Chapter 612 of the Laws of New York of 1922 is a valid exercise of the state's police power. act, by applying the operation of it only v. Feldman, 269 Fed. 306; Raich v. to cities of the first class, is unreason- Truax, 219 Fed. 273. able, and discriminates between members of the same class of common carriers plying their vocations in different parts of the state. The statute there- Jackson v. Cravens, 235 Fed. 212; fore contravenes the 14th Amendment to People v. Martin, 203 Ápp. Div. 429, 197 the Constitution of the United States. N. Y. Supp. 28, affirmed without opinion Bessette v. People, supra; 1 Dill. Mun. in 235 N. Y. 550, 139 N. E. 730; LindsCorp. 5th ed. § 151; Cooley, Const. Lim. ley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. 7th ed. 558, 559; Fleming v. Memphis, S. 61, 78, 79, 55 L. ed. 369, 377, 378, 31 126 Tenn. 331, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 493, 148 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160, S. W. 1057, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1306; Sut-affirming 170 Fed. 1023; Patsone v. ton v. State, 96 Tenn. 696, 33 L.R.A. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 144, 58 L. 589, 36 S. W. 697; Janesville v. Car- ed. 539, 543, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Barpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 8 L.R.A. 808, 20 bier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 32, 28 L. Am. St. Rep. 123, 46 N. W. 128; 1 Elli-ed. 923, 925, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Hayes ott, Roads & Streets, § 521; State v. v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 30 L. ed. 578, Whitcom, 122 Wis. 110, 99 N. W. 468; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Tenement House Bull v. Conroe, 13 Wis. 234; Durkee v. Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 70 Janesville, 28 Wis. 464, 9 Am. Rep. 500. L.R.A. 704, 103 Am. St. Rep. 910, 72 N. The practical effect of the act is to E. 231, 1 Ann. Cas. 439, affirmed without deprive the complainant and all other opinion in 203 U. S. 583, 51 L. ed. 328, persons similarly situated of his and 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 781; People ex rel. their property and of due process of Armstrong v. Warden, 183 N. Y. 226, law, in violation of the 14th Amendment. 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 859, 76 N. E. 11, 5 Ann. Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, Cas. 325; Williams v. People, 24 N. Y. 49 L. ed. 937, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 3 405; Re Morgan, 114 App. Div. 54, 99 Ann. Cas. 1133; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, N. Y. Supp. 775; Burnham v. Acton, 118 U. S. 356, 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. 35 How. Pr. 48; McIntosh v. Johnson, Rep. 1064. 211 N. Y. 268, L.R.A.1915D, 603, 105 N. E. 414; Rochester v. West, 164 N. Y. 510, 53 L.R.A. 548, 79 Am. St. Rep. 659, 58 N. E. 673; Health Dept. v. Rector, 145 N. Y. 43, 27 L.R.A. 710, 45 Am. St. Rep. 579, 39 N. E. 833; Re Viemeister, 179 N. Y. 238, 70 L.R.A. 796, 103 Am. St. Rep. 859, 72 N. E. 97, 1 Ann. Cas. 334; People ex rel. Nechamcus v. Warden, 144 N. Y. 529, 27 L.R.A. 718, 39 N. E. 686. Messrs. Avel B. Silverman and Louis J. Vorhaus filed a reply brief for appel lant. Mr. Felix C. Benvenga argued the cause, and, with Mr. John Caldwell Myers, filed a brief for appellees: It is not sufficiently shown that the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000. Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Pollak, 272 Fed. 137. The appellant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 166, 167, 52 L. ed. 714, 731, 732, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Cruickshank v. Bidwell, 176 U. S. 73, 80, 81, 44 L. ed. 377, 380, 381, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 280; Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U. S. 453, 456, 63 L. ed. 354, 357, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33-38, 60 L. ed. 131134, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; New York Guaranty & Indemnity Co. v. Memphis Water Co. 107 U. S. 205, 214, 27 L. ed. 484, 487, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279; People v. Martin, 203 App. Div. 423, 197 N. Y. Supp. 28, 235 N. Y. 550, 139 N. E. 730; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, 368, 60 L. ed. 679, 691, L.R.A.1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Marcus Brown Holding Co. Similar statutes have been held valid in jurisdictions other than New York. Willis v. Ft. Smith, 121 Ark. 606, 182 S. W. 275; Re Cardinal; 170 Cal. 519, L.R.A.1915F, 850, P.U.R.1915E, 282, 150 Pac. 349; Hazleton v. Atlanta, 144 Ga. 775, 87 S. E. 1043, 147 Ga. 207, 93 S. E. 202; Huston v. Des Moines, 176 Iowa, 455, 156 N. W. 883; New Orleans v. Le Blanc, 139 La. 113, 71 So. 248; Lutz v. New Orleans, 235 Fed. 978; Com. v. Slocum, 230 Mass. 180, 119 N. E. 687; Com. v. Theberge, 231 Mass. 386, 121 N. E. 30; Melconian v. Grand Rapids, 218 Mich. 397, 188 N. W. 521; Gillard v. Manufacturers Casualty Ins. Co. 92 N. J. L. 141, 104 Atl. 707; West v. Asbury Park, 89 N. J. L. 402, 99 Atl. 190; Memphis v. State, 133 Tenn. 83, L.R.A.1916B, 1151, P.Ú.R.1916A, 825, 179 S. W. 631, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1056; Nolen v. Riechman, 225 Fed. 812; Auto Transit Co. v. Ft. Worth, Tex. Civ. App., P.U.R.1916C, 565; 182 S. W. Mr. Carl Sherman, Attorney General of New York, also argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Edward G. Griffin' and Claude T. Dawes, filed a brief for appellees: Requirements of such security from businesses affected with a public interest are as common as security to keep the peace; and, historically, the use of highways for private traffic has always been subject to special regulation. Cal. 519, L.R.A.1915F, 850, P.U.R.1915E, 282, 150 Pac. 348; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, L.R.A.1915F, 840, P.U.R. 1915E, 93, 85 S. E. 781; Nolen v. Riechman, 225 Fed. 812; Fifth Ave. Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U. S. 467, 55 L. ed. 815, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709; South Western Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U. S. 114, 121, 54 L. ed. 688, 692, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 496; Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224, 227, 58 L. ed. 1288, 1289, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373, 383, 59 L. ed. 628, 631, L.R.A.1915F, 829, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 160, 57 L. ed. 164, 169, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Missouri v. Lewis (Bowman v. Lewis) 101 U. S. 22, 31, 25 L. ed. 989, 992; Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 598, 45 L. ed. 1015, 1020, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 241; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 44 L. ed. 119, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 448, 494; Chappell Chemical & F. Co. 581, 44 L. ed. 597, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. V. Sulphur Mines Co. 172 U. S. 474, 475, 43 L. ed. 520, 521, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268; Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U. S. 325, 333, 50 L. ed. 212, 217, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; St. John v. New York, 201 U. S. 633, 50 L. ed. 896, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 554, 5 Ann. Cas. 909. Black, Intoxicating Liquors, 8 149; Stern v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 169 App. Div. 217, 154 N. Y. Supp. 472; New York v. Vandewater, 113 App. Div. 456, 99 N. Y. Supp. 306; People ex rel. Armstrong v. Warden, 183 N. Y. 223, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 859, 76 N. E. 11, 5 Ann. Cas. 325; Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. Lutz v. New Orleans, 235 Fed. 978, 340, 60 L. ed. 1034, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. affirmed in 150 C. C. A. 654, 237 Fed. 561, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 522; Charles Wolff 1018; Nolen v. Riechman, 225 Fed. 812; Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Re- Schoenfield v. Seattle, 265 Fed. 727 lations, 262 U. S. 522, 67 L. ed. 1103, Lane v. Whitaker, 275 Fed. 476; Com. 27 A.L.R. 1280, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 630; v. Slocum, 230 Mass. 180, 119 N. É. 687; Frank L. Fisher Co. v. Woods, 187 N. Y Com. v. Theberge, 231 Mass. 386, 121 90, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 707, 79 N. E. 836; J. L. 402, 99 Atl. 190; Gillard v. ManuN. E. 30; West v. Asbury Park, 89 N. People v. Beakes Dairy Co. 222 N. Yfacturers Casualty Ins. Co. 92 N. J. L. 416, 3 A.L.R. 1260, 119 N. E. 115; People ex rel. Moskowitz v. Jenkins, 202 N. Y. 59, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1079, 94 N. E. 1065; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 59 L. ed. 385, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; People ex rel. McLean v. Flagg, 46 N. Y. 401; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 61 L. ed. 222, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; People v. Rosenheimer, 209 N. Y. 115, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 977, 102 N. E. 530, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 161; Huston v. Des Moines, 176 Iowa, 455, 156 N. W. 883; Memphis State, 133 Tenn. 83, L.R.A.1916B, 1151, P.Ú.R.1916A, 825, 179 S. W. 631, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1056; Re Cardinal, 170 The question of the right to require an indemnity bond in principle like that required under the statute in litigation here has been considered in many cases, and in no case was the provision found unconstitutional. 141, 104 Atl. 707; Melconian v. Grand Rapids, 218 Mich. 397, 188 N. W. 521; Ehlers v. Automobile Liability Co. 169 Wis. 494, 173 N. W. 325; People v. Kastings, 307 Ill. 92, 138 N. E. 269; State ex rel. Stephenson v. Dillon, 82 Fla. 276, 22 A.L.R. 227, 89 So. 558; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, L.R.A. 1915F, 840, P.U.R.1915E, 93, 85 S. E. 781; Ex parte Cardinal, 170 Cal. 519, L.R.A.1915F, 850, P.U.R.1915E, 282, 150 Pac. 348; Memphis v. State, 133 Tenn. 83, L.R.A.1916B, 1151, P.U.R.1916A, 825, 179 S. W. 631, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1056; Huston v. Des Moines, 176 Iowa, 455, The legislature, in exacting from those affected by the statute security for the payment of judgments, has denied to them equal protection of the laws. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Nye Schneider Fowler Co. 260 U. S. 35, 67 L. ed. 115, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; Atchison, 156 N. W. 883; Jitney Bus Asso. v. The claims of costliness are mistaken; or, even if true, would not impair the validity of the statute. Health Dept. v. Trinity Church, 145 N. Y. 32, 27 L.R.A. 710, 45 Am. St. Rep. 579, 39 N. E. 833; Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 70 L.R.A. 704, 103 Am. St. Rep. 910, 72 N. E. 231, 1 Ann. Cas. 439, affirmed without opinion in 203 U. S. 583, 51 L. ed. 328, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 781; Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 205 U. S. 60, 51 L. ed. 708, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 412; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 55 L. ed. 112, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 | Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487; California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U. S. 306, 50 L. ed. 204, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100; Re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 35 L. ed. 572, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, 28 L. ed. 629, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 8, 97. 96, 43 L. ed. 909, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73, 52 L. ed. 108, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U. S. 56, 59 L. ed. 1199, L.R.A. 1915E, 953, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 675: People v. Martin, 203 App. Div. 426, 197 N. Y. Supp. 28. The statute in respect to the bond required to be furnished by operators of the motor vehicles in question is unreasonable and unconstitutional. Jitney Bus Co. v. Wilkes-Barre, 256 Pa. 462, 100 Atl. 954; People v. Kastings, 307 Ill. 92, 138 N. E. 269; People v. Briggs, 193 N. Y. 457, 86 N. E. 522; State ex rel. Stephenson v. Dillon, 82 Fla. 276, 22 A.L.R. 227, 69 So. 560. Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the court: The statute re This is a suit to enjoin the enforce- Allied Taxi Owners Association as The equal protection of the law to People v. Rosenheimer, 209 N. Y. 115, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 977, 102 N. E. 530, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 161; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 708, 709, 28 L. ed. 1146, 1147, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 293, 42 L. ed. 1042, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 165, 41 L. ed. 666, 671, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. ed. 858, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bosworth, 230 Fed. 207, modified in 244 U. S. 522, 61 L. ed. 1291, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 683, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 97. to file with the state tax commission, either a personal bond with sureties, a corporate surety bond, or a policy of insurance in a solvent and responsible company in the sum of $2,500, conditioned for the payment of any judgment recovered against such person, etc., for death or injury caused in the operation or [by] the defective construction of such motor vehicle. The bill alleges that the rate of premium for the required policy is fixed by the insurance companies at $960; that the net income from the operation of a motor vehicle is [142] about $35 a week, which would be reduced by the operation of the law to $16.50 per week, resulting in confiscation of the earnings of appellant for the benefit of the insurance companies. The statute makes it a misdemeanor to oper ate such motor vehicle without having Re furnished the required bond or policy; The general rule undoubtedly is that a and appellant avers that appellees, as court of equity is without jurisdiction prosecuting officers of the state, have to restrain criminal proceedings unless threatened, and, if not enjoined, will they are instituted by a party to a suit proceed, to prosecute him, unless he com- already pending before it, to try the plies with the law. The court below was same right that is in issue there. constituted of three judges, under § 266 Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 209-211, 31 L. of the Judicial Code. Upon the return ed. 402, 405, 406, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. of the order to show cause a hearing 486; Davis & F. Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles, was had, and the court denied a motion 189 U. S. 207, 217, 47 L. ed. 778, 780, for an injunction pendente lite, and dis- 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498. missed the bill for want of equity, without handing down an opinion. But it is settled that "a distinction obtains, and equitable jurisdiction exists. 1. Appellees insist that the district to restrain criminal prosecutions under court was without jurisdiction because unconstitutional enactments, when, the the matter in controversy does not ex- prevention of such prosecution is ceed the value of $3,000. Judicial Code, essential to the safeguarding of rights § 24, subd. 1. The bill discloses that of property." Truax v. Raich, 239 the enforcement of the statute, sought U. S. 33, 37, 38, 60 L. ed. 131, 133, to be enjoined, will have the effect of 134, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. materially increasing appellant's expend- 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283. The question itures, as well as causing injury to him in other respects. The allegations, in general terms, are that the sum or value in controversy exceeds $3,000, which the affidavits filed in the lower court tend to support; that appellant is the owner of four motor vehicles, the income from which would be reduced, if the law be enforced, to the extent of $18.50 each per week; and that his business would otherwise suffer. The object of the suit | L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18. is to enjoin the enforcement of the statute, and it is the value of this object thus sought to be gained that determines the amount in dispute. Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485, 17 L. ed. 311; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Kuteman, 4 C. C. A. 503, 13 U. S. App. 99, 54 Fed. 547, 552; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65, 73; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107; 114, 41 L. ed. 648, 653, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 262; Hutchinson v. Beckham, 55 C. C. A. 333, 118 Fed. 399, 402; Evenson v. Spaulding, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 904, 82 C. C. A. 263, 150 Fed. 517, 520; Hunt v. New York Cotton Exch. 205 U. S. 322, 336, 51 L. ed. 821, 826, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529. [143] Counter affidavits were filed, tending to show that the expenses incident to compliance with the statute The contention most pressed is that would be less than alleged; but it suffi- the act unreasonably and arbitrarily ciently appears that the value of the discriminates against those engaged in right of appellant to carry on his busi-operating motor vehicles for hire in ness, freed from the restraint of the stat- favor of persons operating such vehiute, exceeds the jurisdictional amount. cles for their private ends, and in 2. Another preliminary contention is that the bill cannot be sustained because there is a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law; that is, that the question may be tried and determined as fully in a criminal prosecution under the statute as in a suit in equity. has so recently been considered that we need do no more than cite Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, ante, 255, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15, decided November 12, 1923, where the cases are collected, and state our conclusion that the present suit falls within the exception, and not the general rule. Huston v. Des Moines, 176 Iowa, 455, 464, 156 N. W. 883; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 68 L. ed. 3. We come, then, to the question whether the statute assailed contravenes the provisions of the 14th Amendment. That the selection of cities of the first class for the application of the regulations, and the exclusion of all others, is not an unreasonable and arbitrary classification, does not admit of controversy. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 30 L. ed. 578, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350. We cannot say that there are not reasons applicable to the streets of large cities-such as [144] their use by a great number of persons, or the density and continuity of traffic-justifying measures to safeguard the public from dangers incident to the operation of motor vehicles which do not obtain in the case of the smaller communities. favor of street cars and motor omni- The streets belong to the public, and are pri-, procure a personal bond, but it does not marily for the use of the public in the appear that he might not procure the ordinary way. Their use for the pur-corporate surety bond at a less cost. poses of gain is special and extraordi- Affidavits filed below on behalf of apnary, and generally, at least, may be pellees tend to show that insurance poliprohibited or conditioned as the legis-cies in mutual casualty companies may lature deems proper. Neither is there be secured for $540 a year; and that substance in the complaint that street operators of upwards of a thousand cars cars and omnibuses are not included in have furnished personal bonds. the requirements of the statute. The fact that, because of circumstances pereason, appearing in the statute itself, culiar to him, appellant may be unable for excluding them, is that they are to comply with the requirement as to regulated by the Public Service Com-security without assuming a burden mission Laws; and this circumstance, if greater than that generally borne, or there were nothing more, would pre-excessive in itself, does not militate clude us from saying that their nonin- against the constitutionality of the clusion renders the classification so ar- statute. Moreover, a distinction must bitrary as to cause it to be obnoxious be observed between the regulation of to the equal protection clause. Deci- an activity which may be engaged in as sions sustaining the validity of legisla- a matter of right, and one carried on tion like that here involved are numer-by government sufferance or permission. ous and substantially uniform. Among In the latter case the power to exclude them, we cite the following: Nolen v. Riechman, 225 Fed. 812, 818; Schoenfeld v. Seattle, 265 Fed. 726, 730; Lane v. Whitaker, 275 Fed. 476, 480; Huston v. Des Moines, 176 Iowa, 455, 468, 156 N. W. 883; Memphis v. State, 133 Tenn. 83, 89, L.R.A.1916B, 1151, P.U.R.1916A, 825, 179 S. W. 631, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1056; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, 578, L.R.A.1915F, 840, P.U.R.1915E, 93, [146] STEFANO SANGUINETTI, Appt., altogether generally includes the lesser V. UNITED STATES. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 146-150.) Eminent domain flooding land by 85 S. E. 781; Melconian v. Grand Rapids, 218 Mich. 397, 403, 188 N. W. 521; State v. Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co. 90 Wash. 416, 423, 156 Pac. 837; Donella v. Enright, 195 [145] N. Y. Supp. 217; People v. Martin, 203 App. Div. 423, 1. The construction of a canal to carry 197 N. Y. Supp. 28,-where the statute waters from a slough to a river, which, by now under review was sustained against errors of judgment, is too small to accom the attacks here made as to its consti-modate all the flood waters, and the use of tutionality. And see Fifth Ave. Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U. S. 467, 55 L. ed. 815, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 353, 35 L. ed. 1035, 1039, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 810, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250. the dredged material as a levee on the low- It is asserted that the requirements of the statute are so burdensome as to amount to confiscation, and, therefore, to result in depriving appellant of his property without due process of law. The allegation is that the rate of premium fixed by insurance companies operating in New York amounts to about $18.50 per week for each taxicab, while the net income from each is about $35 per week. The operator, under the statute, however, is not confined to this method of security, but, instead, may file either a personal bond, with two approved sureties, or a corporate surety bond. Appellant says that he cannot A. 468. Note. As to what constitutes a taking of private property for public use, genCo. v. Birmingham, S. & T. R. Co. 18 erally-see notes to Memphis & C. R. L.R.A. 166; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Missouri P. R. Co. 37 L. ed. U. S. 156; Sweet v. Rechel, 40 L. ed. U. S. 188; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co. 42 L. ed. U. S. 853; and High Bridge Lumber Co. v. United States, 16 C. C. |