Eager v. Pub. Util. Comm.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1925
• Docket Number: 19319
• Citation: 113 Ohio St. 604,149 N.E. 865
• Parties: Eager, Jr., v. Public Utilities Commission Of Ohio.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

149 N.E. 865

113 Ohio St. 604

Eager, Jr., v. Public Utilities Commission Of Ohio.

No. 19319

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 8, 1925

Public Utilities Commission - Motor transportation companies - Denial of certificate of convenience and necessity - Interstate commerce not interfered with, when - Disclaimer by applicant to render exclusively interstate service - Determination of public convenience and necessity by public utilities commission - Consensus of opinion by witnesses as to necessity, not controlling.

1. Where an applicant for a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate a motor transportation service over a highway in Ohio to a point beyond the state line, disclaims any desire to receive a certificate to render an exclusively interstate transportation service, he will not be heard to complain that the denial of a certificate to render an intrastate transportation service interferes with interstate commerce.

2. In determining whether public necessity and convenience require motor transportation service over a highway in this state the Public Utilities Commission will be governed by proof of conditions existing in the territory to be served, rather than by the consensus of opinions expressed by witnesses that a necessity exists.

________________

Constitutional Law, 12 C. J. § 190;

Carriers 10 C. J. § 1069. ________________

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr Hoard Morgan Jones, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. C C. Crabbe, attorney general, and Mr. John W. Bricker, for defendant in error.

ROBINSON J.

This case was heard by the Public Utilities Commission, after due notice, upon the application of the plaintiff in error for a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate a motor transportation company over the highway between Bryan, Ohio, and Waterloo, Ind.

The evidence of the applicant was heard, and the depositions of several persons in behalf of the applicant were received in evidence by the commission. The evidence rather fully disclosed the character of the public transportation service now in operation between those points, and the industries in and the number of inhabitants of the territory sought to be served.

In addition to the evidence of existing transportation service and other accommodations in that territory, each of the witnesses offered by the plaintiff in error testified, in substance, that in his opinion there existed a public necessity for additional transportation facilities over the route described in the application. No evidence was offered in opposition to the granting of the certificate, and no protests were filed.

The commission found:

"That adequate transportation facilities now exist...