Opinion
July 18, 1950. Rehearing Denied October 16, 1950.
Mathews Mathews, John E. Mathews and John E. Mathews, Jr., Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Lewis W. Petteway, D. Fred McMullen and Guyte P. McCord, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondents.
Clifford T. Inglis, Jacksonville, for intervening plaintiff-respondent, Airline Service Inc.
William M. Madison, Jacksonville, as amicus curiae.
The legislature of 1949 enacted Chapter 25922, Laws of Florida, authorizing the City of Jacksonville to regulate motor transportation for hire between the City and the Municipal air port, the City Zoo and other properties of the City located near its limits. Prior to the passage of this act Brack was enjoined from operating motor vehicles for hire between the city and the municipal airport on the theory that the city had never assumed jurisdiction over it nor had made any move toward regulation. Brack v. Carter, 160 Fla. 845, 37 So.2d 89.
This proceeding was instituted by a motion on the part of petitioner as plaintiff to suspend, modify or remove the injunctive order restraining him from transporting persons or property for hire between the municipal airport and points within the city. The motion to remove the injunctive order was made in reliance on Chapter 25922, Laws of Florida. Respondents moved to dismiss the motion to revoke the injunctive order on the theory that Chapter 25922 is unconstitutional and void. Respondents' motion was granted and the cause was dismissed. This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 34 of the Rules of this Court from the dismissal order.
Several questions are urged for determination but they all turn on the constitutional validity of Chapter 25922, Acts of 1949.
From a reading of the order granting the motion to dismiss the motion to revoke the injunctive order, it is not clear whether the trial court intended to rule on the constitutional validity of Chapter 25922, Acts of 1949, or not. We are of the view however, that this was clearly before the court and that his order of dismissal was equivalent to holding the act in violation of the Constitution.
In this we think the chancellor was in error. In City of Pensacola v. King et al., Fla., 47 So.2d 317 not yet reported in State Report, we were confronted with the constitutional validity of Chapter 24806, Acts of 1947, a very similar act to the act under review, relating to the City of Pensacola. The questions raised in that case were similar to those raised in the case at bar. We upheld the validity of Chapter 24806 and on authority of that case we think Chapter 25922 should be and is hereby upheld.
In this holding we do not overlook the secondary question presented, based on Brack v. Carter, 160 Fla. 845, 37 So.2d 89 and State ex rel. City of Miami Beach v. Carter, Fla., 39 So.2d 552. Respondents place great reliance on these cases, but our view is that they were concerned with legislative acts so different in substance and purpose from those involved in the instant case and in City of Pensacola v. King, that they are not in point and do not influence the decision of this case. In the case at bar and in City of Pensacola v. King, et al., the acts under review go directly to the power of the city to regulate motor transportation for hire with the city and the adjacent territory and we think the legislature was authorized to promulgate them.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment appealed from is quashed with directions to reinstate the cause and proceed accordingly.
ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN, THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.