In Re Marriott

Good Law
1933 Cal. LEXIS 478·218 Cal. 179·22 P.2d 692
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 24, 1933Docket No. Crim. 3626.California1,338 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Preston, J.

Proceeding in habeas corpus. Petitioner Charles Marriott alleges that he is confined upon two criminal complaints, one filed in the San Francisco municipal court, the other in the Fresno police court, both charging a violation of section 50% of the Public Utilities Act (Deering’s Gen. Laws, vol. 2, Act 6386, title 464, p. 3522 et seq.), which provides that no passenger stage corporation shall operate any passenger stage over any public highway in this state without first having obtained from the Railroad Commission a certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity require such operation. Petitioner also alleges that he is further deprived of his liberty by a complaint filed in the Los Angeles municipal court charging him with violation of the Motor Carrier Transportation Agent Act (Deering’s Gen. Laws, vol. 2, Act 5130b, p. 2545 et seq.; Stats. 1931, chap. 638, p. 1362, effective August 14, 1931), section 2 of which provides that it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to engage in the business, or act in the capacity of a motor carrier transportation agent, within the meaning of the act, without first obtaining a license therefor.

We shall first…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.