Davis v. People ex rel. Public Utilities Com'n

Decision Date06 July 1926
Docket Number11286.
Citation79 Colo. 642,247 P. 801
PartiesDAVIS v. PEOPLE ex rel. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to District Court, Mesa County; Straud M. Logan, Judge.

Action by the People, on the relation of the Public Utilities Commission, against Henry C. Davis. To review an adverse judgment, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Millard Fairlamb, of Delta, for plaintiff in error.

William L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., S.E. Naugle, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Burgess & Adams, of Grand Junction, for defendant in error.

BURKE J.

These parties appeared in reverse order in the trial court, and we hereinafter refer to them as there.

This was an action in injunction to prohibit defendant from operating as a common carrier without procuring from the Public Utilities Commission a certificate of public convenience and necessity. To review an adverse judgment of the trial court, he brings error.

The district court found that the business of Davis was that of a common carrier, and the sufficiency of the record to support that finding is the only question for our consideration. All others, essential to a review of the case, have been disposed of in Greeley Transportation Co. v. People (Colo.) 245 P 720. That opinion should be read in connection with this.

Defendant was engaged in the transportation of freight of all kinds between Grand Junction and Paonia and intervening points. His purported employer was 'the Delta County Merchants' and Manufacturing Association.' Its 121 members were the shippers of more than 90 per cent. of the freight carried in that territory. It was originally made a defendant, but was later dismissed. This freighting was carried on by means of automobile trucks; the number depending upon the volume of the business. These and all other equipment were owned by defendant. He had formerly freighted for many of his present patrons, and had applied to the commission for a certificate which was refused. He solicited the memberships, and organized the association. He and his associates represented that the organization was necessary to enable him to continue business. It held no meetings save the one for organization. Its president had presided but 15 minutes, had never appointed any committees, and did not know who were the members thereof, or who was the vice president. The membership fee was $1, which few paid. Defendant had a contract with the association, binding him to haul for those only who belonged to it, but accepted shipments from nonmembers to members, and vice versa, on the order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Western Colorado Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 14 d1 Fevereiro d1 1966
    ...the co-operatives under the regulatory arm of the state. As long ago as 1926 this court, in the case of Davis v. People ex rel. Public Utilities Commission, 79 Colo. 642, 247 P. 801, determined that in examining an activity affected with the public interest it would look to substance and ig......
  • Rural Electric Co. v. State Board of Equalization
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 5 d1 Janeiro d1 1942
    ...court holding that Congress has power to "require those who are common carriers in substance to become so in form." In Davis v. People, ex rel., 79 Colo. 642, 247 P. 801, it appears that Davis hauled freight by truck for over 90% shippers in his territory. He had organized most of the shipp......
  • Home Insurance Company v. Riddell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 21 d2 Janeiro d2 1958
    ...Co., 140 Wash. 613, 250 P. 49; Lloyd v. Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148, 72 A. 516, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 188; Davis v. People, 79 Colo. 642, 247 P. 801; James v. Public Service Comm., 116 Pa.Super. 577, 177 A. 343; Keystone Warehousing Co. v. Public Service Comm., 105 Pa. Supe......
  • Village of Moyie Springs v. Aurora Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 d2 Junho d2 1960
    ...true character is established, are impotent for the purpose intended. Courts sweep them aside as so much rubbish.' Davis v. People, 79 Colo. 642, 247 P. 801, at page 802. 'What cannot be done directly by the City of Idaho Falls because of constitution limitations cannot be accomplished indi......
  • 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