Kram v. Pub. Utilities Comm'n

• Decision Date: 16 April 1940
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KRAM v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.

12 A.2d 775
126 Conn. 543

KRAM
v.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 16, 1940.

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Edwin C. Dickenson, Judge.

Appeal by John Kram from the action of the Public Utilities Commission in revoking the certificate authorizing plaintiff to operate taxicabs. The court ruled that the case would not be heard de novo, and from a judgment dismissing the appeal and affirming the action of the defendant, plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Argued before MALTBIE, C. J. and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

I. Charles Suisman, of New London, for appellant.

12 A.2d 776

Richard F. Corkey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis A. Pallotti, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

AVERY, Judge.

This action is an appeal by the plaintiff to the Superior Court from an order of the public utilities commission revoking the plaintiff's license to operate taxicabs in New London. In the Superior Court, the case was heard upon the record certified to the Superior Court by the commission. Upon the record so certified, the Superior Court held that the plaintiff had a fair hearing before the commission, that the evidence certified by it supported its finding, and that the finding justified the order revoking the plaintiff's certificate. The court further found that the order was proper, expedient and legal, and not arbitrary or unreasonable, and could not be set aside upon equitable grounds; and entered judgment dismissing the appeal. From this judgment, the plaintiff has appealed. The fundamental claim of the plaintiff upon this appeal is that in revoking his license to operate taxicabs the public utilities commission was acting not in an administrative capacity but in a quasi-judicial capacity, that in an appeal to the Superior Court from a proceeding of this character the plaintiff was entitled in the Superior Court to a trial of his case de novo, and that the procedure followed by the court was unathorized by statute and violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The applicable statute, General Statutes, Cum. Supp.1935, § 1414c (g), is appended in the footnote.¹

From the record certified to the Superior Court by the public utilities commission, these facts appear: The plaintiff was a holder of a license issued by the public utilities commission to operate four taxicabs in taxi service originating within the town and city of New London. He was cited to appear before the commission on April 19, 1937, to show cause why his license should not be revoked and cancelled or suspended. The citation was served on the appellant and specified nine alleged violations by him or drivers in his employ of rules and regulations of the commission in operating his cabs at rates less than those established by the commission and for specific or flat-rates or fares differing from the fares which should have been charged if determined by meters, as required by the commission and at the rates established by it, and in operating three of his cabs with meters which were defective and not in operation. The alleged violations covered a period from October 30, 1936, to February 13, 1937, and were set forth in detail in the citation. At the hearing held by the commission on April 19, 1937, the plaintiff appeared with counsel. He admitted the violations alleged with respect to operating his cabs with meters which were defective and not in operation, and one violation with respect to "flat-rates." Evidence was introduced tending to prove the other alleged violations. The plaintiff introduced evidence

12 A.2d 777

concerning only one of the alleged violations, and during the course of his testimony admitted other violations than those contained in the citation. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and the admissions of the plaintiff, the commission, on May 5th, issued an order revoking the plaintiff's license to operate a taxicab service. Thereafter the plaintiff made an application for a rehearing on the...