Bosley v. Quigley
| Decision Date | 14 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 110,111. |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 835,189 Md. 493 |
| Parties | BOSLEY et al. v. QUIGLEY. SAME v. SAFEWAY TRAILS, Inc. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeals from Circuit Court, Prince George's County; Charles C Marbury, Judge.
Separate bills of complaint by George D. Quigley and Safeway Trails Inc., each against Charles B. Bosley and others, constituting the Public Service Commission of Maryland, to review a refusal of the Commission to grant Safeway Trails, Inc. authority to give intrastate service over a particular route as well as interstate service, wherein Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Capital Transit Company intervened. From orders overruling the demurrers of defendant and interveners defendant and interveners appeal.
Orders reversed and bills of complaint dismissed.
Louis B. Arnold, of Washington, D. C., and Philip H. Dorsey, Jr., of Leonardtown, for the People.
Francis J. Ortman, of Washington, D. C. (Roberts & McInnis, William A. Roberts and G. Kibby Munson, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
These are two appeals from two orders of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County overruling the demurrers of the Public Service Commission of Maryland, the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., (Greyhound) and the Capital Transit Company, (Capital Transit) appellants here, defendants below, to two separate bills of complaint of the appellees, George D. Quigley, (Quigley) and Safeway Trails, Inc. (Safeway), plaintiffs below, against the Public Service Commission of Maryland.
As the Public Service Commission was the only original defendant, petitions were filed by the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound) and Capital Transit Company (Capital Transit) to intervene as parties defendants in this case, which petitions were granted by the Chancellor.
As these cases come up on demurrers it is necessary that we recite the allegations of the bills in detail. The bill of complaint of Safeway makes many allegations: It is a corporation under the laws of the State of Maryland. Complainant is a common carrier of passengers by motor bus over specified routes between Washington, D. C. and New York City with certain intrastate operating authorities within the State of Maryland. Among other routes within this state, the complainant has authority from the Public Service Commission to operate from Baltimore to the Maryland-District of Columbia line via Route No. 1 and return with the following restriction, 'Interstate only except between Baltimore and the southwest side of Hyattsville.' Safeway in an effort to obtain appropriate authority from the Public Service Commission of Maryland to provide local service over the Washington-Baltimore Boulevard, for which service there is an existing demand and need, filed an application with the Public Service Commission of Maryland on October 1, 1946, requesting the following authority: The bill further alleges that the Public Service Commission as provided by Section 388 of Article 23, of the Code, has 'jurisdiction and power * * * to grant the permission and approval herein specified whenever it shall, after due hearing, determine that such construction or such exercise of the franchise or privilege is necessary or convenient for the public service.'
The application of Safeway hereinbefore mentioned was assigned Case No. 4805 by the Public Service Commission of Maryland and was assigned for a hearing before that Commission with the petition filed on behalf of the public which petition (Quigley petition) was assigned Case No. 4795. Seven days were consumed in the hearing on the consolidated petitions. Hundreds of bus riders interested in obtaining local service by Safeway over the Washington-Baltimore Boulevard appeared at the hearing and for the sake of convenience fifty-three representatives, witnesses, testified in support of Safeway's application and the people's (Quigley) petition either in their own rights or in an official capacity. Safeway offered thirty-four exhibits including traffic studies of the inadequate local service being rendered by Greyhound and also a traffic study showing available space on the buses of Safeway, which buses could be used to advantage in providing local service over the Washington-Baltimore Boulevard. They also offered economic exhibits showing substantial increases in industry and population and material change in transportation requirements along the Washington-Baltimore Boulevard since 1940. The two cases before the Public Service Commission are alleged to be replete with overwhelming testimony in support of the existence of a public demand and need for local service by Safeway and the continued inadequacy of local service offered by Greyhound, the only common carrier of passengers authorized to use a public highway between College Park and Baltimore in local service.
The bill alleges that on January 22, 1947, two members of the Public Service Commission issued an order, Number 43245 in cases 4795 and 4805, supra, which found, contrary to law and fact, that public convenience would not require the removal or modification requested. This order, not set out in the bill of complaint, was as follows:
'Whereas, protests against the removal or modification of the aforesaid restrictions having been made to the Commission and the said proceedings have come on to be heard, after due notice, and it being the opinion and finding of the Commission, after due hearing, that the public welfare and convenience do not require the removal or modification of the aforesaid restrictions, the Commission hereby expressly confirming the conclusions reached by it in similar proceedings in 1940 as expressed in its opinion filed on June 20th, 1940, the Commission now being of the opinion, as it was then, that should the public convenience require the operation of more trips than are now operated by existing carriers authorized to provide local service along the route and in the areas involved, the need could be met more effectively by requiring that such additional needed service be furnished by carriers that are already authorized to provide local service.'
The bill alleges that the Commission by this order abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily in denying the petitions of Safeway and Quigley. Quigley asked for and received a re-hearing which provided an opportunity for the parties of record to offer oral argument before the Commission. Safeway through its counsel participated in this oral argument. Order Number 43377 in Case Number 4795, passed March 12, 1947, not set out in the bill of complaint, follows: 'Whereas, it is the opinion and finding of the Commission after due consideration of the oral argument that was offered as aforesaid, that no change in or modification of its said Order No. 43245 is justified, particularly as it appears from reports of observations made by members of the Commission's staff that the intrastate motor bus service along the Washington Boulevard between Baltimore and the Maryland-District of Columbia line, which has been the subject of controversy in this case, is adequate.'
The bill further alleges that such conclusion by the Commission on unsworn evidence by members of its staff was not only contrary to the overwhelming testimony presented by witnesses who testified under oath and were subject to cross-examination but is contrary to the rules of evidence and contrary to law in that the Commission findings are not based upon alleged facts in the record in the proceeding. It is not alleged in the bill that Safeway objected to the reference to observations by members of the Commission's staff or asked leave to cross-examine the members referred to.
It is further alleged that the record in the proceeding contains undisputed evidence that Safeway has been continuously operating in interstate and intrastate commerce in the transportation of passengers, baggage and express over U.S. Highway No. 1 between Washington and Baltimore since 1937 when it succeeded to the rights of its predecessor Short Line, Inc., of Pennsylvania, to which corporation the initial certificate was issued, May 17, 1933. From June 4, 1942, to September 30, 1945, Safeway participated in providing an unrestricted coordinated local passenger service by motor bus with Greyhound between Baltimore and College Park over U.S. Highway No. 1. As a result of the local services by Greyhound and Safeway during that period the bus-riding public between the Maryland-District of Columbia line and Baltimore enjoyed the adequate bus service to which they are rightfully entitled. The Maryland Public Service Commission pursuant to a requirement of the Office of Defense Transportation authorized complete local transportation between College Park, Maryland and Baltimore in addition to the restricted intrastate service. This authority was withdrawn on September 30, 1945, due to the reduction of War Emergency authority in the Federal Government. As a condition to a compliance with the Office of Defense Transportation orders, allocating frequency of service and requesting interchangeability of tickets, Greyhound had demanded and received from Safeway an agreement that it would not file an application for a certificate to continue the complete local service prior to one year following the expiration of the Office of Defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial