Day v. Public Service Commission
| Decision Date | 30 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | 277 |
| Citation | 167 A. 565,312 Pa. 381 |
| Parties | Day, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission et al |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 24, 1933
Appeal, No. 277, Jan. T., 1933, by plaintiff, from decree of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1932, No. 344, dismissing appeal of plaintiff from order of public service commission revoking certificate of public convenience, Application Docket No 20484-1929, in case of Joseph Day v. Public Service Commission et al. Affirmed.
Rule to show cause why certificate of public convenience should not be revoked.
Order revoking certificate. Appeal to Superior Court dismissed. Plaintiff appealed to Supreme Court.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting record.
For the foregoing reasons we are of opinion the order of which appellant complains was valid and proper and was issued by the Public Service Commission pursuant to the powers conferred upon that body by the legislature. It follows that the decree of the Superior Court should be, and is, hereby affirmed at appellant's cost.
Robert F. Bogatin, with him Simon Pearl, for appellant.
John Fox Weiss, counsel, with him E. Everett Mather, Jr., assistant counsel, for Public Service Commission.
Frederic L. Ballard, with him M. Randall Marston, for intervening appellee.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
On plaintiff's petition an appeal was allowed from a decree of the Superior Court affirming an order of the Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which revoked a certificate of public convenience granted Joseph Day, owner and operator of a taxicab in the City of Philadelphia. Appellant is a member of the Public Service Cab Association, an unincorporated organization, consisting, in 1932, of forty-six individuals operating taxicabs for hire from designated stands in Philadelphia. For the past several years the members of the association as well as other taxicab operators have been involved in a controversy with cab corporations controlled by the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, arising from complaints filed with the Public Service Commission by the Yellow Cab Company, alleging that certificate holders were charging rates different from those contained in the filed tariff, and were operating from stands not authorized by their certificates.
The present appellant is admittedly guilty of a number of violations. On December 23, 1919, he received a certificate of public convenience authorizing him to engage in common carriage from a stand at 15th and Market Streets. This certificate expired June 1, 1922, and the application for renewal was refused pending termination of an investigation of illegal operation, which arose from complaints filed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company relative to the conduct of the independent taxicab operators doing business from its station. On November 27, 1923, the commission issued a report and order sustaining complaint against illegal operation by appellant and ordering him to cease and desist from such violations. On December 18, 1923, he was granted a certificate to operate a taxicab from a stand on the south side of Market Street, east of Nineteenth. This certificate was renewed in 1925, but at its expiration June 1, 1927, the commission again refused to continue it because of frequent violations on the part of plaintiff. In 1928, appellant was given another chance and a new certificate was issued to him, which was renewed in May, 1929, for a five-year period. On September 22, 1931, upon complaints filed against appellant and other independent taxicab operators, the commission directed appellant to cease and desist from rendering service from any point or stands other than the one located at 19th and Market Streets. Applications by Day and others for the right to engage in city-wide service without restriction to any stand were refused May 10, 1932. On June 13, 1932, the commission entered a rule upon appellant to show cause why his certificate should not be revoked. The testimony taken at the hearing established further violations after May 10, 1932, and, on July 19, 1932, the rule previously granted was made absolute and respondent's certificate of public convenience revoked. The appeal in this court, as in the Superior Court, raises the sole question of the right of the Public Service Commission to revoke the certificate.
The theory of appellant's argument is that, the Public Service Commission being a body of purely statutory creation, its power and jurisdiction are limited by the express terms of the statutes creating it, and that there is within the Pennsylvania statutes no power or authority vested in the commission to revoke certificates of public convenience and necessity. There is no doubt that the Public...
To continue reading
Request your trial