Blue Ridge Transp. Co. v. Hammer

• Decision Date: 09 April 1958
• Citation: 313 S.W.2d 433,24 P.U.R.3d 305,203 Tenn. 398,7 McCanless 398
• Parties: BLUE RIDGE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. Hon. John C. HAMMER, etc., et al. 7 McCanless 398, 203 Tenn. 398, 313 S.W.2d 433, 24 P.U.R.3d 305
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 433

313 S.W.2d 433

BLUE RIDGE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. Hon. John C. HAMMER, etc., et al.

7 McCanless 398, 203 Tenn. 398, 313 S.W.2d 433, 24 P.U.R.3d 305

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 9, 1958.

James C. Havron, Nashville, Alfred T. MacFarland, Lebanon, for appellants.

Gracey, Buck, Maddin & Cowan, Nashville, for appellees.

NEIL, Chief Justice.

On March 9, 1956, Davidson Transports, Inc., filed an application with the Tennessee Public Service Commission for 'a contract hauler's permit' to haul asphalt and asphalt products in tank trucks over State highways and county roads from Nashville to all points and places within a radius of 150 miles of Nashville. There was exhibited to this application agreements with Esso Standard Oil Company, Southern States Paving Company and Hard Drivers, Inc., for the transportation of asphalt products, which agreements were subject to the approval of the Tennessee Public Service Commission. There was a similar agreement with Eveready Transports, Inc., and subject to the approval of the Commission.

On June 6, 1956, there was a hearing before the Commission as to both applications, and, after due consideration of the facts, the Commission approved the aforesaid agreements and issued separate orders for 'hauler's permits'. To these applications the Blue Ridge Transportation Company, Inc., Refiners Transports, Inc., Gasoline Transports, and Direct Transport made formal protest, the same being entered upon the minutes of the Commission.

The protestants filed petitions to rehear which were disallowed by a majority of the Commission.

The protestants thereupon on November 20, 1956, filed a petition for certiorari and supersedeas in Part I of the Chancery Court of Davidson County to review and reverse the orders of the Commission on the ground that there was no material evidence to support the Commission's action in issuing the aforesaid 'hauler's permits'. The record was duly certified by the Commission and the same filed pursuant to the prayer of the bill. The Chancellor affirmed the orders of the Commission, and complainants (protestants before the Commission) prayed and were granted an appeal to this Court.

The only assignment of error is the following:

'The Chancellor erred in holding that there was material evidence in the record before the Public Service Commission that would support the orders of the Commission.'

Following the foregoing assignment, and in support of it, the complainants say:

'A. There was no proof that the issuance of contract haulers permits to Davidson Transports Inc., and Eveready Transports Inc., would in anyway benefit the public.

'B. There was no proof that this service was needed by the shipper witness, Esso Standard Oil Company.

'C. The Commission did not give reasonable consideration to the transportation service being performed by other carriers. (Appellants).

'D. The Commission did not give consideration to the effect which the proposed transportation service would have upon other transportation service being rendered. (Appellants).'

The counsel for the appellants refers to T.C.A. Sec. 65-1510, which provides for the issuance of 'contract hauler's permit' provided the evidence shows that the public will be benefited by the creation of the proposed service. Other and additional authorities are cited by appellants' counsel in support of the assignment of error, to which we will refer later on in this opinion.

It clearly appears in the record that these transport carriers of oil and asphalt products, and other carriers, are in sharp competition with each other for transporting such products under contract with Esso Standard Oil Company. While they are engaged in hauling other products, such as oil and gasoline, within a limited area, their chief complaint is that the orders of the Commission deprives them of their rightful revenues. Reference is made to the investment by Blue Ridge Transportation Company, Inc., in eight tractors and asphalt trailers. 'The tank trailers cost this company $7,500.00 each and the tractors cost $12,000.00 each. * * * Blue Ridge has transported very little asphalt and these units are standing idle 95% of the time.'

It is further argued by appellants' counsel: 'All three common carriers, Refiners, Direct and Blue Ridge, testified that they could handle any business that Esso Standard gave them and needed this...