for hire in such corporation.’
“Similar authority is reserved in the city in another act of the same Legislature.”
It will be seen that the tax inhibition in article 6698, upon which the holding in A. B. C. Co. v. Houston is rested, was not embraced in the quotation from that article by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
It may also be noted that the wording of the tax inhibition, “motorcycles, automobiles or motor,” as originally enacted, was changed by the codifiers so as to read “motorcycles, motor vehicles or motor trucks.” But we attach no particular significance to this change.
The Parr decision was upon application for writ of habeas corpus, Parr being held under a charge of violating a city ordinance requiring the procuring of a license. The decision deals with the powers of cities to license the' occupation of operating motor vehicles for hire. It may be that the tax feature of the ordinance, even if held invalid, would not invalidate the ordinance otherwise, but would leave intact the requirement to procure a license.
We will assume, however, that the holding in the Parr Case was necessary to the decision and is in conflict with the decision in the A. B. C. Case. The holding in the latter was clearly absolutely essential to the decision rendered and furnished the only ground on which the trial court’s judgment was disturbed. The city of Houston sued out a writ of error in that case, and we quote the only assignment of error presented in the application:
“The Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding, as a matter of law, that article 7012%h (present article 6698) of Vernon’s Revised Statutes of Texas of .1918, while authorizing cities to require those who operate vehicles on the streets of such city to procure a license to do so, forbids the city to require the payment of a license fee for the issuance of such license.”
This application was refused; and such refusal constitutes the only authoritative pronouncement upon the question by the Supreme Court to which our attention has been called. We feel bound by this decision, regardless of the holdings of other courts.
We will add that nothing has been presented which would lead us to a view contrary to our original holding to the effect that the A. B. C. Co. Case was correctly decided on principle. If the Legislature had intended to except motor vehicles for hire from the tax inhibition in article 6698, it would not have been a difficult task to do so in express language. As the inhibition now reads, it clearly, to our minds, includes motor vehicles however used.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.