American Case Law – Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago

Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 169 NE 22




“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn

carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at

will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under

this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the

public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither

interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe

conduct.” Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon,

in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy

life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the

right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing

modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate

an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;

Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

“… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a

fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)

“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city

absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life

requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the

public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional

guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a

mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the

federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public

highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.

“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A

traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.

“The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference,

unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a

FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton

14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer

an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses

or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So.

233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.

“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon

the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways.

The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.

“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in

common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads

superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.


“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or

with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga.

104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670

“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of

cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456

“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on

highways.” -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:

“(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance

propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for

commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any

business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the

transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’” -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23

NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than

according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20

“The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages

were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that

automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

“…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…”

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a

common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be

rightfully deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st)

Highways Sect.163

“the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the

ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right

common to all.” – Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

“Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every

Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v.

Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.

“No State government 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.

“Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle

“Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a

prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of

such right.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).


“The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property

and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.” Statutes at Large California Chapter

412 p.83

“Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable

and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur

3d p.27

“RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the

constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it

acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.

“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have

right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.

“A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160

P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” Payne v.

Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business,

trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation 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


“If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the

assumption that the statute is void.” – Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a

Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired

by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US

540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence

Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

“The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it

appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.” (Paul v. Virginia).

“[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as

governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the

Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson).

EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the

right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right,

ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’ Williams v. Fears,

179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186.

“Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape

his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41

Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14.

“The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally,

is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187.

“a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled,

and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel

“Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15.

“Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be

by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole

condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets

No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely 4

Kansas 671, 674.

The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is

not a “statute.”

A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185.

Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses

and carriages. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill.

31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29.

…automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v.

Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591.

A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle,

as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42.

Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E.

677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St.

Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.

“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’ U.S. v

Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition

(West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is

a motor vehicle[.]” United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir.


Other right to use an automobile cases:



– WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274



– U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)

– GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)

– CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6

– SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

– CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)

Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence.

Some citations may be paraphrased.


source –

5 thoughts on “American Case Law – Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago

  1. Spc/ Kirkland says any laws that conflict with the bill of rights and the constitution living document, it is illegal and it’s our duty to not obey. It’s so simple if there is no victim or property damage then there is no crime. Under police powers delegated. Not police policies, it’s against the law. well to inform you all , you all have been tricked, any type of license for travel regardless of how, it states in law that it applies to commercial and of making money on the HI way…… . Under the remedy and recourse, you have to declare your rights as a common law court.
    Most courts today are under a hidden court that the judges and lawyers only know, usually under international, or admiralty or military courts. An individual has to claim under section 1-207 w/o prejudice, and must claim it and fight for it in a timely manner. A driver’s license is not a privilege, it’s a fundamental right that is in conflict with fictional laws made and fictional laws are illegal and no court is bound for it or the people for it. Under article 6 Para graph 2 all judges are bound to the constitution of the compact states. Supremacy clause- any law that is in conflict is nullified and is not to be obeyed… furthermore it conflicts with a bill of attainder and capitation, and bill of pain, and is also a racketeering( rico) scheme under monopoly’s.
    Under the article 1 section 9 and 10, clearly states a bill of attainder is illegal. So therefore a ticket license a registration a plate is considered a bill of attainder, and an illegal direct tax. If you enter into an unknown contract with the ucc codes then you are obligated to follow all the encroachments and infringements and illegal fiction notwithstanding laws. That’s a fact. So if I was you, I would sign your name with the remedy and recourse under all your signatures, because when you sign under ucc 1-207 w/o prejudice then you are bound with the oath and the constitution.
    Then any law they throw at you will have to have a victim or property damage construed to the constitution. Research and share it, it’s something the masters don’t want the citizens to know, and a citizens is a slave by trickery to give up your rights.

    Facts to share from my investigation…………….
    It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-207″ on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone… The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!

    Without Prejudice UCC 1.207

    When you use “without prejudice UCC 1-207″ in connection with your signature, you are saying, “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.”

    What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don’t have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.

    If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.


    The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:

    “The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.” (UCC 1-103.6)

    This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.

    If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court: “Who was injured as a result of your failure to ‘buckle up’?” However, if the judge won’t listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 103.6, which states: Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers’ Cooperative Publishing Co-
    the Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, 1) “Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.”

    If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: “Let me see if I understand,2) Your Honor, has this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?”

    Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? 3) If he answers, “yes”, then you say: “I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination.” Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him in.

    Explain U.C.C. 1-207

    Duane Kirkland/u.d.1-207w/o prejudice
    1115 south 3rd Hamilton MT 59840

  2. I have been examining the actual cases cited in many “Driving is a Right” websites and find that they all contain the Fears, Johnson, Topeka, Shapiro and several other cases which are just plain wrong in the decision and dicta, Where interstate travel appeared in Fears, it only had to do with whether a fee imposed by the State of Georgia (this was NOT a SCOTUS case as averred) on a labor broker sending persons out of state impeded a right to travel. The court acknowledged that this right exists but the fee did NOT impede it, lower court affirmed. Topeka had to do with a prohibition on bicycle traffic on the major bridge linking the two parts of the city. Not a right to travel case at all. One, only post CONTROLLING case law or Black Letter Law or nothing at all. It you post dicta, get it right and don’t nilly willy repeat everything you read on the internet

  3. You morons completely misrepresent the Supreme Court ruling(s) on the matter. Chicago motor coach for example, specifically addressed the “right to travel”, BY BUS! That does not mean you have a Constitutional right to operate the bus on a public road. As long as you are not being held at point A or prohibited from reaching point B, there is no infringement on a “right to travel”. NOTHING in the Constitution, NOTHING, is violated or infringed upon by the state requiring licenses to get behind the wheel and control a car or any vehicle on a public road.

    We the people declare that any so called law in conflict with our constutions, are illegal, shall not be bound to any office, or judge or lawyers.
    Therefore is and shall be a unconstitutional act, and shall be nullified.
    We the people are awakened.
    By Duane Kirkland of Montana, and his sister’s state’s. 406-363-5284.

  5. I have used this in a court of law after asking are we on the record until the judge said yes we are on the record,I then said here by special appearance only in propia persona remain inpro pia persona, I have reserved all my rights without prejudice by UCC1-308 Not to be compelled to perform under any unrevealed contracts or agreements I did not enter into willingly,knowingly with full disclosure, I remain in propia persona to challenge jurisdiction on this matter, I refute and deny the contract exists. agency is charter of maritime jurisdiction and under Uniform Commercial Codes I do hereby refute the contract as unconscionable. Iwent on wtih the UCC sections codes which i will suply later god bless all be free

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>