Austin Bros. Transfer Co. v. Bloom

• Decision Date: 24 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16117.,16117.
• Citation: 316 Ill. 435,147 N.E. 387
• Parties: AUSTIN BROS. TRANSFER CO. v. BLOOM.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

316 Ill. 435

147 N.E. 387

AUSTIN BROS. TRANSFER CO.

v.BLOOM.

No. 16117.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 24, 1925.

Complaint by the Austin Bros. Transfer Company before the Commerce Commission against Henry Bloom for operating a motor bus without having complied with Public Utilities Act. Order of Commission, requiring defendant to discontinue operation of a public utility business, was confirmed by the circuit court, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; F. R. Dove, Judge.

W. G. Murphey and Noleman, Smith & Dallstream, all of Centralia, for appellant.

Charles H. Holt, of Salem, for appellee.

HEARD, J.

Appellee, a corporation operating a motor bus over route 2 of the state highway system between Centralia and Sandoval under a certificate of convenience and necessity granted it by the Commerce Commission, filed complaint with the commission against appellant, charging him with operating a motor bus between Centralia and Sandoval as a public utility without having complied with the provisions of the Public Utilities Act. A hearing was had before the commission, which found that the facts as alleged in the complaint were true, and ordered appellant to discontinue the operation of a public utility business, and cease operating as a public utility in the state of Illinois until such time as he shall have applied for and secured from the commission a certificate of convenience and necessity authorizing him to continue such business. From this order appellant appealed to the circuit court of Marion county, where the order of the commission was confirmed, and he has appealed to this court from the order of confirmation entered by the circuit court.

[3] It is the contention of appellant that the order of the commission is without substantial foundation in the evidence, and that he was not operating a public utility, and was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the commission. The term ‘public utility’ includes every person who now or hereafter may own, control, operate, or manage within the state, directly or indirectly, for public use, any plant, equipment, or property used or to be used for or in connectionwith the transportation of persons between points within this state. Public Utilities Act, § 10; Public Utilities Com. v. Bartonville Bus Line, 290 Ill. 574, 125 N. E. 373. The question whether a person, company, or corporation is owning, operating, or controlling a public utility is one that necessarily depends upon the special facts connected with the management, operation, or control of such business. Public Utilities Com. v. Noble, 275 Ill. 121, 113 N. E. 910. Whether a given business or industry is a public utility depends upon the public character of the business or service rendered, which makes its regulation a matter of public consequence and concern, because it affects the whole community. Public Utilities Com. v. Monarch Refrigerating Co., 267 Ill. 528, 108 N. E. 716, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 528.

Private carriers, as ordinarily defined, are those who, without being engaged in such business as a public employment, undertake to deliver goods or passengers for hire or reward. A common carrier of passengers has been defined as one who undertakes for...