Court Opinion

ID: 3304529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:19:47.353957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:56.913638
License: Public Domain

I concur. I think, however, that the ordinance in question was intended to grant a certain right to use a portion of the public streets, and that, as it purports to be a grant by public authority of a right to the use of public property, it does purport to grant a franchise. The fact that it also regulates the manner of the use does not change its character in this respect. But in so far as it purports to grant such right, it merely attempts to give the plaintiff that which it already had, and was of no legal effect whatever. The assessment, being specifically upon that so-called franchise, was upon a thing which had no real existence and which could not have any value. It was, therefore, necessarily void, and its collection in the manner here attempted should be enjoined. *Page 752 
Angellotti, J., Sloss, J., and Beatty, C.J., concurred with Shaw, J.