Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. City of New York
Headline: New York’s ban on exterior advertising on passenger stages is upheld, blocking a transportation company from using bus exteriors for paid ads and letting the city limit street advertising to protect traffic.
Holding:
- Lets cities ban paid exterior advertising on buses and similar vehicles.
- Limits transportation companies’ ability to earn ad revenue from vehicle exteriors.
- Affirms city power to regulate street displays to reduce congestion and visual clutter.
Summary
Background
A New York transportation company, successor to the old Fifth Avenue Transportation Company, operates double-deck automobile stages on Fifth Avenue and other streets. It long sold advertising space inside its vehicles and, after switching to motor coaches in 1905–1907, began leasing exterior space to an advertising firm for substantial revenue. The city passed an ordinance forbidding advertising trucks, vans, or wagons in Manhattan streets, with a limited exception for ordinary business notices on regular work wagons. The company sued for an injunction; lower courts dismissed its complaint and the State Court of Appeals affirmed.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the company’s charter or franchise included a right to sell advertising on the outside of its stages and whether the city could lawfully ban such displays. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the franchise did not expressly allow exterior advertising and that such ads were not a necessary incident to carrying passengers. The Court held the ordinance a proper exercise of the city’s power to regulate streets to prevent congestion and offensive displays, rejecting the company’s claims of unfair treatment, loss of property without due process, and impaired contracts.
Real world impact
The decision lets cities stop transportation companies from turning vehicle exteriors into paid advertising panels and preserves local control over street use. Transit firms that rely on ad income may lose that revenue stream on regulated streets. The ruling also confirms that contracts and corporate charters are subject to existing local ordinances and police powers when those laws existed at the time of contracting.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?