Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 19 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 16936 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. v. STATE et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Carriers--Motor Carriers -- Public Convenience and Necessity" Justifying License to Operate. Where the existence of public convenience and necessity is a prerequisite to the authorization of a motor carrier to furnish services as required by section 4, ch. 113, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1923, the word "necessity" means a public need, without which the public is inconvenienced to the extent of being handicapped in the pursuit of business or wholesome pleasure or both-without which the people generally of the community are denied, to their, detriment, that, which is enjoyed by other people generally, similarly situated.
2. Same--Appeal from Order of Corporation Commission Issuing Permit for Motor Bus Line--Burden on Appellant to Show Order Unreasonable. On appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a motor bus over the public highways, if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the order of the Commission, the prima facie presumption of the order's being reasonable, just and correct obtains by reason of section 22, art. 9 of the Constitution, and the burden is upon appellant to overcome that presumption.
3. Same--Order Supported by Evidence. Evidence examined, and held, that evidence is sufficient to support the order of the Corporation Commission.
4. Same. Evidence examined, and held, appellant's evidence insufficient to overcome the prima facie presumption of the reasonableness, justness, and correctness of the order appealed from.
W. R. Bleakmore, John Barry, A. T. Boys, and W. F. Collins, for plaintiff in error.
Clark Owsley, for the Corporation Commission.
George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and William L. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Simons, McKnight & Simons, for defendant in error Red Ball Bus & Baggage Company.
¶1 The Red Ball Bus & Baggage Company, a corporation, filed its application with the Corporation Commission under chapter 113, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1923, and rule 11 of Order No. 2219 of the Commission, asking for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a motor bus as a common carrier of passengers over and upon the public highways from Enid, Okla., to El Reno, Okla., by way of Waukomis, Bison, Hennessey, Dover, Kingfisher, and Okarche, paralleling the railroad of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. The railway company filed a written protest to the issuance of said certificate, setting out in substance that all of the towns reached on said proposed bus line were regular stations on its railroad; that adequate facilities were provided for the receipt and delivery of passengers, sufficient for the transportation of the traveling public; and that there was no necessity for the establishment of a motor bus line over said route. The railway company appeared at the hearing on said application, and offered evidence against the issuance of said certificate. After taking testimony in support of and against said application, the Corporation Commission on the 7th day of July, 1925, made certain findings and issued its order granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to said applicant, from which findings and order the plaintiff in error, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company has appealed to this court.
¶2 Five assignments of error are presented, but are briefed under one specification of error, to wit:
"The order of the Corporation Commission is not supported by sufficient evidence."
¶3 That portion of the findings and order of the Corporation Commission which is complained of and with which we have to deal is as follows:
¶4 The evidence upon which the above findings and order were made is substantially as follows: C. E. Mehew, president and manager of the Red Ball Bus & Baggage Company, testified that he was engaged in the taxi and baggage business at Enid; that he was financially able to operate the bus line; that the train schedule from Enid to El Reno and Oklahoma City over the plaintiff in error's road was insufficient and inconvenient for quite a few people in Enid and in the small towns along said route between Enid and El Reno; that there was no train service from Enid south to El Reno between the hours of 1:00 o'clock a. m. and 11:00 o'clock a. m.; that by his proposed schedule the bus would leave Enid at 7:00 a. m., make all of the small towns, and arrive in El Reno at 10:00 a. m.; that he had talked with a great number of the people in all of the towns along said proposed route; and that every one that he had talked with desired the establishment of the bus line. H. W. Manning testified that he was proprietor of the Oxford Hotel, the principal hotel in Enid; that he heard a great deal of complaint about the train service from Enid south, the most of this complaint being from traveling salesmen; that two of the trains between Enid and El Reno each way did not stop at Waukomis, Bison, Hennessey, Dover, and Okarche; that the proposed bus schedule would permit one from the north to make earlier connections at El Reno for Oklahoma City, and thus permit them to make the trip to Oklahoma City and back in much less time; and that public convenience and necessity demanded the issuance of the permit. Then a resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of Enid was introduced setting forth that the train schedule of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway was not adequate to meet the demands of the traveling public for the reason that the first train of each day was too early, and the second train was too late for the convenience of the public, and stated that public convenience and necessity demanded the issuance of a permit to operate the proposed bus line. Two additional petitions signed by more than 100 persons, residents in the towns along said proposed route, stated that there was a necessity for the operation of a motor carrier over the proposed route, and asking for the issuance of the certificate.
¶5 The contestant offered its time-tables in evidence, which are as follows:
¶6 The evidence further shows that one of the five trains each way between Enid and El Reno is a local freight, and that its time of arrival at the stations along the route is somewhat indefinite, depending upon the amount of business on each haul; and that two trains each way only stop at Kingfisher between Enid and El Reno; and only two passenger trains each way stop at Waukomis, Bison, Hennessey, Dover, and Okarche, leaving El Reno at 9:00 a. m. and 4:00 p. m., respectively, and arriving in Enid two hours later. The first train leaving Enid after 1:00 a. m. is at 11: 00 a. m. and stops at all stations between Enid and El Reno. The evidence does not disclose which south-bound train is the second local train. There is further evidence to the effect that the reason for not stopping the four passenger trains is that sufficient people do not travel on the trains at the small stations to justify the stops, and, further, that the railway company is furnishing such service as it deems necessary, and is able to furnish such service to the traveling public as is needed. Several persons testified that the train service was good and adequate, and no necessity existed for the bus line. The proposed schedule of the bus line is to leave Enid at 7:00 a. m., stop at all intermediate stations, and arrive at El Reno at 10:00 a. m.; leave El Reno at 1:00 p. m., stop at all intermediate stations, and arrive at Enid at 4:00 p. m. The evidence in this case, both in support of the application and in opposition thereto, is somewhat unsatisfactory, is rather meager, and consists principally of generalities and conclusions, rather than a narration of the facts necessary to enable this court to best determine the reasonableness and justness of the order.
¶7 What constitutes such a public convenience and necessity as would warrant the issuance of a certificate to a motor carrier under the act? And what shall be the measure of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Peppers Ref. Co. v. Corp.
- City of Tulsa v. State Corp.
- Okla. Union Ry. Co. v. State
- Mo., Kan. & Okla. Coach Lines, Inc. v. State