O. L. SANDERS AND SAMUEL G. TUBELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; WALTER A. RICHARDS, AS CITY MANAGER; R. P. PRICE, AS CITY CLERK; B. F. BRASS, AS MAYOR-COMMISSIONER; HARRY R. LEAN, R. DENNIS CRAIG, J. D. MCMILLAN AND A. E. DONNELLY, AS COMMISSIONERS, AND DAYTONA BEACH MOTOR LINES, INC., A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a municipal franchise granted by Daytona Beach to operate a motor bus line for white passengers only, rejecting constitutional challenges based on racial discrimination and due process grounds. The court found no evidence of unreasonable discrimination or restrictions on public use of streets.
The franchise does not constitute unreasonable discrimination or impose restrictions that would unconstitutionally deprive appellants of property or due process. A franchise is valid if it does not divert municipal streets from public to private use or unreasonably hamper public use of streets.
“A franchise that would have the effect of diverting the streets of a municipality from a public to a private use or that would, unreasonably hamper the public in the use of them would be ultra vires and void.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining when a municipal franchise exceeds its authority and is void.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1927, the City of Daytona Beach granted a franchise to Daytona Beach Motor Lines, Inc. to transport white passengers only over certain cit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Franchise cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Pursuant to authority vested in it by the Legislature of Florida, the City of Daytona Beach in November, 1927, granted a franchise to Daytona Beach Motor Lines, Inc., a Florida corporation, for the purpose of transporting white passengers only over certain streets of said City of Daytona Beach. The said franchise was approved by popular vote December 6, 1927. On December 12, 1927, appellants as complainants below filed their bill of complaint to enjoin compliance with the terms of said franchise. Demurrers to the bill on the part of the City of Daytona Beach and Daytona Beach Motor Lines, Inc., were sustained and the motion for temporary restraining order was denied. Appeal is taken from the order sustaining the demurrers and denying the motion for temporary restraining order. It is contended here that the franchise brought in question is an unjust and unreasonable discrimination between the white and negro races; that it imposes unreasonable restrictions on a lawful occupation or business and that it deprives appellants of their property without due process of law.
A franchise that would have the effect of diverting the streets of a municipality from a public to a private use or that would, unreasonably hamper the public in the use of them would be ultra vires and void. 19'R. C. L. and cases cited. Careful examination of the record in this ease fails to disclose such unreasonable discrimination or restrictions as appellants contend that the franchise imposes and there is no showing whatever that it would in any way interfere with the public in the use of the streets of the City of Daytona Beach. It appears to have been authorized by the legislature and by the showing made was granted to safeguard and protect the traveling public.
The order of the chancellor is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.