The following information on traffic laws in Florida was compiled using the Florida Statutes (F.S.); Laws of Florida; Florida Juris Prudence 2nd (Fla. Jur. 2d) articles "Automobiles and Other Vehicles", "Decedents' Property", "Courts and Judges", "Highways, etc.", and "Statutes"; Florida Words and Phrases; Florida Law and Practice; Black Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1933); Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1950/1957); Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990/11th reprint,1997); and other materials noted where applicable. But three different versions of Florida Juris Prudence 2nd were used so the cites to those may not match the edition available to everyone; in that event use the case index to find the Fla Jur 2d section. Also of note are old law compilations like Babbits Motor Vehicle Law.
Though much of this information focuses on Florida, most information and case cites are applicable in every state.
I have tried to give direct quotes where applicable; such quotes are "quoted" with the case cite following (in parentheses), with the source where I found the information/quote/cite following [in brackets]. Since most of the information has been the result of my research, I can vouch for the accuracy of the most material - with possibly some typographical errors; but some material has been taken from internet sources which I cannot vouch for - these I have preceeded with an asterisk ("*"). This compilation is also not properly organized nor complete: I make notes using two asterisks ("**") to mark areas that need further research/attention.

Quick Index

Definitions
Notes on Word Definitions
Notes on Laws & Amending -
The Right to Travel on Public Highways
- Superiority of use for travel
- New Uses or Methods of Use
Constitutional Right to Travel
What is "Regulation"?
Nature of Public Highways
Privilege of Using Highways for Business
Certificate of public convenience and necessity
Federal Regulation of "Driving"
Requirement for Driver's License
Nature & Scope of Florida's Traffic Laws
The MSO/MCO and the Security Interest
Registration of vehicles
Power of Courts
Service of Process
Power of Police Officers
Miscellaneous

Definitions:

Applicant - Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1983)

Applicant - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)

Applicant - not defined in Bouvier's (1856)

Applicant - Black's 3^rd

Applicant - Black's 6^th

Automobile - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)

Automobile - Black's 3^rd

Chauffeur - Compiled General Laws of Florida, s. 1280 (1927)

Chauffeur - Laws of Florida, c. 20451, s. 13 (g) (1941)

Chauffeur - F.S. 322.01(7) (1951)

Chauffeur - F.S. 322.01(7) (1961)

Chauffeur - Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 1965, Volume 1, Definition of Titles

...
(dom. ser.) 359.873. driver. Drives private car as ordered by owner or other passenger and performs other miscellaneous duties: Assists passengers to enter and leave car and holds umbrellas in wet weather. Keeps car clean, polished, and in operating condition, making minor repairs, such as fixing punctures, cleaning spark plugs, or adjusting carburetor. Frequently assists MAN-OF-ALL-WORK with heavy work. May groom and excerise pets.

Commerce - 49 U.S.C. 5102(1)

Driver - Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1983)

Driver - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)

Driver - Bouvier's (1856)

Driver - Black's 3^rd

Driver - Black's 4^th

Driver - Black's 6^th

Driver - F.S. 316.003(10)

Driver - Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 1965, Volume 1, Definition of Titles

(dom. ser.) see CHAUFFEUR.

Driver - Florida Words & Phrases

"For hire" - Compiled General Laws of Florida, s. 1280 (1927)

"For hire" - Laws of Florida, c. 25418, s. 1(9)

Infraction - F.S. 318.13(3)

Highway - Black's 3rd

An easement acquired by the public in the use of a road or way for thoroughfare. Bolender v. Southern Michigan Telephone Co., 182 Mich. 645, 148 N. W. 697, 700.
A free and public road, way, or street; one which every person has the right to use. Abbott v. Duluth (C. C.) 104 F. 837; Shelby County Com'rs v. Castetter, 7 Ind. App. 309, 33 N. E. 986 (Remaining cites omitted.)
The generic name for all kinds of public ways, whether carriage-ways, bridle-ways, foot-ways, bridges, turnpike roads, railroads, canals, ferrires or navigable rivers. (Numerous cites omitted.)
Highway refers to roadway or street which can be used for travel, as distinguished from way upon which road can be or is being constructed. Allen v. Jones, 47 S. D. 603, 201 N. W. 353; Town of Kenwood Park v. Leonard, 177 Iowa, 337, 158 N. W. 655, 659.
There is a difference in the shade of meaning conveyed by two uses of the word. Sometimes it signifies right of free passage, in the abstract, not importing anything about the character or construction of the way. Thus, a river is called a "highway;" and it has been not unusual for congress, in granting a privilege of building a bridge, to declare that it shall be a public highway. Again, it has reference to some system of law authorizing the taking of a strip of land, and preparing and devoting it to the use of travelers. In this use it imports a roadway upon the soil, constructed under the authority of these laws. Abbott.
* * *
Common Highway.
A road to be used by the community at large for any purpose of transit or traffic. Ham. N. P. 239; Railway Co. v. State, 23 Fla. 546, 3 So. 158, 11 Am. St. Rep. 395.
* * *
Public Highway
One under the control of and kept by the public, established by regular proceedings for the purpose, or generally used by the public for twenty years, or dedicated by te owner of the soil and accepted by the proper authorities and for the maintenance of which they are responsible. State v. Gross, 119 N. C. 868, 26 S. E. 91. It includes roads, streets, alleys, lanes, courts, places, trails, and bridges, laid out or erected as such by the public, or, if laid out and erected by others, dedicated or abandoned to the public, or made such in actions for the partition of real property. Pol. Code Cal. § 2618; Patterson v. Munyan, 93 Cal. 128, 29 P. 250.
* * *

Law of the road. Black's 3rd, under "LAW"

A general custom in America (made obligatory by statute in some states) for pedestrians and vehicles, when meeting in a street or road, to turn to the right in order to avoid danger of collision. See Riepe v. Elting, 89 Iowa, 82, 56 N. W. 285, 26 L. R. A. 769, 48 Am. St. Rep. 356; Wright v. Fleischman, 41 Misc. Rep. 533, 85 N. Y. S. 62; Decatur v. Stoops, 21 Ind. App. 397, 52 N. E. 623; Weck v. Reno Traction Co., 38 Nev. 285, 149 P. 65, 70.

Motor vehicle - Laws of Florida c. 14764 (1931)

Motor vehicle - Laws of Florida c. 20451 (1941)

Motor vehicle - F.S.316.003(21)

Motor vehicle - F.S. 320.01(a)

Motor vehicle - F.S. 322.01(26)

Operator - F.S. 163.566

(10) "Operator" means any person engaged in, or intending to engage in, the business of providing public transportation, but does not include a person engaged primarily in the transportation of children to or from school or a person or entity furnishing transportation solely for his or her or its employees or customers.

Passenger - Black's 3^rd

Passenger - Black's 6^th

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS - Baron's Law Dictionary (pg. 386)

one of the "unalienable rights" of people enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" and "liberty." "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment." 111 U.S. 746, 757. Because the right is not set forth in the Constitution, it is not enforceable by the courts. However, the right to the pursuit of happiness is often raised in arguments against government regulations, because its mention in the Declaration of Independence gives it a degree of forcefulness.

Straight truck - F.S. 316.003 (70)

Traffic - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)

Traffic - Bouvier's (1856)

Traffic - Black's 1st

Commerce; trade; dealings in merchandise, bills, money, and the like.

Traffic - Black's 3^rd

Traffic - Black's 4^th

Traffic -Black's 6^th

Traffic - Florida Words & Phrases

Traffic ordinance - Florida Words & Phrases

Traffic regulations - Black's 6^th

Transportation - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)

Transportation - Bouvier's (1856)

Transportation - Black's 3^rd

Transportation - Black's 4^th

Transportation - Black's 6^th

Transportation - 49 U.S.C. § 5102(12)

Transportation - Words and Phrases

Traveler - Blacks 3^rd

Traveler - Blacks 6^th

Vehicle - Laws of Florida c. 20451 (1941)

Vehicle - F.S. 316.003(75)

Vehicle - F.S. 322.01(42)

Notes on Word Definitions

Applicant: The common definition of "applicant" denotes "one who applies" for something, while the technical and legal meaning denotes - for driver licensing purposes - only those who are entitled to and who have applied for letters of administration. When the common man reads a technical use of the word "applicant" in a law or statute, he may inappropriately apply the common definition thereby misunderstanding the law or statute as applying to him.
Letters of administration are "authority granted by a court to the personal representative to act on behalf of the estate of the decedent". (FS 731.201(22)) [Fla Jur 2d, Decedents' Property, s. 527] Such personal representative must file an oath that such person will faithfully administer the estate of the decedent. (Fla Prob R 5.320) [Fla Jur 2d, Decedents' Property, s. 525] Said personal representative also "must file a designation of place of residence, post-office address, and the name, place of residence, and post-office address of a resident in the county where the proceedings are pending as the personal representative's agent for the service of process or notice, together with the written acceptance of the person so appointed. The designation by the personal representative and acceptance by the resident agent constitute the consent of the personal represenative filing it that service of process or notice upon the designated agent will be sufficient to bind the personal representative in any action against the representative, either in the personal representative's representative capacity, or personally, if the personal action accrues in the administration of the estate." (Fla Jur 2d, Decedents' Property, s. 526)

Automobile: 'An "automobile" is a motor vehicle.' Jernigan v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y., 60 S.E.2d 847, 848, 235 N.C. 334. [Words & Phrases, Automobiles, pg. 640] 'The word "automobile" in Motor Vehicle Act * * * requiring highest degree of care in operation * * *; such requirement being in derogation of common law, and therefore to be strictly construed…' Walinitz v. Werner, Mo.App., 241 S.W. 668, 669. [Words & Phrases, Automobiles, pg. 645] 'The term "automobile" is the general name which has been adopted by popular use and approval, for all forms of self-propelling vehicles for use on hghways and streets for general freight and passenger service.' Life & Casualty Service ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Roland, 165 S.E. 293, 294, 45 Ga.App. 467. [Words & Phrases, Automobiles, pg. 648]

Driver: The common definition of "driver" denotes anyone who is driving (in control of) a vehicle (conveyence). The technical meaning applies only to those who drive a vehicle used for transporting persons or property for hire. The common understanding of "driver" is not the technical one, so the common man may call himself a driver when in law he is not. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 21 So. 344.

Traffic: By all modern legal definitions "traffic" concerns the subjects of "transportation". It does not include one simply on a public highway travelling. Black's 3^rd gives one definition of traffic as "Traffic includes the ordinary uses of the streets and highways by travelers." But this definition was a departure from the commercial definition and was removed from Black's 4^th edition on and replaced with a commercial interpretation. Apparently the common definition had made its way into the legal dictionaries and needed to be removed to keep the legal definitions in accordance with original legal intent. The common, in contrast with the legal, definition includes all manners of [non-technical] vehicles (conveyences) on the highways and streets; thus the common man may consider himself to be under "traffic" laws when he is not.

Transportation: Transportation in the sense of "taking up of persons or property at some point and putting them down at another" (Caton v. Winslow Bros. & Smith Co., 34 N.E.2d 638, 642, 309 Mass. 150) is apparently of recent invention as Bouvier's 1856 edition Law Dictionary only presents a meaning relating to punishment for crime. The commercial and criminal definitions are presented in Black's 3^rd, but only the commercial definition remains in Black's 4^th and later editions. The common man's understanding that transportation is simply the "means of conveyance used", while not strictly at odds with the legal definition, tricks people into thinking that they own a means of "transportation" when they in fact own a "household good". ** TBD

Deliver distinguished from Transportation: "According to Webster's International Dict., Century Dict., vol. 2, and Black's Law Dict. 1184, there is a distinction between the words "transport" and "deliver"; the words being of entirely different origin and signification. To transport an article it must be received and retained by the person charged with the duty, while to deliver an article the person instrusted with the possession must part with it. The word "deliver" is compounded of "de" and "liverare," "to set free; to set at liberty; to give over." Revisal 1905 provides that any railroad, failing to transport within a reasonable time goods received, shall pay a penalty, and declares that it shall be considered that a railroad has transported freight within a reasonable time if it has done so within the ordinary time required. It is evident that the Legislature had in mind the distinction between duty to "transport" and to "deliver," since to transport is the act of the carrier without the intervention or aid of the consignee, while delivery cannot be accomplished without the concurrence of the consignee, and the effect of the statute is to impose the penalty on a railroad for failing to reasonably "transport" goods, as distinguished from a failure to transport and deliver goods to consignee, and for a failure to perform the first the penalty is imposed, while for a failure to perform the second the consignee may sue for damages. Alexandre v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 56 S.E. 697, 698, 144 N.C. 93, citing Bellows v. Folsom, 27 N.Y.Super.Ct. 43; United States v. McCready, 11 F. 225; Walker Bros. V. Southern R. Co., 49 S.E. 84, 127 N.C. 163; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 5 S.Ct. 828, 114 U.S. 388; Hilliard v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 51 N.C. 343; Chalk v. Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co., 85 N.C. 423; Coble v. Shoffner, 75 N.C. 42." [Emphasis added.] [Words & Phrases (under "Transport; Transportation")]

Notes on Laws & Amending

"Each law enacted in the Legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title; and no law shall be amended or revised by reference to its title only; but in such case the act, as revised, or section, as amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length." (Florida Constitution, Art. 3, s. 16) [Fine v. Moran, 77 So. 533, 538]

This constitutional provision "was designed to prevent the surprise or fraud on the legislators and on the people that might result from provisions hidden in the body of the statute and not indicated by its title. * * * Thus, where provisions in a statute constitute a broader or essentially different subject that is not properly connected with the stated subject of the act, such provisions are inoperative as violative of the constitution." (Fla. Jur. 2d, Statutes, s. 62)

"The constitutional provision that statutes must embrace a single subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject must be expressed in the title, applies to * * * all forms of legislative enactment". (Fla. Jur. 2d, Statutes, s. 65)

"Two subjects of legislation cannot be germane where it is necessary to change the meaning of words to place them in the same class or category, and where provisions applicable to the one are incongruous when applied to the other." (Beary v. Narrau, 37 So. 961, 962)

"But such amendment should be limited in its scope to the subject-matter of the section proposed to be amended. "In such case the introduction of any new substantive matter not germane or pertinent to that contained in the original sections cannot be regarded as an amendment thereto, but must be regarded as independent legislation upon a matter not expressed in the title of the act, and therefore void. The amendment of an act in general, or a particular section of an act, ex vi termini implies merely a change of its provisions upon the same subject to which the act or section relates." State v. Sugar Refining Co., 106 La. 565, 31 South. 181." (Beary v. Narrau, supra.)

"If, in legislating to amend sections expressed in the title, the lawmakers cannot alter the subject-matter of other sections not expressed therein, for a stronger reason they cannot ingraft in the sections to be amended provisos on a subject-matter not embraced in any section of the prior act." (Beary v. Narrau, supra.)

"Where a court is confronted with a statute, a literal construction of which would render it unconstitutional, the court must adopt such a construction, when reasonably possible, as will save the statute and at the same time save every savable provision or term in it." (Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth et al., 12 So. 2d 784, hn. 5)

"Where the words used have a definite and precise meaning, the courts have no power to go elsewhere in search of conjecture in order to restrict or extend the meaning. Black on Interpretation of Laws, 37. Courts cannot correct supposed errors, omissions, or defects in legislation. 'The object of interpretation is to bring sense out of the words used, and not to bring a sense into them.' Black on Interpretation of Laws, supra." (Fine v. Moran, supra, 536)

"All laws should receive a sensible application. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the Legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid results of this character [technical violation]. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter. * * * It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." (Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth et al., 12 So.2d 784, 786, quoting Boyd v. Coleman, 146 Miss. 449, 111 So. 600)

"The intention of the Legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. The court will not follow the letter of the statute, when it leads away from the true intent and purposes of the Legislature . . ." (Currary vs. Lehman, 47 So. 18, hn. 2.) [Quoted in Fla.Atty.Gen.Op. 041-79, February 20, 1941.]

Titles of laws cannot be "so worded as to mislead an ordinary mind as to the real purpose and scope of the enactment." (Butler v. Perry, 66 So. 150, 240 US 328)

"The test of whether a title misleads is whether it would deceive the mind of an ordinary person used to the common meaning of language, not the mind of a precisionist used to technical refinements of terms. (Ison v. Zimmerman, 372 So. 2d 431)" [Fla. Jur. 2d, Statutes, s. 63]

Time of taking effect

** TBD.

Class Legislation

** TBD.

The Right to Travel on Public Highways

"The right of a citizen to use the highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him." Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Ward, hn. 7, 137 So. 163 [Fla Jur 2d, Highways, s. 121]

"The right of a citizen to travel on public highway is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", and the right to "travel", which means the right to go from one place to another, includes the right to start, to go forward on the way, and to stop when the traveler's destination has been reached, and also the right to stop on the way, temporarily, for a legitimate or necessary purpose when that purpose is an immediate incident to travel." (Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth et al., 12 So. 2d 784, hn. 3)

"The right of the citizen to use the highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him, but it is subject to reasonable regulations in the interest of the public good. In degree this right of the citizen is superior to that of the common carrier by motorbus, dray, coach, taxi, or other device, the latter being controlled by legislative grant, or franchise which may be regulated or denied, and may be given to some and denied to others." Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Ward, 137 So. 163, hn. 7

"The constitutional right of citizen to travel on public highways may be reasonably regulated by legislative acts in pursuance of police power of state, but the police power cannot justify the enactment of any statute which amounts to an arbitrary and unwarranted interference with or unreasonable restriction on those rights of citizens which are fundamental." (Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth et al., 12 So. 2d 784, hn. 4)

"Statutes regulatory of highway traffic must have a practical or workable interpretation and not an arbitrary or unreasonable construction." (Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth et al., 12 So. 2d 784, hn. 1)

*"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

*"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

*"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 US 516*"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

*"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

*"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

*"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

*"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

"The power of the sovereign over the streets of a city is limited. He cannot alien them or deprive the inhabitants of their use, because such use is essential to the enjoyment of urban property." New Orleans v United States, 10 Pet 662, 9 L Ed 573. [8 U.S.Dig., Highways ¤ 8.]

Any temporary use of a highway or street that is rendered absolutely necessary from the necessities of trade or erection of buildings, that does not unnecessarily or unreasonably obstruct the same, is lawful. Indiana R. Co. v. Calvert, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 780, 168 Ind. 321, 80 N. E. 961. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 64.)

The streets and highways belong to the public. Hadfield v. Lundin, L.R.A.1918B, 909, 98 Wash. 657, 168 Pac. 516. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 65.)

The title to the streets being in the city as trustee for the public, no grant or permission can be legally given which will interfere with their public use. The right of the public to the use of the streets is absolute and paramount to any other. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co. v. New York, L.R.A. 1915F, 1009, 210 N. Y. 34, 103 N. E. 768. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 65.)

The citizens of a municipality have the right to the reasonable use of the streets not only on the surface but above the surface. Temple v. McComb City Electric Light & P. Co., 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 449, 89 Miss. 1, 42 So. 874. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 65.)

The dedication of land for a street creates an easement which allows the municipality to make any legitimate public use of it which does not impair the right of passage or the right of ingress and egress to and from the adjoining property. Hobbs v. Long Distance Teleph. & Teleg. Co., 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 87, 147 Ala. 393, 41 So. 1003. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 65.)

The ownership by a city of the fee of land in the street is impressed with a trust for the benefit of the whole people of the state, to keep them open for use as such. New York v. Rice, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 375, 198 N. Y. 124, 91 N. E. 283. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 65.)

A municipality holds its streets and its power to regulate and control them in trust for the public, and cannot put them to any use inconsistent with street purposes. McIllhinny v. Trenton, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 623, 148 Mich. 380, 111 N. W. 1083. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 65.)

A traveler lawfully using a public highway has the same rights to enjoy such use undisturbed as if he were the owner in fee simple. Smethurst v. Independent Cong. Church, 2 L.R.A. 695, 148 Mass. 261, 19 N. E. 387. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 65.)

Any and all of the public have an equal right to the reasonable use of a highway. Harold v. Jones, 3 L.R.A. 406, 86 Ala. 274, 5 So. 438. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

Public streets are for the use and benefit of all and no one has any exclusive right to privileges therein. Theobold v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co., 4 L.R.A. 735, 66 Miss. 279, 6 So. 230. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

The right of parties upon the public ways and streets is a public right in which the whole community have an equal interest, with an equal right to complain of any infringement upon any such rights. Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 8 L.R.A. 828, 82 Me. 391, 19 Atl. 902. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

All members of the general public without regard to the place or position they occupy or the business they are engaged in, are entitled to the equal use and enjoyment of the public streets and places. Louiville R. Co. v. Louiville F. & Life Protective Asso. 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 600, 151 Ky. 644, 152 S. W. 799. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

Highways are constructed and maintained at public expense, for public use by all persons alike, without limitation or restriction, save only that the use must conform to the well-established rules and regulations prescribed by law. Deputy v. Kimmell, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 989, 73 W. Va. 595, 80 S. E. 919. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

Every person whether an owner of the land or not, whether a citizen or stranger, has the right in common with the rest of the public, to travel all of the public highways. Hyde v. Minnesota, D. & P. R. Co., 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 48, 29 S. D. 220, 136 N. W. 92. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

All persons have equal right to use the public streets and highways for purposes of travel by proper means, with due regard to the corresponding rights of others. Butler v. Cabe, L.R.A.1915C, 702, 116 Ark. 26, 171 S. W. 1190. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

Every citizen has a right to use public highways. Swift v. Topeka, 8 L.R.A. 772, 43 Kan. 671, 23 Pac. 1075. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

The permanent use of a public street for a private purpose cannot be authorized by a city. Hibbard S. B. & Co. v. Chicago, 40 L.R.A. 621, 173 Ill. 91, 50 N. E. 256. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

No individual or corporation can acquire any portion of a public street, for exclusive private use, to the exclusion of the public. Hibbard S. B. & Co. v. Chicago, 40 L.R.A. 621, 173 Ill. 91, 50 N. E. 256. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

A public street in a city is a public highway and its uses belong to the public generally and it cannot be said that such uses are limited to the municipality or to its citizens alone. Alabama Western R. Co. v. State ex rel. Garber, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1173, 155 Ala. 491, 46 So. 468. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

The right of the public to use a street for purposes of travel extends to the portion set apart or used for sidewalks, as well as to the way for carriages, and, in short, to the entire width of the street upon which the land of the lot owner abuts. Chase v. Oshkosh, 15 L.R.A. 553, 81 Wis. 313, 51 N. W. 560. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 67.)

The public is entitled to the free and unobstructed use of the entire street and sidewalk for purposes of travel, subject only to the reasonable and proper control of the municipality. Vanderhurst v. Tholcke, 35 L.R.A. 267, 113 Cal. 147, 45 Pac. 266. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 67.)

The public has the right to the use of the entire sidewalk, in a public street, for the purposes of passage and other public purposes. Costello v. State, 35 L.R.A. 303, 108 Ala. 45, 18 So. 820. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 67.)

The public roads, free from any obstructions to travel, are solely, and from fence to fence, for the use of the traveling public. Lebanon Light, Heat & P. Co. v. Leap, 29 L.R.A. 342, 139 Ind. 443, 39 N. E. 57. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 67.)

The public is entitled to the full and free use of all the territory embraced within the limits of a highway, not only for actual passage, but for all purposes that are legitimately incident thereto. State v. Kean, 48 L.R.A. 102, 69 N. H. 122, 45 Atl. 256. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 67.)

A traveler may make use of any portion of the highway he chooses. Hubbard v. Bartholomew, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 443, 163 Iowa 58, 144 N. W. 13. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 67.)

*"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." (Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. Chicago, 66 A.L.R. 834,838, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N. E. 22.)

"All persons, in the absence of legislative edict, are vested with the right to the use of the streets and highways for travel from one place to another in connection with their business, when such use is incidental to that business. This is an ordinary use of the streets and highways, and is frequently characterized as an inherent or natural right." "Even the legislature has no power to deny a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." (Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. Chicago, 66 A.L.R. 834,842, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N. E. 22.)

"The distinction between ordinary use of the highways, which may not be denied, and extraordinary use thereof, which may be permitted or denied, has been shown in numerous opinions of this court, and by them it has become well-settled in this state that a city may, under the power of exclusive control granted to it by the Legislature, allow or deny any use of them which is not inconsistent with the public objects for which they are held, and may regluate such use and fix reasonable compensation to be paid therefor." (Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. Chicago, 66 A.L.R. 834,843, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N. E. 22.)

"The ordinary use of a city's streets by a citizen is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him by the city, and may only be controlled by reasonable regulation, but the right to use the streets for conducting thereon a private business is not inherent or vested, and can only be acquired by permission or license from the city, whose power to withhold such permission or license is an essential and necessary prerogative of municipal government." (State v. Quigg, hn. 5, 114 So. 859.)

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highways his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader. The right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature." (State v. Quigg, hn. 7, 114 So. 859.)

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse-drawn carriage or wagon or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may permit or prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Thompson v. Smith, hn 7, 71 A.L.R. 604, 154 S. E. 579)

"A city may, under its police power, regulate the right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways, but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict such right, nor may it permit one and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise such right." (Thompson v. Smith, hn 8, 71 A.L.R. 604, 154 S. E. 579)

"Neither a petition for mandamus to compel the restoration of an automobile driver's permit, revoked under an invalid ordinance, not the setting up of the invalidity of such ordinance as a defence to a charge of driving without a permit, is as complete and adequate as a suit for injunction against interference, under the color of such ordinance, with the lawful exercise of the right to drive an automobile on a city's streets." (Thompson v. Smith, hn 18, 71 A.L.R. 604, 154 S. E. 579)

The doctrine that "when the state or a city has the power to prohibit the doing of an act altogether, it has the power to permit the doing of the act upon any condition, or subject to any regulation, however arbitrary or capricious it may be; and it may lawfully delegate to executive or administrative officers an uncontrolled and arbitrary discretion as to granting and revoking permits or licenses to do such acts." "But this doctrine has no application to permits issued for the purpose or regulating the exercise of the common right to operate a private automobile on the streets of a city in the usual and ordinary way to transport the driver's person and property." (Thompson v. Smith, 71 A.L.R. 604,610-611, 154 S. E. 579)

"Statute requiring contract carriers by motor to obtain permits, held not construable as prohibiting casual use for hire of roads by individuals not in business of carriage for hire. (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Tex. Art. 911b.)" (Stephenson v. Binford, hn. 8, 53 F.(2d) 509.)

"A distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right, and one carried on by government sufferance or permission, since in the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to impose conditions, and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former." (Packard v. Banton, hn. 8, 264 U. S. 140, 44 Sup.Ct. 257.)

"The right to use the streets legitimately for transporting property is as secure and inviolate as the private rights of an abutting owner." McClintock v. Richmond Brick Corp. 152 Va 1, 145 SE 425, 61 ALR 1033.

*"Regulations, fees, taxes, may not be applied to natural person using common highways as it is in derogation of common right of public to use highways as an avenue upon which vehicles for transportation of goods, passengers, freight and traffic of all kinds may be freely moved, having due regard for rights of others, while this, or other provisions of statute, should be fairly, liberally construed to promote the effect the evident purpose for which it was intended, care should be exercised not to unduly extend it's effect." Young v. Madison County, 115 N.W. 23

*"This right of the people in the [use of] streets and highways of the State, whether inside or outside the municipalities thereof, is a paramount right." People's GasLight and Coke Co. v. City of Chicago, 109 N.E. 2d 777,781

*"Our society is builded in part upon the free passage of men and goods, and the public streets and highways may rightfully be used for travel by everyone." Hansen v. Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 383.

*"A highway is a passage, road and street which every person has a right to use." Jewett v. State, Ohio, 22 O.L.A. 37

*"A highway includes all public ways which public generally has right to use for passage and traffic, and includes streets in cities, sidewalks, turnpikes and bridges." Central Ill. Coal Mining Co. v. Illinois Power Co., 249 Ill. App. 199

*"Our court has stressed the basic right of the transient public and abutting property owners to the free passage of vehicles on public highways and the paramount function of travel as overriding all other subordinate uses of our streets." State v. Perry, 269 Min. 204, 206

*"A highway is a public road, which every citizen of the state has a right to use for the purpose of travel." Shelby County Com'rs v. Castetter, 33 N.E. 986, 987; 7 Ind. App. 309; Spindler v. Toomey, 111 N.E. 2d 715, 716.

*"The public have a right of free and unobstructed transit over streets, sidewalks and alleys, and this si the primary and appropriate use to which they are generally dedicated." Pughv. City, 176 Iowa 593, 599.

*"A highway according to the common law, is a place in which all the people have a right to pass. A common street and public highway are the same, and any way which is common to all the people may be called a 'highway'." Skinner v. Town of Weathersfield, 63 A. 142, 143;78 Vt.410.

*"The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compenation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.." Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972)

*"No State entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways...transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation, i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22

"The use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and individuals cannot be encroached upon by private individuals or corporations. Moreover, streets and highways are for the use of the public in general passage and traffic without distinction, and all persons have an equal right to use them for purposes of travel by proper means, and with due regard for the corresponding rights of others." (25 Am Jur, Highways, § 163, pg. 457.)

"The public right to use the streets legitimately for transporting property is as secure and inviolate as the private rights of an abutting owner. McClinton v. Richlands Brick Corp., 152 Va 1, 145 SE 425, 61 ALR 1033." (25 Am Jur, Highways, § 163, nt. 1, pg. 457.)

"The county court, which has title to the public highways in trust for the public, has no power, without legislative authority, to exclude any member of the public from reasonable use of the highways. Summer County v. Interurban Transp. Co. 141 Tenn 493, 213 SW 412, 5 ALR 765." (25 Am Jur, Highways, § 163, nt. 2, pg. 457.)

"The public easement includes every kind of travel and communication for the movement or transportation of persons or property which is reasonable and proper in the use of a public highway, or of a particular portion thereof, with all means of conveyance which can be introduced with a reasonable regard for the safety and convenience of the public, and without inflicting upon the owner of the fee an injury differing in kind from that imposed by use and improvement for ordinary public travel, and embraces all public travel, not prohibited by law or by dedicatory restriction, on foot, in carriages, omnibuses, stages, sleighs, or other vehicles, including motor vehicles, as the wants and habits of the public demand. The public in not confined to the use of vehicles is use at the time when the streets or highways were established, but may use such other reasonable means of conveyance as may be discovered in the future, provided they do not exclude the proper use of the highways by other modes or kinds of vehicles, or tend to destroy it as a means of passage and travel common to all." (25 Am Jur, Highways, § 165, pg. 459-460.)

Superiority of use for travel

The primary law of the highway is motion. Brandt v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co., 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 760, 78 Wash. 214, 138 Pac. 871. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

The primary use of a street is confined to travel and transportation. Donovan v. Allert, 58 L.R.A. 775, 11 N. D. 289, 91 N. W. 441. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

Streets are primarily intended for the use of travelers and a municipal corporation has no power in the absence of express legislative authority to allow a street to be used for any other purpose. Augusta v. Reynolds, 69 L.R.A. 564, 122 Ga. 754, 50 S. E. 998. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

The paramount purpose of maintaining streets and alleys is for public travel, and all other uses must be subordinate thereto. Spencer v. Andrew, 12 L.R.A. 115, 82 Iowa 14, 47 N. W. 1007. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

Streets and highways are dedicated, secured, and maintained primarily for public transit, and must be so preserved. All other uses thereof must be subordinated or yield to the right of free and unobstructed passage. Pugh v. Crawford, L.R.A.1917F, 345, 176 Iowa 593, 156 N. W. 892. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

The paramount object in establishing and maintaining streets is for the purposes of public travel, but, subject to this, they may be lawfully used for other purposes, which are conducive to the public convenience and which tend to make them of greater utility and convenience to those who legally have a right to their use. Smith v.Jefferson, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 92, 161 Iowa 245, 142 N. W. 220. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

It is the duty of the municipal authorities having control of the highways to keep in mind that they are primarily for the passage of persons on foot and in vehicles, and, while permitting them to be used for other purposes, it should not be done in a manner which will prevent their use by the public or will render them unsafe or dangerous. McKim v. Philadelphia, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 506, 217 Pa. 243, 66 Atl. 340. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

As a general rule, an occupation of streets otherwise than for travel and transportation is presumptively inferior and subservient to the dominant easement of the public for highway purposes. Cincinnati Inclined Plane R. Co. v. City & Suburban Teleg. Asso., 12 L.R.A. 534, 48 Ohio St. 390, 27 N. E. 890. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

A municipality has no power to authorize such a use of a street, although it be a public one, as will destroy its usefulness as a public thoroughfare. State ex re. St. Louis Underground Service Co. v. Murphy, 34 L.R.A. 369, 134 Mo. 548, 31 S. W. 784, 34 S. W. 51, 35 S. W. 1132. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

The right of the public to use the streets for the purpose of passage by such means as it may see fit to employ is given when streets are granted by a plat of an addition to a city, but this right of passage does not include the right to permanently and exclusively appropriate any portion of the street to the continued exclusions of the remainder of the public. Jaynes v. Omaha Street R. Co., 39 L.R.A. 751, 53 Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

The people generally are at liberty to use highways for travel, transportation and communication, subject only to the condition that such use does not interfere with other lawful uses of the highway nor invade the rights of the owners of abutting lands, where the state has neither prescribed any special conditions limiting or regulating such use, nor delegated its power to control the highways. State ex rel. Bartlett v. Weber, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1033, 88 Kan. 175, 127 Pac. 536. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 69.)

""It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * * * Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their separate classification and for relieving from the burden of the license tax those who merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or employees." Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238." (State v. Karel, 180 So. 3 at 8.)

New Uses or Methods of Use

A highway established for the general benefit of passage and traffic must admit of new methods of use whenever it is found that the general benefit requires them. Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 238, 165 Ind. 465, 74 N. E. 615. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 68.)

The general power to regulte the use of streets is not confined to public uses known at the time of its dedication, but extends to new uses as they spring into existence. State ex rel. St. Louis Underground Service Co. v. Murphy, 34 L.R.A. 369, 134 Mo. 548, 31 S. W. 784, 34 S. W. 51, 35 S. W. 1132. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 68.)

(1911). Owners and operators of automobiles have the same right to use the streets and highways that owners and operators of other vehicles possess, and all alike must exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety of others. Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co., 62 Fla. 166, 57 So. 233. (2 Fla Dig, Highways, 10.)

"[13] The defects which vitiate these instructions are so obvious that extended discussion is not required. It was held in House v. Cramer 134 Iowa, 374, 112 N. W. 3, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 655, 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 461, that "operators of automobiles have the same right to use the highways that drivers of horses or other vehicles possess, but they must excercise reasonable caution for the safety of others, and in dteremining the degree of care required the character of the machine, its speed, size, appearance, manner of movement, noise and the like may be taken into consideration." Also, see note to this case on page 463 of 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas., where a number of authorities will be found collected. It is said in Cunningham v. Castle, 127 App. Div. 580, text 586, 11 N. Y. Supp. 1057, 1061: "The automobile is not necessarily a dangerous device. It is an ordinary vehicle of pleasure and business. It is no more dangerous per se than a team of horses and a carriage, or a gun, or a sailboat, or a motor launch." It was said in City of Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill. App. 94, text 99: "The fact that an automobile as a comparatively new vehicle is beside the question. The use of the streets must be extended to meet the modern means of locomotion." The discussion in Moses v. Pittsburg F. W. & C. R. R. Co., 21 Ill. 516, as to the right to use the streets will be found profitable. Also, see Brinkman v. Pacholke, 41 Ind. App. 662, test 666, 84 N. E. 762. As was said in the note in 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas., referred to above: "Accordingly it has been generally held that the owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use highways or streets, and that like them he must exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety of others." In fine, whatever may be our individual feelings toward the automobile, and we recognize the fact that some view it with less and some with more favor, it would seem to have come to stay with us, and we would hardly be warranted in classing it as "an undesirable citizen," and we most assuredly cannot treat it as an outlaw." Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co., 57 So 233, 237 (S.C.Fla. 1912)

"Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages. (Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. Chicago, 66 A.L.R. 834,838, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N. E. 22.)

"Power conferred upon municipalities to regulate the use of the streets by motor vehicles does not include power to prohibit the use of the streets by them" (Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. Chicago, hn. 6, 66 A.L.R. 834, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N. E. 22.) "regulation is inconsistent with prohibition or exclusion." (66 A.L.R. 838).

The public have the right to adopt any method upon of travel upon the public streets not calculated to render the streets unsafe to others. Chicago v. Collins, 49 L.R.A. 408, 175 Ill. 445, 51 N. E. 907. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 70.)

Highways are constructed for ordinary use, in an ordinary manner, and not for an unusual or extraordinary use either by crossing at great speed or by the passing of a very large and unusual weight. Com. V. Allen, 16 L.R.A. 148, 148 Pa. 358, 23 Atl. 1115. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 70.)

A citizen has an absolute right to choose his mode of conveyance provided he observes all of the "laws of the road." Swift v. Topeka, 8 L.R.A. 772, 43 Kan. 671, 23 Pac. 1075. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 70.)

A distinction exists between streets and avenues of a park system to which a city has acquired title for such purposes and a street which has been simply designated a parkway by a park board with the consent of the city council; as, in the one case, the board has complete jurisdiction and power, not only to regulate, but to prohibit, general traffic; while in the other case it has no power to prohibit general traffic, but only power to regulate such traffic within a reasonable limit. State v. Rohart, 54 L.R.A. 947, 83 Minn. 257, 86 N. W. 93, 333. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 70.)

The legislature in the exercise of its police power, and general right to regulate the use of the highways of the state, may restrict, and even forbid, the use of such vehicles on the highways as are in fact dangerous to the general travelling public. Twilley v. Perkins, 19 L.R.A. 632, 77 Md. 252, 26 Atl. 286. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 70.)

A city has the right in the exercise of its police power, to enact such reasonable regulations for the safety of the public as are not in conflict with general laws, to regulate the use of vehicles on its public streets. While in doing this it may not arbitrarily discriminateagainst any species of vehicle, it may classify vehicles for the purpose of regulation in such a manner as is reasonable, in view of the character and manner of use and the danger to the public to be apprehended, and such classification must be upheld by the courts unless, it is manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary. Ex parte Cardinal, L.R.A.1915F, 850, 170 Cal. 519, 150 Pac. 348. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 70.)

Constitutional Right to Travel

Historic decisions: Right To Travel, see http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topic.htm.

"Although not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Constitution, the right freely to travel from one state to another, and to use the highways and other instrumentalities of the interstate commerce in doing so, is a basic right under the constitution." United States v Guest, 383 US 745, 86 S Ct 1170, 16 L Ed 2d 239. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 101.5, Right of interstate or international travel.]

"The nature of the Federal Union and constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement." Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618, 89 S Ct 1322, 22 L Ed 2d 600. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 101.5, Right of interstate or international travel.]

"The right of interstate travel is constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental interference." Griffen v Breckenridge, 403 US 88, 91 S Ct 1790, 29 L Ed 2d 338. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 101.5, Right of interstate or international travel.]

"Freedom to travel throughout the United States, which includes the freedom to enter and abide in any state in the Union, is a basic right under the Constitution." Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330, 92 S Ct 995, 31 L Ed 2d 274. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 101.5, Right of interstate or international travel.]

"Whereas the Constitution inhibits every state's power to restrict travel across its own borders, Congress has power to exercise such type of control over travel across the borders of the United States." Mathews v Diaz, 425 US 67, 96 S Ct 1883, 48 L Ed 2d 478. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 101.5, Right of interstate or international travel.]

"The right to travel is an unconditional personal right whose exercise may not be conditioned." Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330, 92 S Ct 995, 31 L Ed 2d 274. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 101.5, Right of interstate or international travel.]

"The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified." Califano v Torres, 435 US 1, 98 S Ct 906, 55 L Ed 2d 65. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 101.5, Right of interstate or international travel.]

"The constitutionally protected right to travel within the United States does not mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire, or pestilence cannot be quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and materially interfere with the safety and welfare of the area or the nation as a whole; the same is true of international travel." Zemel v Rusk, 381 US 1, 85 S Ct 1271, 14 L Ed 2d 179. [5 U.S.Dig, Constitutional Law, ¤ 528.2 Right of travel.]

"But there are certain inherent rights which men do not surrender by entering into organized society, and of which they cannot be arbitrarily deprived by the state. They are briefly summarized in general terms in section 1 of the Constitution of this state as follows: 'That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.' They embrace all businesses that are legitimate in character, and are of such nature as to indicate that they are inherent in the individual claiming them." (Taylor v. Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S. E. 259, at 263.)

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader. The right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities:
"A distinction must be made between the general use, which all of the public are permitted to make of the street for ordinary purposes, and the special and peculiar use, which is made by classes of persons in the pursuit of their occupation or business, such as hackmen, drivers of express wagons, omnibusses, etc. Tiedeman on Municipal Corporations, ¤ 299.
"The rule must be considered settled that no person can acquire the right to make a special or exceptional use of a public highway, not common to all citizens of the state, except by grant from the sovereign power." Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242; McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, 1620." (Ex parte Dickey, 85 S. E. 781, 782.)

"Laws penalize right to travel if they deny person necessity of life, such as free medical care." (Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551 (1992)) [6 Fla. D 2d-393, Const. Law]
"Compelling state interest" is not satisfied despite existence of substantial and desirable government interests. See William v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31-34, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10-12, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). [From Pottinger v. Miami, at 1581]

Right of citizens to be free to travel may be restricted only for a compelling state interest. (Hall v. King, 266 So.2d 33) [6 Fla. D 2d-393, Const. Law]

What is "Regulation"?

"The department of transportation is directed to conduct an investigation and to determine, as provided under the applicable statute, safe speed limits on the state highway and the state park road system. And the department may, as provided under applicable statutes, limit the use of state highways and state park road systems as to the weight, load and size of vehicles, and enforce such limitations." "The state road board is directed to prescribe, for municipal connecting roads, regulations for traffic thereon, including traffic signal lighting, minimum and maximum speed, and parking. Such regulations, when made and published or posted in the manner prescribed supercede all regulation relating to traffic made by the city or town. They also supercede any laws regulating traffic on such roads. They have the force and effect of law, their violation constituting a misdemeanor. And they are enforced by all law enforcement officers. (FS 335.05(5)" [Fla Jur 2d, Highways, sec. 126]

FS 355.05 was repealed in 1984, by Laws 1984, c. 84-309, s. 36.

There appears to have been no enactment to replace 335.05. If we rely on the authority of Florida Juris Prudence 2^nd [that the authors would have noted a law and statute which replaced the repealed 335.05(5) had there been one], we can reasonably conclude there is no such new enactment and that enforcement of traffic laws comes only through the authority granted with the driver license.

Also, the provision that traffic signs should "have the force and effect of law, their violation constituting a misdemeanor", was enacted by ch. 29965, titled "AN ACT to clarify and codify the Laws of the State relating to roads; * * *". It appears to me this act could have violated the requirement that amendments to laws cannot broaden the scope of the legislation to include previously excluded subjects. Also, as it appears it only applied to those under the "Laws of the State", as opposed to the "Laws of Florida"; it seems to have only applied to government employees.

"Municipalities may lawfully regulate the conduct of those keeping them open and available for movement of people and property, so long as legislation to this end does not abidge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature." Schneider v Irvington, 308 US 147, 60 S Ct 146, 84 L Ed 155. [8 U.S.Rep., Highways ¤ 13.]

"Where a restriction of the use of highways is designed to promote the public convenience and the interest of all, it cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some civil right, which in other circumstances would be entitled to protection under the Constitution." Cox v New Hampshire, 312 US 569, 61 S Ct 762, 133 ALR 1396, 85 L Ed 1049. [8 U.S.Rep., Highways ¤ 13.]

"Although a statute may be enacted which prevents serious interference with normal usage of streets and parks, licensing systems which vest in an administrative official discretion to grant or withhold a permit upon broad criteria unrelated to proper regulation of public places are to be condemned." Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 394 US 147, 89 S Ct 935, 22 L Ed 2d 162. [8 U.S.Rep., Highways ¤ 13.]

"The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order, but it must not be abridged or denied." Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 394 US 147, 89 S Ct 935, 22 L Ed 2d 162. [8 U.S.Rep., Highways ¤ 13.]

"Vehicles and pedestrians have equal rights in the use of public streets, and each must exercise reasonable care to prevent collisions." (Brown v. City of Wilmington, hn. 1, 4 Boyce 492, 90 Atl. 44).

"A distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right, and one carried on by government sufferance or permission, since in the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to impose conditions, and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former." Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140, 44 Sup.Ct. 257

"It is a rule of law that one driving or operating a vehicle is bound to consider the lack of capacity of those in his way to care for their safety, when such incapacity is known or should have been known by him, and the law exacts greater care toward those who are unable to care for themselves, as children, blind persons and in fact drunken persons, when such incapacity is known or should have been known by the one driving or operating the vehicle." Brown v. Mayor, etc. of City of Wilmington, 4 Boyce 492, 90 Atl. 44, at 46.

"A pedestrian and the operator of an automobile have each the right to pass and repass on city streets, but neither may do so negligently exercise the right as to injure the other, and each must regulate his own use of the street by observing ordinary care to avoid being injured or inflicting injury on the other." (Harker v. Gruhul, hn. 4, 111 N. E. 457, 62 Ind App. 177.)

"The general princples governing interpretation and construction of police regulations generally are applicable to regulations governing use of highways." State ex rel Parker v. Frick, hn. 4, 7 So.2d 152 (March 24, 1942, S. C. Fla.)

Nature of Public Highways

"The right of occupancy of the street by the public is a mere easement or right of passage." (State ex rel. Harkow v. McCarthy (1936), 171 So. 314, 316 quoting Lutterloh v. Mayor, etc. of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306, 308)

"It is said that a common-law dedication does not operate as a grant but by way of estoppel in pais. A dedication is regarded not as a transferring a right, but as operating to preclude the owner from resuming his right of private property or from any use inconsistent with the public use. (23 Am Jur 2d, Dedication, s. 56) Under a common-law dedication, the fee does not pass from the grantor, as the public acquires only a right of easement in trust, so long as the dedicated land is used for the purposes of the dedication. (Florida State Turnpike Authority v Anhoco Corp. (1958), Fla App D3 107 So 2d 51)" (Fla Jur 2d, Dedication, s. 24)

"The right to use a special facility * * * is not an inherent right in the public". "[T]he right of the citizens to travel the public highways (when not exercised as a means of conducting private business thereon) is subject only to the police power and of the power of taxation, and is an inherent right which, in its very essence, is quite a difference from the right to use a special facility * * * erected under a franchise." (Day v. City of St. Augustine (1932), 139 So. 880, 882)) [***]

"There are certain methods by which the public acquires the right to pass and repass over a way thus establishing a highway. Those methods are by prescription or long user as such; by statute or statutory proceedings in the exercise of the right of eminent domain; or by dedication to the public by the owner of the soil with the sanction of the public authorities." * * * "The mere expenditure of public money upon the road under the agreement is not in itself sufficient to establish the highway." (Couture v. Dade County (1927), 112 So. 75, 79) [***]

Extensive discussion of the rights of the public in public streets. McHarge v. Newcomer, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 298, 117 Tenn. 595, 100 S. W. 700. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

There is no substantial difference between streets in which legal title is in private individuals and those in which it is in the public as to the rights of the public therein. Montgomery v. Santa Ana & W. R. Co. 25 L.R.A. 654, 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

The rights of the public in a street are precisely the same, whether the fee to the land is in the public or in the abutting landowner. Kellogg v. Cincinnati Traction Co. 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 158, 80 Ohio 331, 88 N.E. 882. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

The public holds the title to streets and alleys in trust for the use to which they are dedicated when the fee simple vests in the public on the platting of an addition to a city. Jaynes v. Omaha Street R. Co., 39 L.R.A. 751, 53 Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

The rights of a municipality to the ownership of the fee of the streets are subject to the paramount right of the general public to the use of the streets and their control and improvement as the public interests may require in the discretion of the local municipal authorities. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. West Chicago Park, 25 L.R.A. 300, 151 Ill. 204, 37 N. E. 1079. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

A city holds its streets in trust for the benefit of the public, and cannot authorize their use for the sole and exclusive benefit of private individuals or corporations, to the detriment of the superior right of the public. People ex rel. Mather v. Marshall Field & Co., L.R.A. 1915F, 937, 266 Ill. 609, 107 N. E. 864. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

A municipality may determine the extent and manner of the public use of streets and may regulate the use by owners of the soil; but it cannot arbitrarily take away the property rights of such owners. Colegrove Water Co. v. Hollywood, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 904, 151 Cal. 425, 90 Pac. 1053. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

"The coporate authorities of a town have no right to appropriate the public streets to any other uses than that of travel or right of way to which they were dedicated and the convenience of the whole public; and they cannot lawfully obstruct the streets with public or private buildings; and any person whose property is especially injured thereby may have the aid of the courts of equity to restrain such improper appropriation." Lutterloh vs. Mayor, &c, of Cedar Key, 15 Fla., 306. (Quoted in Garnett vs. The Jacksonville ... River Railway Co., 20 Fla. 889, 890.)

FS 95.361 Roads presumed dedicated.--
(1) When a road, constructed by a county, a municipality, or the Department of Transportation, has been maintained or repaired continuously and uninterruptedly for 4 years by the county, municipality, or the Department of Transportation, jointly or severally, the road shall be deemed to be dedicated to the public to the extent in width that has been actually maintained for the prescribed period, whether or not the road has been formally established as a public highway. […]

FS 335.01 Designation and systemization of public roads.--
(1) All roads which are open and available for use by the public and dedicated to the public use, according to law or by prescription, are hereby declared to be, and are established as, public roads.
(2) Public roads shall be divided into four systems:
(a) The State Highway System;
(b) The State Park Road System;
(c) The county road system; and
(d) The city street system.

"National System of Interstate and Defense Highways"

The interstate highways are for the Department of Defense and are limited access highways.

Parkway: The term "parkway" as used in chapter 2 of this title, means a parkway authorized by an Act of Congress on lands to which title is vested in the United States. (23 USC 101(a))

Public road: The term "public road" means any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel. (23 USC 101(a))

Note that section (b), following, says "It is hereby declared to be in the national interest to accelerate the construction of the Federal-aid highway systems, including The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, since many of such highways, or portions thereof, are in fact inadequate to meet the needs of local and interstate commerce, for the national and civil defense." [Emphasis added.] Nowhere does the word "public" appear.

23 USC § 103. Federal-aid systems

1. In General. - For purposes of this title, the Federal-aid systems are the Interstate System and the National Highway System.
2. National Highway System. -

1. Purpose. - The purpose of the National Highway System is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. [Emphasis added.]

Nothing is said about public use. I suspect "travel" means that afforded by common carrier rather than private travel.

"State's primary road system was not designed to create separate road systems within each county for the sole use, enjoyment and benefit of county's residnets; rather, it was the intent of the statutes to establish a safe and efficient statewide system of primary roads for the use, benefit and enjoyment of all the state's citizens, wherever they reside and wherever they may travel with the state. Sattler v. Askew, 295 So.2d 289 (1974)" (FSA 335.04, nt 3.)

"Chapter 316 [Florida Statutes] is not applicable to Florida turnpike which is subject to control by rules and regulations promulgated by department of transportation under provisions now contained in this section, and all prosecutions for violations of such rules and regulations governing traffic on the turnpike are commenced by use of uniform traffic complaint and pursued as directed by Chapter 316. Op.Atty.Gen., 072-173, May 19, 1972." (FSA 338.239, nt. 2.)

"The public, by the establishment of a street, acquires the right to use it for public purposes by every appropriate means, whether or not those means are customary, or were even known at the time the street was established, and the right to utilize changed methods and new vehicles of transportation in the handling of local freight and local passengers includes any appropriate means of transportation which may be used for the public convenience." McClintock v. Richmond Brick Corp. 152 Va 1, 145 SE 425, 61 ALR 1033. [25 Am Jur, Highways, § 165]

"One may transport his goods over the highway in wagons, automobiles, or other vehicles, loaded thereon or therein as he may deem best, provided that in so transporting them he uses the care that a prudent man would use--care commensurate with the dangers created by his undertaking." Ryder v. Hayward (Sturtevant v. Hayward) 98 Vt 106, 126 A 491, 36 ALR 453. [25 Am Jur, Highways, § 165]

"The right to drive an automobile along a public highway is not superior to that to drive cows along the highway." Bombard v. Newton, 94 Vt 354, 111 A 510, 11 ALR 1402. [25 Am Jur, Highways, § 165]

Privilege of Using Highways for Business

"Primarily the vehicular highways of the state are designed for the general public transportation and not for conducting thereon the business of transporting persons or property for compensation." (Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. State Railroad Commission, 132 So. 851, hn. 1)

"The statute regulating motor vehicles carriers for hire was designed merely to regulate those who operate motor vehicles for compensation and was not intended to apply to persons, firms, or corporations engaged in transporting their own goods over the public highways as a mere incident to their mercantile or private business. Acts 1931, c. 14764." State ex rel. Fohl v. Karel, Sherrif, 180 So. 3, hn. 6

"Under statute providing for regulation of motor vehicle carriers, basis of regulation is not the character or tenure of ownership of vehicle, but the peculiar nature of the business conducted upon and over the public highways. Acts 1931, c. 14764." State ex rel. Fohl v. Karel, Sherrif, 180 So. 3, hn. 9

"The right of a citizen to travel over the public highway and to transport his property in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically from the use of the public highway for profit. The latter is not an inherent right. It is a privilege which can be granted or withheld by the state, or, when granted, can be subjected to regulation and control by the state." Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al. v. Wells et al., Railroad Comrs 130 So. 587, hn 1 [Fla Jur 2d, Highways. S. 121] Therefore, a business conducted primarily on the public highways, not merely incidental use, is regulated.

"The state may permit, limit, and regulate the use of its public roads for transportation thereon for hire, whether intra or inter state, provided no unjust discrimination is practiced and no undue burden or interference is put on interstate commerce, and federal instrumentalities are not interfered with." (Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. State Railroad Commission, 132 So. 851, hn. 3)

"We are of the opinion that the plaintiff was not liable to this tax [internal revenue, 3% duty on gross], because he did not carry on or do an express business, within the meaning of the statute. * * * He did not run regular trips or over regular routes or ferries. * * * The words 'express business,' in the statute, must have the meaning given them in the common acceptation. An 'express business' involves the idea of regularity, as to route or time or both." (Retzer v. Wood, Collector of Internal Revenue (1883) 109 U.S. 900, 901.)

*"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

"The use of highways and streets for gain is special and extraordinary, and generally may be prohibited or conditioned, as the legislature deems proper." Packard v Banton, 264 US 140, 44 S Ct 257, 68 L Ed 596; Stephenson v Binford, 287 US 251, 53 S Ct 181, 87 ALR 721, 77 L Ed 288. [8 U.S.Rep., Highways ¤ 14.]

"The state has power to prohibit the use of public highways in proper cases." Frost v Railroad Commission of California, 271 US 583, 46 S Ct 605, 47 ALR 457, 70 L Ed 1101. [8 U.S.Rep., Highways ¤ 14.]

The privilege of using a public street is always to be regulated so as to protect the equal rights of others. Des Moines v. Keller, 57 L.R.A. 243, 116 Iowa 648, 88 N. W. 827. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

No person can acquire a right to make a special or exceptional use of a public highway, not common to all the citizens of the state, except by grant from the sovereign power. Dickey v. Davis, L.R.A.1915F, 840, 76 W. Va. 576, 85 S. E. 781. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)

"No person has an inherent or natural right, however, to make the streets or highways his place of business. Such a use is generally characterized as an extraordinary use." "Even the legislature has no power to deny a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." (Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. Chicago, 66 A.L.R. 834,842, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N. E. 22.)

"The use of the streets for purely private gain may not be given, even by the legislature, unless there be also in such use a public service." "Even the legislature has no power to deny a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." (Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. Chicago, 66 A.L.R. 834,843, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N. E. 22.)

Municipalities hold the portions of the highways within their limits for public uses as agencies of the state, for the promotion of local comfort, convenience, and prosperity. "[I]t would be inconsistent with sovereign legislative power and control over the highways to infer from this agency legislative purpose to confer upon local municipalities power to deny any right of the public in them. Therefore such authority does not exist, unless it has been expressly or impliedly conferred." (Ex parte Dickey, 85 S. E. 781, at 784.)

Using the paved roads as part of one's business makes one subject to registration, from Harper et al. v. England (1936), 168 So. 403 at (pg. 406:)

"It also appears to be well settled that he who would shelter himself under an exemption clause must clearly show that he is entitled under the law to exemption, and the law is to be strictly construed as against the person claiming the exemption and in favor of the public. 17 R.C.L. 522; Northwest Auto Co. v. Hurlburt, 104 Or. 398, 207 P. 161; Wallace v. Board of Examination, 47 Or. 584, 86 P. 365. It is also held that under a registration law, such as that we have under consideration, the collection of a fee for registration is the rule and exemption is the exception to the rule. Therefore, he who claims the exemption bears the burden of establishing his right to it. 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 456; Camas Stage Co. v. Kozer, 104 Or. 600, 209 P. 95, 25 A.L.R. 27.
"So it is that the result in this case must be determined by answering the question whether or not the appellee is shown to come within the exception and, therefore, not required to register and pay the license tax for operating his automobiles on the public highways of the state of Florida. The exception under the terms of section 3 (17), chapter 16085, does not apply to one who engages in any trade, profession, or occupation in this state and it is contended by appellant that the exception contained in section 3 (17), supra, does not apply to the appellee because the appellant says that the business of cutting logs in Alabama and selling them and, in the furtherance of the sale, transporting them over the paved highways of Florida to deliver them to purchasers in Florida is exercising the privilege of using the roads of Florida in carrying on the business of the appellee." ---- (Harper et al. v. England (1936), 168 So. 403)

"The right of a citizen to travel and to transport his property over the public highway in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically from the use of the public highway to conduct a private business for profit. The latter is not an inherent right, but a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state, or, when granted, may be subjected to regulation and control. (United States.--Ashbury Truck Co. v. Railroad commission (D. C.) 52 F. (2d) 263. Florida.--State ex rel. Pennington v. Quigg, 94 Fla. 1056, 114 So. 859; Seaboard Air Lines R. Co. v. Wells, 100 Fla. 1027, 130 So. 587. Illinois.--People ex rel. Johns v. Thompson, 341 Ill. 166, 173 N. E. 137. Iowa.--State ex rel. Railroad Comrs. V. Martin, 210 Iowa 207, 230 N. W. 540. Kentucky.--Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co. 229 Ky. 731, 66 A.L.R. 1378, 17 S. W. (2d) 1012. Massachusetts.--Morley v. Wilson, 261 Mass. 269, 159 N. E. 41, writ of certiorari denied in 276 U. S. 625, 72 L. ed. 738, 48 S. Ct. 320. Montana.--Willis v. Buck, 81 Mont. 472, 263 Pac. 982. New York.--Harris v. Equitable Surety Co., 131 Misc. 85, 226 N. Y. Supp. 263; New York State R. Co. v. Monroe Cab Corp., 134 Misc. 664, 236 N. Y. Supp. 6; Farrel v. Syracuse, 137 Misc. 472, 242 N. Y. Supp. 316 (business of public hackman affects public interest and is subject to regulation.) Texas.--Texas Motor Coaches v. Railroad Commission (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. (2d) 1074.)" [Babbits Motor Vehicle Law, 4^th edition (1933), ¤ 197.]

"The operation of motor vehiclular carriers for profit on the public highways is a special use of them which tends to impede ordinary traffic and requires additional construction, maintenance, and repairs of the highways at public expense; thus furnishing additional reason for their regulation and control." (Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Wells, 130 So. 587.)

"It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes; and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." (Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 77 L. Ed. 288.)

"A "franchise" is a special privilege conferred by the government on an individual or individuals and which does not belong to citizens of the county generally, of common right. State ex rel. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Department of Public Service, 142 P.2d 498, 535, 19 Wash.2d 200." [Words and Phrases, Franchise.]

""Franchises" are special privileges which are conferred by the government upon individuals and which do not belong to the citizens of country generally, of common right. People v. Willert, 93 P.2d 872, 878, 879, 37 Cal.App.2d Supp. 729." [Words and Phrases, Franchise.]

"A "franchise" is the privilege of doing that which does not belong to the citizens generally by common right, and as to streets, it is the right to do something in the public highway which except for the grant would be a trespass. Utah Light & Traction Co. v. Public Service Commission, 118 P.2d 683, 689, 101 Utah 99." [Words and Phrases, Franchise.]

"That company seeking bus franchise in New York City requested a "franchise," and in its contract received a "terminable permit," did not render petition invalid, since a terminable permit is a particular type of "franchise." New York City Charter 1936, § 361 et seq. Loos v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.S.2d 760, 768, 170 Misc. 14, 104." [Words and Phrases, Franchise.]

"Whether an instrument, ordinance or contract amounts to a "franchise" depends largely on manner of its performance in compliance with its terms. City of Wichita Falls v. Kemp Hotel Operating Co., Rex.Civ.App., 162 S.W.2d 150, 153, 154." [Words and Phrases, Franchise.]

Certificate of public convenience and necessity

The Florida "driver license" is really a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" given as a privilege to carriers. State ex rel. Kelly v. Ramsey tells us that the people of Florida regulate and protect the use of highways through the use of certificates of public convenience and necessity. Diamond Cab Owners Ass'n v. Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Commission tells us that drivers are put on equal footing with the managers/operators of the carrier. State ex rel. Kohl v. Karel tells us that the Florida law regulating carriers, which requires the certificate of public convenience and necessity, does not apply to those who are not properly classified as carriers. And United States v. Carter tells us that the federal government is free to negotiate rates with common carriers for the movement of its property and that of military personnel (read: carrying property for free).

Another important case, I believe, is Travis v. Fry, where the Florida Supreme Court concludes that it does not matter how much one is paid per se to transport property (or if at all) if the transportation (with a large truck) was essential to the contract.

"The people of Florida have the right to make such laws as are necessary to regulate and protect the use of the public highways of Florida by motor vechicles operating for hire both as private contract carrier and as common carriers. It cannot be overlooked that the public highways of florida have been constructed by the people and represent heavy expenditures of money for the initial cost as well as their maintenance and general upkeep. It logically follows that the nature of the business done on the highways by carriers must be controlled or regulated so that the same may be protected for the enjoyment and use of the people of Florida who made their existence possible. Again in the case of Riley v. Lawson, supra, text page 527, 143 So. 622, citing the case of Southern Motorways, Inc. v. Perry, D.C., 39 F.2d 145, the Court held:
"* * * In that case it was held, and with that rule we agree, that when the public highways are made the place of doing business for compensation, the right to regulate the use of the highways by vehicles engaged in such purpose, is primarily to be exercised in the interest of the safety and convenience of the other users of the highway themselves, and for the conservation of the public highways. We are further agreed that the last class of regulation arises indepedent of the nature of the business done by the vehciles regulated.""
" (State ex rel. Kelley v. Ramsey (Fla. 1938), hn. 1/p. 887, 181 So. 885.)

"A taxicab operator was required to obtain from the State Railroad Commission a certificate of public convenience and necessity in order to transport in his cab over the public highways a group of college girls to the Easter holiday house parties at a university located in another city, notwithstanding that the operator had obtained a license to operate cab in the city from which he started. Acts 1931, c. 14764, s. 30." (State ex rel. Kelley v. Ramsey (Fla. 1938), hn. 2, 181 So. 885.)

"The Florida State Railroad and Public Utilities Commission does not have power to fix intrastate rates to be charged by common carriers for the transportation of property owned by the United States government and for the transportation of household effects of military personnel between points within the state, and the application of Florida state statutes as to rates of carriage of such goods is precluded by the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution." UNITED STATES of America v. CARTER, hn. 3, 121 So.2d 433 (June 17, 1960, S. C. Fla.)

"Statutory requirement of certificate of public convenience and necessity for exclusively interstate motor carrier operation constitutes mere requirement for registration (Acts 1931, c. 14764; Motor Carrier Act 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. s. 301 et seq.; Const.U.S. art. 1, s. 8, cl. 3)." (State ex rel. R. C. Motor Lines v. Florida Railroad Commission (Fla. 1936), hn. 1, 166 So. 840.)

"Vestiture of jurisdiction in Interstate Commerce Commission of exclusive jurisdiction to determine application for certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in exclusively interstate motor carriage operation did not supercede provision of state statute requiring interstate motor carriers to register with State Railroad Commission and to pay to state its just mileage taxes (Acts 1931, c. 14764; Motor Carrier Act 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. s. 301 et seq.; Const.U.S. art. 1, s. 8, cl. 3)." (State ex rel. R. C. Motor Lines v. Florida Railroad Commission (Fla. 1936), hn. 2, 166 So. 840.)

"Applicant exclusively engaged in interstate commerce operation by private contract motor carrier held entitled to certificate of registration (Acts 1931, c. 14764; Motor Carrier Act 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. s. 301 et seq.; Const.U.S. art. 1, s. 8, cl. 3)." (State ex rel. R. C. Motor Lines v. Florida Railroad Commission (Fla. 1936), hn. 3, 166 So. 840.)

From Words & Phrases (Judicially Defined) - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

A "certificate of public convenience and necessity for the operation of motor vehicles for hire intrastate," is in the nature of a permit or license and is not property in any legal or constitutional sense, and is personal in its character and not transferable, and does not pass by succession. Application of Neylon, 38 N.W.2d 552, 556, 151 Neb. 587.

A "certificate of public convenience and necessity" is in the nature of a personal privilege or license, which may be amended or revoke by the power authorized to issue it, and the holder does not acquire a property right, and the number of certificates to be granted, over a particular route, may be limited so as to occasion as little inconvenience as possible to persons using the route and to insure the holder certain immunities from competition. State ex rel. Hutton v. City of Baton Rouge, 47 So.2d 665, 668, 217 La. 857.

"Certificate of public convenience and necessity" is mere license or permit, granted by Railroad Commission, to use state highways for stated purposes after determining not only whether additional commerce over them is needed to serve public convenience, but whether structure and preservation thereof permits and public safety authorizes such use of them. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 296, 301, 302.

The Texas State Commission may prevent or permit operation of interstate motor freight carrier between named points on particular highways within state on consideration of the safety of the highway and of the public traveling thereon, but a permit granted on such considerations is not a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" which, based upon considerations of traffic needs, the State Commission is primarily charged with issuing or withholding for intrastate operation in accordance with such needs. Gulf Coast Motor Freight Lines v. U. S., D.C.Tex., 35 F.Supp. 136, 137.

"Statute pertaining to issuance of licenses for the operation of taxicab, and referring in part to "every such person owning, leasing, using or exercising dominion over motor vehicles operated in the transportation of persons or property over public highways for hire", by use of the disjunctive, places the control, operation, or management of such motor vehicles on equal footing with the ownership thereof, and plainly shows the purpose of act was to regulate and control the person or persons, controlling, operating, managing, using or exercising dominion over such motor vehicles. F.S.A. ss. 323.01(7)(c), 323.05." (Diamond Cab Owners Ass'n v. Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Commission (Fla. 1953), hn. 1, 66 So.2d 593.)
Compare: FS 322.01
(15) "Drive" means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic.
(16) "Driver's license" means a certificate which, subject to all other requirements of law, authorizes an individual to drive a motor vehicle. [Emphasis added.]

"Where a motor vehicle is being operated in hauling for compensation as defined by chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, not devoted "exclusively" to an operation exempted by section 30 of said chapter 14764, Acts 1931, from the requirement of a certificate or permit from the Railroad Commission to conduct such business or haulage for compensation, it is subject to the requirements of said act, and, absent a certificate or permit from the Railroad Commission, a prosecution will lie under said act for carrying on any of the operations therein described for which a permit or certificate from the Railroad Commission is required." (State ex rel Coats v. Whitaker (Fla. 1936), 171 So. 521, 522.)

"Under section 30 of chapter 14764, Acts 1931, casual or irregular trips by motor vehicle (even from compensation) where the vehciles involved are not engaged in the business of for hire carriage, and are permitted by law to operate under a private license (although compensation is received) in so far as the motor vehicle license law is concerned, do not subject the owner or operator of such vehicles to the requirements of permits or certificates as imposed by chapter 14764, supra, for ordinary contract carriers. But said section 30 of chapter 14764, Acts 1931, does not excuse violations of the terms of said chapter 14764, supra, merely because the violations are casual and irregular in their occurance." (State ex rel Coats v. Whitaker (Fla. 1936), 171 So. 521, 522.)

"If automobile trip was joint adventure between automobile owner and passengers as to which it was agreed that payments by passengers should be contribution to expense of trip, transaction would not come within statute requiring certificate of public convenience and necessity. Acts 1931, c. 14764)." (Coleman v. Achim (Fla. 1934), hn. 1, 153 so. 96.)

"Automobile owner holding himself out to individuals. or public from which individuals were gathered, as being ready, willing, and able to transport individuals in automobile for fixed fee, would be "private contract carrier," within statute requiring certificate of public convenience and necessity (Acts 1931, c. 14764)." (Coleman v. Achim (Fla. 1934), 1hn. 2, 53 so. 96.)

"An application of the principle of law controlling this suit to the admitted statement of facts [petitioner as employee was hauling truck and trailer full of produce back to Pennsylvania for sale at store in Pennsylvania on infrequent trip, truck owned in common with other business] clearly shows that the affidavit and warrant under which petitioner is held fail to allege a criminal offense, and for this reason the petitioner is discharged from custody, and it is so ordered." (State ex rel Fohl v. Karel, 180 So. 3 at 6.) [Explanation and emphasis added.]

"Evidently chapter 14764 [Laws of Florida] was aimed merely at those who operate vehicles for compensation, and was not intended to apply to persons, firms, or corporations engaged in transporting their own goods over the public highways as a mere incident to their merchantile or other private buisness. The cases of State v. Quigg, 94 Fla. 1056, 1057, 114 So. 859; Florida Motor Lines v. State Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018, 132 So. 851, and State v. York, 90 Fla. 625, 106 So. 418, tend to support this position." (State ex rel Fohl v. Karel, 180 So. 3 at 8.)

""One who transports merely his own freight over the highway is not a carrier, private or otherwise. He may be a farmer or a manufacturer or a merchant or what not, but the business in which he is engaged is not the business of transportation. He is not a carrier unless he is engaged the business of transportation pf the persons or property for compensation. One, who transports merely his own goods, is of necessity engaged in some business other than transportation, and the transportation of goods is no more than an incident to such business. So, also, one, who transports the goods of another as a servant or agent of such other, is not engaged i the business of transportation, but in so doing is engaged in the business of his master or principal, whatever that business may be." Holmes v. Railroad Commission, 197 Cal. 627, 242 P. 486, 490." (State ex rel Fohl v. Karel (Fla. 1937), 180 So. 3 at 8.)

"The business of a carrier by motor vehicle, whether as a common carrier or as a contract carrier, is affected with a public interest and therefore within the scope of the act and the jurisdiction of rge Railroad Commission. Georgia Public service Commission v. Saye & Davis Transformer Company, 170 Ga. 873, 154 S.E. 439; Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Wells, 100 Fla. 1027, 130 So. 587; Riley v. Lawson, 106 Fla. 521, 143 So. 619." (State ex rel Fohl v. Karel (Fla. 1937), 180 So. 3 at 8.)

"The joint owners were merely using their own truck to transport their own goods, at their own expense, and as a mere incident to the conduct of their respective merchantile businesses. The legislative act in question does not purport to regulate partnerships as such or to place any greater burden of regulation upon them than it places on the individual. It is not the character or tenure of ownership, but the peculiar nature of the business conducted upon and over the public highways, that justifies the classification made by the statute for licensing purposes." (State ex rel Fohl v. Karel (Fla. 1937), 180 So. 3 at 9.)

"In determining whether one is engaged in transporting property "for hire," within meaning of the Motor Transportation Act, it is immaterial whether, under contract involving hauling and other work, compensation received for the actual hauling is more or less than that received for the other work. Comp.Gen.Lawa Supp. § 1335(1) et seq." (Travis et al. v. Fry, 190 So. 793 (Fla. 1939), hn. 2.)

Old Chapter 323 (Florida Statutes) Repealed by Laws 1975, c. 75-109; Laws 1967, c. 76-168; Laws 1977, c. 77-434; Laws 1983, c. 83-84

323.02 Certificate or permit required.
No motor carrier shall operate any motor vehicle for the transportation of persons or property for compensation on any public highway in this state without first having obtained from the public service commission a certificate of public convenience and necessity or a permit as hereinafter provided or a certificate of registration of interstate commerce commission authority as hereinafter provided.
323.03 Common carriers; certificate of convenience required.
323.04 Private contract carriers; certificate of convenience required.
323.12 Speed laws to be observed.
No motor carrier, holding a certificate or permit, shall operate any motor vehicle on public highways in this state in excess of the speed limit permitted by the laws of this state. (A U-Drive-It concern is not subject to this section. Lawrence v. Goddard, 124 Fla. 250, 168 So. 13 (1936).) [FSA 323.13, nt. 1.)
323.17 Qualification of drivers.
No motor carrier shall entrust the operation of any motor vehicle authorized by certificate or permits of the commission to any driver for operation over state highways unless such driver be over the age of twenty-one years, in good and sound health, experienced with the operation of the vehicle entrusted to him and of proven temperate habits. (The Adult Rights Law, § 743.07, reduces the age limit from 21 years to 18 years for drivers of common-carrier motor vehicles described in this section. Op.Atty.Gen, 073-207, June 7, 1973.)
323.191 Transportation of newspapers and newspaper supplements at agreed rates. [This section was omitted from 1977 and 1981 Florida Statutes, omitted when Chapter 323 repealed in 1983.]
(1) Motor carrier common carriers holding certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the commission may for compensation transport newspapers and newspaper supplements for rates or charges determined or agreed upon by the common carrier and the shipper or owner.
(2) Such common carriers shall not, with respect to cargo consisting of newspapers or newspaper supplements, be required to comply with the provisions of §§ 323.03(1)(e) and 323.08(1), (2).
(3) The provisions of § 323.19 shall not apply in cases of cargo consisting of newspapers or newspaper supplements.
(4) The provisions of this part shall not exempt or excuse any motor carrier from the payment of any road tax imposed by law.

"On July 1, 1980, chapter 323, Florida Statutes, was repealed. The law had provided for regulation of intrastate motor carriers by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). Since 1929, Florida had regulated the entry into, rates for and safety of the business of transporting persons or freight for hire over intrastate routes. The repeal of this regulation was pursuant to Florida's "sunset review" process." (Florida State University Law Review, Vol 8:681.)</