Chicago Motor Bus Co. v. Chicago Stage Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1919
• Docket Number: Nos. 12384,12385.,s. 12384
• Citation: 287 Ill. 320,122 N.E. 477
• Parties: CHICAGO MOTOR BUS CO. v. CHICAGO STAGE CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

287 Ill. 320

122 N.E. 477

CHICAGO MOTOR BUS CO.

v.CHICAGO STAGE CO.

Nos. 12384, 12385.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1919.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Elbert S. Smith, Judge.

Applications to the Public Utilities Commission by the Chicago Motor Bus Company and the Chicago Stage Company for certificates of necessity and convenience. From orders granting the stage company's application, and denying its own, the bus company appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the orders and decisions of the commission, and the bus company appeals. Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and orders and decisions of the Public Utilities Commission set aside.

Carter and Dunn, JJ., dissenting.Fyffe, Ryner & Dale and William McKinley, all of Chicago (Colin C. H. Fyffe, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, of Chicago (Edward D. Shurtleff, of Chicago, Charles E. Woodward, of Ottawa, Frederic Burnham, of Chicago, and William H. Page and Powell C. Groner, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen. (George T. Buckingham, of Chicago, William E. Trautmann, of E. St. Louis, and Albert D. Rodenberg, of Springfield, of counsel), for Public Utilities Commission.

FARMER, J.

This appeal from the circuit court of Sangamon county brings up for review the judgment of that court affirming two orders and decisions of the Public Utilities Commission.

Appellant, the Chicago Motor Bus Company, was incorporated in 1913 to operate motor bus lines in the city of Chicago. In February, 1914, it filed its application with the Public Utilities Commission for a certificate of necessity and convenience. That body granted the certificate December 31, 1914, specifying no routes but covering the entire city of Chicago. At that time appellant had not secured a license from the municipal authorities, and the order granting the certificate was conditioned upon its securing a license from the local authorities having supervision of parks, boulevards, and streets in said city. The evidence shows that some time was required and numerous meetings and conferences held by appellant in an endeavor to secure an ordinance or license from the park commissioners. In June, 1916, the Lincoln Park Commissioners enacted an ordinance licensing appellant to operate a line of busses over certain specific routes under their jurisdiction on the north side. This ordinance required appellant to pay in advance to the commissioners $20,000, to be applied upon the annual sums required to be paid by appellant for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth years of the grant for the operation of its bus line, and the further sum of $5,000 was required to be paid as a guaranty that appellant would abide by the terms of the ordinance and the regulations of the park commissioners. The ordinance required appellant to pay for the privilege of operating its bus lines, annually, a sum equal to 3 per cent. of its gross receipts the first five years, but not less than $10,000 any one year. The second five years it was required to pay 3 1/2 per cent. annually, of its gross receipts, with a minimum of $11,000 a year; and the last five years it was required to pay 4 per cent. of its gross annual receipts, with the minimum fixed at $12,000 per year. Appellant filed its acceptance of the ordinance, paid the $20,000 cash, and the further sum of $5,000 was put up as a guaranty. Appellant immediately made contracts for some 40 busses and 10 additional driving units, at a total cost of some $370,000. In September, 1916, appellant filed its petition with the Public Utilities Commission for a certificate of convenience and necessity for the operation of its busses over the lines specified in the Lincoln Park ordinance, and represented that it would not be prepared to operate its lines of motor busses until about February, 1917. A new certificate of convenience and nucessity was thereupon granted appellant January 15, 1917, to operate its busses on the north side.

On January 6, 1917, appellant applied for a certificate to operate its busses over the streets and boulevards on the south side, and in its application stated the certificate previously granted December 31, 1914, was about to expire for the reason that appellant had not yet begun the operation of its busses on necessity was thereupon granted appellant south side. That application was for a certificate over designated routes. March 7, 1917, the South Park Commissioners adopted an ordinance authorizing the appellant to operate its busses over certain boulevards, streets, and parks designated and under their control and upon certain terms and conditions specified. The application of the appellant asked for a certificate to operate over a street or streets not under the control of the park commissioners, and property owners protested to the Public Utilities Commission. The objectors appear to have been persons living on Woodlawn avenue. A public hearing was set for April 25, 1917, and notice was given of said hearing. On the day of the hearing the appellant withdrew its application to operate on Woodlawn avenue, and, no other objections having been made, one of the commissioners inquired if any one present, representing himself or any other person, wished to object to the issuance of the certificate of convenience and necessity. Thereupon counsel for appellee, the Chicago Stage Company, objected and orally asked to be permitted to intervene. That company had received its final certificate of incorporation the day previous, and on April 25, 1917, filed its petition for a certificate of convenience and necessity for the operation of motor busses on the south side covering substantially the same routes asked for by appellant. Each corporation filed objections to thr granting of the certificate of convenience and necessity to the other. Thereafter there were numerous hearings before the commission on different dates and a large amount of evidence, oral and documentary, heard. At a hearing before the commission July 12, 1917, the applications of the two corporations were consolidated by the commission and thereafter heard together. Hearings were had on various dates until October 9, 1917, when the hearings were concluded and the case taken under advisement by the commission. On January 8, 1918, the commission entered its order and decision on the application of the Chicago Stage Company. After setting out a history of the controversy between the two corporations, the commission found ‘that the Chicago Stage Company, by reason of prior experience and technical skill of its officers and directors and by reason of its financial ability, is in a position to adequately serve the public needs for motor transportation’ along and over the streets, highways, boulevards, and parkways of the city of Chicago, and granted the Chicago Stage Company a certificate of necessity and convenience for the operation of its busses over designated boulevards and public ways on the south side. On the same day the commission filed its order and decision finding that the public convenience and welfare did not require the operation of two competing lines of motor busses. The order recited that the commission had that day granted the Chicago Stage Company a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate busses over substantially the same lines for which the certificate was asked by the Chicago Motor Bus Company, and its application was denied. From these orders the Chicago Motor Bus Company appealed to the circuit court of Sangamon county, where the two cases were treated and heard as one and the orders and decisions of the Public Utilities Commission were affirmed. The Chicago Motor Bus Company has prosecuted further appeals to this court. But one set of briefs and abstracts has been filed and the two cases will be disposed of in one opinion.

Section 68 of the Public Utilities Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 111a) authorizes an appeal from the order and decision of the Public Utilities Commission for the purpose of determining their reasonableness or lawfulness. The findings and conclusions of the commission on questions of fact shall be held prima facie to be true, and the order or decision shall not be set aside unless it clearly appears to be against the manifest weight of the evidence presented before the commission or that the order or decision was outside the jurisdiction of the commission. The rules, regulations, orders, or decisions of the commission shall be held prima facie reasonable, and the burden of proof upon all the issues raised by the appeal is upon the person or corporation appealing. A further appeal is allowed from the judgment of the circuit court to this court.

The contention of appellant is that the action of the commission was unreasonable and an unauthorized exercise of arbitrary power. In support of this position it is pointed out that the proof showed, without contradiction, that appellant was incorporated in 1913 for the purpose of operating motor busses over parks, boulevards, and streets in the city of Chicago and began at once negotiations with the proper municipal authorities for permission to operate over and upon boulevards, driveways, and parks. In December, 1914, on appellant's application and petition, it was granted a certificate of necessity and convenience for the operation of motor busses over and upon all streets and public ways in the city of Chicago, conditioned upon its obtaining the necessary license from the proper local authorities. In February, 1915, and before appellant had obtained such license, it began the operation of one bus as a test and in the summer of 1915 it operated two busses. After much effort and many meetings and conferences the Lincoln Park Commissioners in July, 1916, adopted an ordinance, the terms and conditions of which are above referred to, authorizing appellant to...