lle v. Corporation Commission, 82 Okla. 160, 199 P. 396; that state law controls the rate of wages payable to laborers employed by a home-rule city, State v. Tibbetts, 21 Okla. Cr. 168, 205 P. 776; that the disposition of penalties on delinquent city taxes, including delinquent special assessments for local improvements, is controlled by state law, not a charter provision of the municipality, City of Stillwater v. Board of County Commissioners of Payne County, 105 Okla. 271, 232 P. 438; that the issuance, sale, and redemption of municipal bonds, and the procedure therefor, are not matters of purely municipal concern, but are of general interest to the state, and that in case of a conflict between general law and the charter of the city the latter must yield, City of Tulsa v. Dabney, 133 Okla. 54, 270 P. 1112; and that control over streets and ways of municipalities is reserved to the state, and that a municipality may not exercise control thereover which is in conflict with state law, Continental Casualty Co. v. Lolley, 193 Okla. 22, 140 P.2d 1014. And this court has held that a home-rule city in the granting of an ordinance for the maintenance of a telephone system must yield to a state statute in respect to the use of the streets in connection with the operation of the system, City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 10 Cir., 75 F.2d 343, certiorari denied 295 U.S. 744, 55 S.Ct. 656, 79 L.Ed. 1690.
It is well recognized that control over the streets and highways, and similarly over the regulation of motor vehicular traffic thereon, within the corporate limits of its municipalities is reserved to the state, except in so far as the Legislature delegates such control to said municipalities. See Continental Casualty Co. v. Lolley, 193 Okla. 22, 140 P.2d 1014; Martin v. Rowlett, 185 Okla. 431, 93 P.2d 1090; King v. State (Okla. Cr.) 270 P.2d 370. Such regulation has a direct bearing upon public safety and welfare, and is a matter not only of public interest, but state-wide concern, and is a proper subject for the exercise of the State's police power.
A city has only such authority to regulate taxicabs and other vehicles operating on its streets as has been granted by the legislature. Martin v. Rowlett, 185 Okla. 431, 432, 93 P.2d 1090; City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 10 Cir., 75 F.2d 343, 345; Sx parte Duncan, 170 Okla. 355, 65 P.2d 1015; Continental Casualty Co. v. Lolley, 193 Okla. 22, 140 P.2d 1014. In 1919 the legislature passed an act authorizing any city of this state to enact reasonable regulations pertaining to the use of automobiles for the carrying of passengers for hire within such city, and specifically authorizing regulations requiring a policy of insurance or bond covering liability in the case of each automobile used for carrying passengers for hire. Such statute appears at 47 O.S. 1941 §§ 221[ 47-221] to 223.
etc. v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 318 Ill. App. 553, 48 N.E.2d 440; Hill v. Standard Mutual Casualty Co., 110 F.2d 1001; Kabinski v. Employer's Liability Assur. Corporation, Ltd., 123 N. J. L. 377, 8 A.2d 605; Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, 301 Mass. 559, 17 N.E.2d 885; Laroche v. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 335 Pa. 478, 7 A.2d 361; McCann v. Iowa Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Cedar Rapids, 231 Ia. 509, 1 N.W.2d 682; Hoosier Casualty Co. v. Miers, 217 Ind. 400, 27 N.E.2d 342; Manthey v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 127 Conn. 516, 18 A.2d 397; Goldstein v. Bernstein, 315 Mass. 329, 52 N.E.2d 559; Hodges v. Ocean Accident Guarantee Corporation, 66 Ga. App. 431, 18 S.E.2d 28; Mancini v. Thomas, 113 Vt. 322, 34 A.2d 105; Clark Motor Co. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 172 Ore. 145, 139 P.2d 570; Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Wachsmith, 2 Wash.2d 679, 99 P.2d 420; Mirich v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 64 Cal. App. 2d 522, 149 P.2d 19; Eakle v. Hayes, 185 Wash. 520, 55 P.2d 1072; Continental Casualty Co. v. Lolley, 193 Okla. 22, 140 P.2d 1014; Snyder v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. of St. Paul (Texas Civil Appeals) 191 S.W.2d 107; 29 Am. Jur., pp. 672, 673, §§ 878, 879; 45 C.J.S., p. 684, et seq., § 714; 6 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, p. 94, § 4062; 5 Couch Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, p. 4187, et seq., § 1175 (e); Appleman Automotive Liability Insurance, p. 443; 81 A.L.R. 1382. It is to be noted that neither counsel make any reference to Exhibit A, and apparently have entirely overlooked its importance in the determination of this case.
" Continental Casualty Co. v. Lolley, 193 Okla. 22, 140 P.2d 1014. It thus appears that the provisions of § 125.9 [ 47-125.9] of Title 47, O.S.Supp. 1953, prohibiting any public authority to permit upon (whether front or side or back) any street or highway any traffic sign or signal bearing thereon (front, side or back) any commercial advertising, constitutes a prohibition against any municipality or any other public authority from so doing either by contract or otherwise.