Boyd v. Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, 5-180

Decision Date09 November 1953
Docket NumberNo. 5-180,5-180
Citation262 S.W.2d 282,222 Ark. 599
Parties, 3 P.U.R.3d 482 BOYD v. ARKANSAS MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, Inc., et al.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Chas. C. Wine, Texarkana, for appellant.

Ned Stewart, Texarkana, Stanley P. Clay, Joplin, Mo., Leroy Hallman, Dallas, Tex., William J. Smith, Little Rock, and Thomas Harper, Ft. Smith, for appellees.

GRIFFIN SMITH, Chief Justice.

Public Service Commission issued its certificate of convenience and necessity to S. C. Boyd, enlarging his intrastate rights. Circuit court reversed and we affirm its judgment.

For eleven months prior to the commission's action Boyd had operated intrastate as Texarkana-Nashville Motor Freight Lines, carrying general commodities from Texarkana to Hope, and from Texarkana to Nashville and Lockesburg. Certain government consignments are the objects of competitive efforts. Explosives, or the ingredients or materials requisite to the manufactured product, move from DeSoto, Kansas, to the Shumaker Ordnance Plant near Camden, Ark. A witness supporting Boyd's application testified that recent shipments involved eleven million pounds, but the routing was through Texas and Louisiana, with mileage substantially in excess of what the haul would be if DeQueen should be used as a gateway.

The only witness who verified Boyd's contentions touching service necessities was M. J. Sears, president of Luper Transportation Company of Tulsa. He estimated that with routing of the supplies through DeQueen a saving of $135 for a round trip would be effectuated. But Sears' idea was to interchange business with Boyd. He was permitted to testify that protesting carriers would not sustain loss if the certificate should be issued--this for the reason that the government's policy was to apportion or equalize transportation patronage among the qualified truck lines. The witness was morally certain of this result because his company kept a representative in Washington whose business it was to relay information. This agent had formerly been 'connected with the defense department'.

Boyd petitioned for the right to utilize Highway No. 71 from Lockesburg to DeQueen where the interchange with Sears' company (Luper Transportation) would take place. From DeQueen the routes would be 71 to Lockesburg, 24 to Nashville, 4 to Hope, 67 to Prescott, 24 to Camden and 79 to the ordnance plant. A highway map shows this to be approximately 120 miles, not including the distance from Camden to the government plant.

DeSota, Kansas, is about 45 miles southwest of Kansas City. It is not shown that Sears' company has authority to transport explosives between those points. But the witness, Sears, insisted that if intrastate rights should be extended to Boyd, Luper Transportation, by connection with Boyd at DeQueen, would have a more direct route to Camden, thus eliminating three or four other operators who presently participate in the business. He assumed that Arkansas Motors came down its certificated route--a relatively direct course south from Kansas City over 71 into this state, then to Camden.

The evidence clearly shows that Luper's interest in the intrastate certificate was equal to if not greater than Boyd's. Sears intended to lease his company's trailers to Boyd when interstate shipments reached DeQueen. There would be no exchange of facilities--a practice common among carriers. To use Sears' own language in regard to Boyd, 'I expect him to make a little money out of it'.

There was no testimony that shipments of explosives originated at DeQueen or at any point along the routes mentioned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Fisher v. Branscum, 5--4328
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1967
    ...Co., supra; Schulte v. Southern Bus Lines, 211 Ark. 200, 199 S.W.2d 742; Wisinger v. Stewart, supra; Boyd v. The Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 222 Ark. 599, 262 S.W.2d 282; National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc., 233 Ark. 887, 349 S.W.2d 4. The burden is on the......
  • Arkansas Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Co., 5-1839
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1959
    ...haul, and that this fulfills the requirement of a public need and necessity. This question I deem settled by Boyd v. Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 222 Ark. 599, 262 S.W.2d 282, where, in a case practically on all fours with this one, the Court in this connection said: '* * * the prime......
  • Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Camden-El Dorado Exp. Co., CAMDEN-EL
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1984
    ...discuss the testimony by various witnesses hampers us on review. We try cases of this type de novo. Boyd v. The Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 222 Ark. 599, 262 S.W.2d 282 (1953). We review all the evidence and make such findings of fact and law as we deem just, proper and equitable, a......
  • Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas Transp. Com'n, 82-204
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1983
    ...used to it. We have said that appeals from Circuit Court in cases of this type are heard de novo. Boyd v. The Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 222 Ark. 599, 262 S.W.2d 282 (1953). And that we review all the evidence and make such findings of fact and law as we deem just, proper and equit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT