Harris v. State Corp.. Comm'n (dalby Motor Freight Lines Inc.
Decision Date | 19 September 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 4661.,4661. |
Parties | HARRISv.STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION et al. (DALBY MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, Inc., Intervenor). |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Santa Fe County; David Chavez, Jr., Judge.
Suit for an injunction by Joe A. Harris, doing business as Harris Truck Line, against the State Corporation Commission of the State of New Mexico, Don R. Casados and others, as members of and constituting the State Corporation Commission of the State of New Mexico, wherein Dalby Motor Freight Lines, Inc., intervened. From an adverse judgment, defendants and intervener appeal.
Reversed.
Regulation of the transportation of persons and property by motor vehicle for hire upon the public highways to protect the safety and welfare of the traveling and shipping public is a legislative administrative function and not a function of the judiciary.
L. C. White, of Santa Fe, and Levens & Benson, of Lubbock, Tex., for appellant Dalby Motor Freight Lines.
Geo. H. Hunker, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant Corporation Commission.M. W. Hamilton, of Santa Fe, for appellee.
Intervenor, a common motor carrier, operating an interstate freight line from Amarillo, Texas, to Denver, Colorado, made application to the State Corporation Commission, referred to as the Commission, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport freight along its route on U. S. Highway 87, between Raton and Clayton, to serve intermediate points located on that highway, with the exception of Meloche, Grande and Royce.
Pursuant to said application, and after due notice was given, a hearing was had thereon before the Commission.
Intervenor (applicant) introduced evidence by the testimony of numerous witnesses evidencing the need for the service to be supplied by applicant and for the granting of the certificate.
The appellee, Joe A. Harris, also operating a common motor carrier interstate freight line between Denver and Clayton under a certificate of convenience and necessity, was present at said hearing, protesting the granting of a certificate to the applicant, Intervenor, and offered the evidence of Mr. Harris, but offered no testimony by the shipping public.
The Commission from the evidence found that the applicant proposed to provide daily service at points along the line, the protestants only serving three and four times a week, and reported that “the applicant used ten witnesses to substantiate their plea to the Commission for this service, and in each instance each witness testified that this service was needed in their business, and, on the other hand, the protestant used no witnesses other than the testimony of Mr. Harris himself. The witnesses testified that they had been deprived of business through lack of service, and with the issuance of this certificate to the applicant that it would not only be a convenience and necessity to them but to the entire community along this route.
“We find that public convenience and necessity require the operation by applicant as a common carrier to transport commodities in general between Raton and Clayton and intermediate points except Meloche, Grande and Royce, via U. S. Highway 87.”
These findings are in substantial observance of the provisions of the controlling statute, Ch. 154, L.1933, Sec. 8 of which says:
[1] So we hold that the findings support the order of issuance of the certificate.
Thereafter the protestant Harris filed a complaint in the District Court, wherein, among other averments, it is alleged that the action of the Commission in granting said certificate was “Unreasonable, discriminatory, unjust and unlawful” in *** “permitting another truck line to operate over said route” for the reason that it would “destroy the business of the plaintiff” and would “So reduce the income therefrom as to make it impossible for the plaintiff *** to profitably continue his transportation business operations over said route”. And further that the order granting the certificate was, “unreasonable, discriminatory, unjust and unlawful in that the injury resulting to the plaintiff” would result in injury and detriment to the public by reason of the impossibility of the plaintiff to profitably continue operations; and prayed an injunction against the Commission to restrain it from permitting the operation under the certificate issued to the Applicant-Intervenor.
Issue was joined by answers on behalf of the Intervenor and the Commission.
The portion of the act cited, which authorizes the foregoing procedure is as follows:
“(b) The answer of the Commission to the complaint shall be served and filed within twenty days after service of the complaint, whereupon said action shall be at issue without further pleading and stand ready for trial upon ten days' notice.
“(c) Any person not a party to the action, but having an interest in the subject thereof, may be made a party.
“(d) All such actions shall have precedence over any civil cause of a different nature, and the District Court shall always be deemed open for the trial thereof, and the same shall be tried and determined as other civil actions without a jury.”
At the trial, the plaintiff Harris, instead of introducing the record of the hearing before the Commission, introduced over objection, the testimony of seven witnesses.
The intervenor offered in evidence a certified copy of the order of the Commission and the proceedings before the Commission pursuant to which the order and Certificate were issued.
The court, upon the conclusion of the evidence, made its findings of fact which were contrary to those made by the Commission, upon the essentials set forth in Section 8 of the act quoted supra, namely, in brief, that the old service was sufficient and that there was no need for the proposed new and additional service.
The Court concluded as a matter of law that the action of the Commission in granting the certificate to intervenor-appellant was unlawful and unreasonable. From the judgment based upon these findings and conclusion the Commission and intervenor appeal.
The first question is as to the scope of the judicial review provided for by § 51, Ch. 154, L.1933.
Our constitutions, both federal and state, divide the powers of government into three classes-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Our Constitution in Article 3 expressly provides that “no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution otherwise expressly directed or permitted.” We do not find any exceptions that would pertain to the instant case. We early took note of these constitutional principles, shortly after the adoption of the constitution, in a thorough exposition of the purposes, intents and bounds of the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of Article XI, which delineate the powers of the Corporation Commission over carriers-Duties of the Supreme Court-and dealing with hearings before the Corporation Commission in an able and exhaustive opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, in Seward v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 17 N.M. 557, 131 P. 980, 46 L.R.A.N.S., 242.
Later, in Seaberg v. Raton Public Service Co., 36 N.M. 59, 8 P.2d 100, 101, we frequently drew upon the Seward case and said:
***
“If this court is to review the commission's rule making or rate making, except as to the lawfulness or reasonableness of the rules or rates imposed, we ourselves assume legislative powers which, as held in the Seward case, it was not the intention to confer. ***
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Hovey Concrete Products Co. v. Mechem
...or without substantial support in the evidence,' or equivalent language. See Chiordi v. Jernigan, supra; Harris v. State Corporation Commission, 46 N.M. 352, 129 P.2d 323; Hatfield v. New Mexico State Board of Registration, 60 N.M. 242, 290 P.2d 1077; McCormick v. State Board of Education, ......
-
State v. CARMODY
...notwithstanding the doctrine mentioned and the decisions supporting it, we have approved a contrary rule in Harris v. State Corporation Commission, 46 N.M. 352, 129 P.2d 323. It is what we said in our opinion in that case likening the proceedings for review under L.1933, c. 154, § 51, 1941 ......
-
State ex rel. Transcontinental Bus Service, Inc. v. Carmody
...the doctrine mentioned and the decisions supporting it, we have approved a contrary rule in Harris v. State Corporation Commission, 46 N.M. 352, 129 P.2d 323. It is what we said in our opinion in that case likening the proceedings for review under L.1933, c. 154, § 51, 1941 Comp., § 68-1363......
-
Fellows v. Shultz
...administrative as opposed to judicial. State ex rel. State Corp. Comm'n v. Zinn, 72 N.M. 29, 380 P.2d 182 (1963); Harris v. State Corp. Comm'n, 46 N.M. 352, 129 P.2d 323 (1942). In Fischer v. Rakagis, 59 N.M. 463, 469, 286 P.2d 312, 316 (1955), we said, '(t)hat the legislature may create bo......