Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner

Decision Date13 July 1962
Docket NumberNo. 7444,7444
Citation92 Ariz. 63,373 P.2d 370
PartiesCANTLAY & TANZOLA, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. George F. SENNER, Jr., E. T. (Eddie) Williams, Jr., and A. P. (Jack) Buzard, as members of and constituting the Arizona Corporation Commission, Appellees, and Reliable Transportation Company, a corporation, and Arizona Tank Lines, Inc., a corporation, Intervenors.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Minne & Sorenson, Lewis, Roca, Scoville, Beauchamp & Linton, John P. Frank, Phoenix, for appellant.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Langmade & Langmade, Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, Earl H. Carroll, Phoenix, for appellees.

LOCKWOOD, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court affirming a decision and order of the Arizona Corporation Commission, hereafter called the Commission, which denied appellant Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc., hereafter called Cantlay, a contract carrier permit. It is a sequel to litigation which terminated in Arizona Corporation Commission v. Reliable Transportation Company, 86 Ariz. 363, 346 P.2d 1091 (1959).

Cantlay, as an interstate common carrier, had transported petroleum products for Texaco, Inc. and other petroleum companies to various points in Arizona. The interstate hauling of petroleum products to Arizona was vastly reduced after 1956 because of the installation of an interstate pipeline between El Paso, Texas and Los Angeles, California, with outlets in Arizona at both Tucson and Phoenix. The petroleum products received at these points were thereafter stored in tank farm facilities and ultimately distributed by motor carriers throughout Arizona on an intrastate basis. In order to meet the change in circumstances and to continue to haul petroleum products within the State of Arizona, Cantlay entered into contracts with seven of the eight petroleum companies doing business in Arizona, and made application to the Commission for contract carrier permits, which were granted. Reliable Transportation Company, and Arizona Tank Lines, Inc., (both corporations and intervenors herein), successfully contested the legality of the Commission, decision and order granting the contract carrier permits in the Reliable case. This court held that under the existing fact situation Cantlay did not change its character as a common motor carrier by proposing to act under the device of a special contract with each company.

After the ruling in the Reliable case, Cantlay entered into a contract with Texaco, Inc. (hereafter designated Texaco) only, (in contrast to the several contracts it had entered into with seven petroleum companies in the previous case) to haul petroleum products for this company from the pipelines to: (1) twelve bulk plants of Texaco, (2) the United States Government, and (3) American Smelting and Refining Company, within the State of Arizona. It thereupon applied for a contract carrier's permit to execute this contract with Texaco, which application the Commission denied, Cantlay then brought this action in the Superior Court to set aside the Commission's decision and order. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law upholding the action of the Commission, whereupon Cantlay has appealed.

We have repeatedly held that we will not disturb the findings and judgment of the trial court when supported by substantial evidence, and that all the evidence and inferences therefrom must be reviewed by this court in the light most favorable to sustain the judgment of the lower court. Bohmfalk v. Vaughan, 89 Ariz. 33, 357 P.2d 617 (1960).

However in the very nature of judicial review, this court is not bound by conclusions of law of the trial court as applied to its findings of fact. Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 91 Ariz. 253, 371 P.2d 879, (1962).

In the instant case the trial court made five findings of fact. 1 Finding number one is extremely general in nature. It merely indicates that under the provisions of the contract between Cantlay and Texaco here involved, the services to be performed by Cantlay do not differ materially from the services previously performed by Cantlay under a prior contract between the same parties. 2 An examination of the record shows that there were certain differences in the services to be performed under these two Texaco contracts. The finding apparently acknowledges differences, but asserts that they were not 'significant'. This is so broad and general a statement that we fail to see its significance as a basis for any legal conclusion in this controversy.

We agree with Cantlay's proposition that finding number two is one of mixed finding of fact and conclusion of law. In the Reliable case this court referred to A.R.S. § 40-601, subd. B. (1956). 3 We indicated that such 'a legislative declaration that establishment of one fact is prima facie evidence of another fact is entitled to greater weight than the ordinary presumption arising out of common law rules of evidence.' 86 Ariz. at 374, 346 P.2d at 1098. Although we referred to 'three classes of consigness' we did not determine specifically that the meaning of 'consignee', as used in the statute, was limited to a single individual recipient, as opposed to a business entity which might employ numerous individuals at several receiving points. We think the former interpretation is too narrow, and hold that a 'consignee' may be an individual or business entity, which may have numerous employees or receiving points. The trial court's 'finding' was obviously an adoption of the interpretation of 'consignee' in the narrow sense, which we reject.

In the Reliable case we discussed the characteristics of a common carrier and indicated that the essential distinction between a common and a contract motor carrier is the holding out by the former that it is ready to serve the public generally. In determining whether the carrier was a common or contract carrier, we said '[t]he important thing is what it does, not what its charter says.' 4

In the Reliable case, there was no question that Cantlay offered to transport petroleum for more than one consignor and to more than three consignees. We did not hold that this of itself constituted appellants therein common carriers, but stated that 'as a result, appellants have the burden to exclude themselves from the class of common carriers * * *. This burden appellants have failed to sustain nor have they overcome the constitutional and legislative thrusts in favor of defining carriers generally as common carriers.' 86 Ariz. at 377, 346 P.2d at 1100.

We will apply the reasoning and criteria set forth in the Reliable case to determine whether Cantlay in the instant case has carried the burden of excluding itself from the class of common carriers. In the first place, Cantlay based its application for a contract carrier permit upon a single contract with a single consignor--Texaco. It claimed that the contract was to deliver petroleum products for the consignor, Texaco, to three consignees only: Texaco, The United States Government, and American Smelting & Refining Company. The evidence showed that while shipments to Texaco bulk plants in Arizona were consigned to 'Texaco', many of the plants were run by managers on a commission instead of salary basis. For some purposes they might be considered independent operators, but they all have in common their exclusive handling of Texaco petroleum products under a contract, whereby Texaco exercises a high degree of control over the bulk plant business, and the petroleum product remains that of Texaco until sold for it by the plant manager. The Smelting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 11 Marzo 1966
    ...v. Takesuye, 66 Ariz. 205, 185 P.2d 778; Daily Mines Co. v. Control Mines, Inc., 59 Ariz. 138, 124 P.2d 324. In Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 92 Ariz. 63, 373 P.2d 370 this court said it would review all evidence and inferences most favorably to support the trial court's findings and j......
  • Brasher v. Gibson
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 18 Octubre 1965
    ...bound by the conclusions of law of the trial court. Miller v. Boeger, 1 Ariz.App. 554, 405 P.2d 573 (1965); Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 92 Ariz. 63, 373 P.2d 370 (1962). Conclusions of law numbers 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 2 are erroneous. Conclusions of law numbers 3 and 4 3 are not necessar......
  • Visco v. State ex rel. Pickrell
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 26 Diciembre 1963
    ...the unsuccessful appellants in the Reliable case was held to be entitled to a 'contract carriers' certificate in Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 92 Ariz. 63, 373 P.2d 370. In any event, oil trucking is very different from appellant's trash hauling. Oil is one of the commodities specifica......
  • A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist., 1 CA-CV 07-0760.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 28 Noviembre 2008
    ...We will not "disturb the findings and judgment of the trial court when supported by substantial evidence." Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 92 Ariz. 63, 66, 373 P.2d 370, 372 (1962) ("[A]ll the evidence and inferences therefrom must be reviewed by this court in the light most favorable to......
  • 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