Abbott v. Pub. Utilities Comm'n
| Decision Date | 07 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 472.,472. |
| Citation | 136 A. 490 |
| Parties | ABBOTT v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Public Utilities Commission.
Application by David Abbott for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate jitneys between Providence and Woonsocket. From an order of the Public Utilities Commission denying and dismissing the, application, the applicant appeals. Appeal denied, and order approved.
William A. Needham, of Providence, for appellant.
Clifford Whipple, Alonzo R. Williams, and G. Frederick Frost, all of Providence, for United Electric Rys. Co.
This is an appeal from an order of the Public Utilities Commission, denying and dismissing the appellant's application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate jitneys between Providence and Woonsocket.
The appellant, desiring authority to establish a line of so-called "motorbusses" between said cities, made application to the commission for a certificate as prescribed in section 3, c. 254, Gen. Laws 1923. It is provided in said chapter that the term "jitney" shall include any "motorbus" operated as is set forth in section 1 of said chapter. Section 3 in part provides that no person shall operate a jitney over a specified route until the owner thereof shall have obtained from the Public Utilities Commission with reference to such jitney a certificate certifying, among other things, "that public convenience and necessity require its operation over such route." The action of the commission was based upon its finding that public convenience and necessity did not require the operation of the proposed line of motor-busses by the appellant.
The expression "public convenience and necessity" has not a well-defined and precise meaning. "Convenience" is not used colloquially in the statute as the appellant appears to consider. It is not synonymous with "handy" and "easy of access," although the question of ease of access may well enter into the determination of the public's convenience. "Convenience" shall be given an interpretation in accord with its regular meaning of "suitable," "fitting," and "public convenience" has reference to something fitting or suited to the public need. In Hunter v. Mayor and Aldermen, 5 R. I. 325, the court held, with reference to the laying out of a highway in accordance with the statute, that a judgment of the mayor and board of aldermen "that the public convenience requires that the highway shall be laid out," is equivalent to a judgment in the language of the statute that the proposed way "was necessary for the public accommodation." The word "necessity" in the expression under consideration does not have reference to an indispensable necessity, but rather that the route in question appears to the commission to be reasonably requisite. In passing upon public convenience and necessity, the commission must consider whether a proposed route is suited to and tends to promote the accommodation of the public and also whether it is reasonably required to meet a need for such accommodation.
In considering this question, the Public Utilities Commission have taken a broad view of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delaware Co v. Town of Morristown 1928
...Coach Lines, 220 Ky. 424, 295 S. W. 419, McLain v. Public Utilities Commission, 110 Ohio St. 1, 143 N. E. 381, and Abbott v. Public Utilities Commission (R. I.) 136 A. 490, orders denying certificates were sustained, on the ground that the proposed operation would have impaired adequate tra......
-
W. v. Byron
...Co. v. State (Okl. Sup.) 252 P. 849; Trescot Transfer Co. v. Sawyer, 138 S. C. 337, 136 S. E. 481; Abbott v. Pub. Utilities Comm. (R. I.) 136 A. 490. There is a wide difference between a request for authority to introduce competition and one to maintain the necessary efficiency in the plant......
-
Public Service Commission
... ... 329; Wichita Railroad & Light Co. v. Kansas Public Utilities Commission, 260 U ... S. 48, ... 43 S.Ct. 51, 67 ... v. Sawyer, 138 S.C. 337, ... 136 S.E. 481; Abbott v. Pub. Utilities Comm. (R. I.) ... 136 A. 490 ... ...
-
Furstenberg v. Omaha & Council Bluffs St. Ry. Co.
...Suburban Transportation Co. v. Chicago & W. T. R. Co., 309 Ill. 87, 140 N.E. 56;Abbott v. Public Utilities Commission, 48 R.I. 196, 136 A. 490;Monongahela West Penn Public Service Co. v. State Road Commission, 104 W.Va. 183, 139 S.E. 744. [10] The railway commission, having this theory in m......