Bushnell v. People
| Decision Date | 30 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | 13108. |
| Parties | BUSHNELL v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Larimer County; Claude C. Coffin, Judge.
Frank Bushnell was convicted of operating as a private motor vehicle carrier for hire, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Marion F. Jones, of Longmont, and Ralph W McCrillis, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Clarence L. Ireland, Atty. Gen., and Colin A. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen for the People.
Frank Bushnell was charged with violating chapter 120, p. 465 Session Laws of 1931, by operating as a private motor vehicle carrier of freight for hire without a permit thereby required. A demurrer, charging the act unconstitutional, was overruled, and, upon trial to the court, defendant was found guilty and fined $50 and costs which judgment he here seeks to review. It is urged that the lower court erred in not holding the act unconstitutional and dismissing the defendant. It is claimed, among other assignments, that the act denies due process and equal protection of law and is void for indefiniteness.
The act is entitled: 'An Act providing for the regulation of the use of public highways and of persons, firms, corporations and associations owning, controlling, operating or managing motor vehicles used in the business of transporting persons or property for compensation or hire, as private carriers by motor vehicle, upon the public highways of this state, and prescribing the compensation to be paid for the use of such highways in carrying on such business, providing penalties for the violation of this act and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict therewith.'
Section 1 defines the terms 'corporation,' 'person,' 'commission,' 'permit,' 'public highway,' 'motor vehicle,' and 'compensation,' and provides:
routes or between substantially fixed termini; or to a fixed terminus or termini;
'(2) Class B Private Carriers shall embrace all private carriers by motor vehicle who do not operate over substantially regular or established routes or between substantially fixed termini.'
Section 2 forbids the transporation of persons or property for compensation except in accordance 'with the provisions of this Act of of Chapter 134 of the Session Laws of Colorado for the year 1927, as amended.' Chapter 121 Session Laws of 1931, commonly called the 'Common Carrier Act.'
Section 3 provides:
'It shall be unlawful for any private carrier by motor vehicle, as defined in Section 1 of this Act, to engage in or transact the business of transporting passengers, freight, merchandise or other property over the public highways of the State of Colorado, without first having obtained a permit therefor from the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado, and for the purpose of protecting the public highways of the State of Colorado and safeguarding the use of the same by the traveling public, the Commission is hereby vested with the authority to issue a permit to a private carrier by motor vehicle, and may attach to such permit and to the exercise of the rights granted thereunder, such terms and conditions as are reasonable.
'* * * Nor shall anything herein contained be construed or applied so as to compel a private carrier by motor vehicle to be or become a common carrier, ro to subject such private carrier by motor vehicle to the laws or the rules and regulations applicable to a common carrier.'
Section 4 authorizes the sale of permits only upon approval of the commission.
Section 5 provides:
'In addition to the regular license fees or taxes imposed upon motor vehicles there shall be assessed against and collected from every Class A private carrier by motor vehicle the following tax as compensation for the use of the public highways, and for the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the same:
Sections 6 and 7 cover the method of keeping and making reports of the business done by class A private carriers.
Section 8 provides: 'In addition to the regular license fees or taxes imposed upon motor vehicles, there shall be assessed against and collected from every Class B Private Carrier, as compensation for the use of the public highways and for the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the same, an annual permit fee of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each of such trucks and trailers having a carrying capacity of one ton, or less, and the sum of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) for every one-half ton, or fraction thereof, of carrying capacity in excess of said one ton. * * *'
Section 9 provides for an increase of 25 per cent in the rates for motor vehicles using solid tires.
Sections 10 and 11 are procedural.
Section 12 authorizes the commission to enforce the collection of all taxes and penalties; provides that 10 per cent. of such sums shall be paid to the commission for costs of administration and enforcement, 75 per cent. of the balance to be paid to the credit of the state highway fund and the remaining 25 per cent. to be apportioned on the 1st of January and the 1st of July among the various counties of the state 'according to the mileage of State Routes and State Highways as established by the State Highway Department.'
Section 13 makes the violation of any provision of the act a misdemeanor.
Section 14 authorizes the appointment of necessary clerks and inspectors.
Section 15 provides for a filing fee of $5 upon application for a permit and a filing fee of $5 for the transfer of a permit in addition to the fees and licenses provided in the act.
Section 16 requires the carrier to furnish a liability insurance policy or surety bond 'to adequately safeguard the public interest.'
Section 17 authorizes the revocation of a permit upon hearing.
Section 18 makes the failure to comply with any of the terms of the act a misdemeanor punishable by 'a fine of not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six (6) months, or both, in the discretion of the court.'
Section 19 clothes the district or county court with jurisdiction 'in all matters arising under this Act,' and further provides that it shall be the duty of the district attorney to prosecute.
Section 20 authorizes suits by the Attorney General or district attorney against violators or threatened violators 'either by mandamus or injunction.' It also authorizes: 'Any person or corporation injured by such noncompliance of any private carrier by motor vehicle with the provisions of this Act or of any other provisions of the law or orders, decisions, rules, directions or requirements of the Commission, may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement thereof, and the court shall have jurisdiction to enforce obedience thereto by writ of injunction or other proper process. * * *'
Section 21 provides: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the transportation of farm produce to market or supplies to the farm or to the vicinity of the farm by any person chiefly engaged in farming, or to the transportation of children to and from school.'
The remaining sections, 22 to 27, need not be noted.
Section 1(d) of the Public Carrier Act, chapter 134, p. 499, of the Session Laws of 1927, provides:
Chapter 121, p. 481, of the Session Laws of 1931, the amended Public Carrier Act, provides:
'Section 1. That sub-section (d) of Section 1 of Chapter 134 of the Session Laws of the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Service Commission of Wyoming v. Grimshaw, 1941
... ... American Sugar Company v. La., 45 L.Ed. 102; ... Clark v. Kansas City, 44 L.Ed. 492; State v ... Kozer, 242 P. 621; Bushnell v. People, 19 P.2d ... 197; Stephenson v. Binford, supra. The jurisdiction of state ... district courts to restrain violations of the Act is ... ...
-
State v. Grimshaw
...v. Lawson, 143 So. 619. The declared purport of a legislative act must be given consideration. City v. West, 164 N.Y. 510; Bushnell v. People, (Colo.) 19 P.2d 197; v. Bond, (Wyo.) 34 P.2d 28. The State of Wyoming has constructed at great expense a system of public highways, which are rapidl......
-
Public Utilities Com'n v. Manley
...such carriers constitute a class that requires regulation in the interest of the safety and welfare of the people as a whole. In Bushnell v. People, supra, we quoted with approval from decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 53 S.Ct. 181, 1......
-
Thompson v. People
...in section (1)(b), the conduct must be construed to embody the judicial interpretation found in Snyder. See also Bushnell v. People, 92 Colo. 174, 19 P.2d 197. See generally Croswell v. People, 74 Colo. 547, 223 P. 51; Sheely v. People, 54 Colo. 136, 129 P. Thus, having recognized that the ......