
    LICENSE.
    [Franklin (2nd) Circuit Court,
    March, 1907.]
    Wilson, Sullivan and Dustin, JJ.
    
      Linton v. Columbus (City). *Pegg v. Columbus (City). *Columbus (City) v. Badger, Mayor, etc.
    Vehicle License Oedinance Held to Include Nonresident Owners oe Vehicles Used on City’s Streets.
    The term “use” in an ordinance, regulating the use of the streets of a city by persons who use vehicles thereon, and requiring the payment of certain license fees therefor, has reference to a continued or repeated practice; and the ordinance applies to all who, in such sense, use the vehicles described and includes nonresidents as well as residents of the municipality.
    [Syllabus approved by the court.]
    Appeal from Franklin common pleas court.
    J. A. Godown, for J. F. Linton.
    M. E. Thrailkill, for Lewis. Pegg et al.
    Paul Jones, for city of Columbus.
    G. S. Marshall, C. E. Carter and E. L. Weinland, for defendants.
    
      
       Reversing Pegg v. Columbus, 17 Dec. 333.
    
   DUSTIN, J.

The ordinance in question, No. 21927, is “to license and regulate the use of the streets of the city of Cblumbus, state of Ohio, by persons who use vehicles thereon, etc.” Bearing in mind the definition of “use” as a continued or repeated practice, we are of the opinion that the ordinance applies to those who, in the above sense, use the vehicles described. This construction would apply to nonresidents as well as lo residents, and must be settled in each case according to the facts.

The remaining questions were disposed of, we • think, in the case of Marmet v. State, 45 Ohio St. 63 [12 N. E. Rep. 463].

As the above construction will not give a common relief to all the plaintiffs in Pegg v. Columbus, the decree in that case, as in the others, must be for the defendants.  