Michigan Exp. v. Michigan Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 07 April 1952
• Docket Number: No. 94,94
• Citation: 52 N.W.2d 616,333 Mich. 101
• Parties: MICHIGAN EXP., Inc. v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 616

52 N.W.2d 616

333 Mich. 101

MICHIGAN EXP., Inc. v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

No. 94.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 7, 1952.

Warner, Norcross & Judd, and Leonard D. Verdier, Jr., Grand Rapids, for plaintiff and appellant.

Frank G. Millard, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Daniel J. O'Hara, Charles M. A. Martin, William B. Elmer, Assts. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Plaintiff held a certificate of public convenience and necessity from defendant granting general common carrier authority to operate over certain fixed routes and between certain fixed termini and also limited common carrier rights to carry specified commodities in certain areas over irregular routes. It thereafter purchased and sought defendant's approval of transfer to it of the operating rights of Best Way Motor Express, which operated under a certificate from defendant as a limited common carrier of specified commodities over irregular routes. Defendant authorized the transfer to plaintiff by an order containing the following restrictions: 'Provided that operations under this authority shall not be combined with or tacked on to transferee's regular route operations to effect a movement actually in excess of the two authorites considered separately. Operations under this irregular route authority shall be separate and distinct from regular route operations. Through or joint rates shall not be established between points on regular route and points on the irregular routes.'

Plaintiff filed a bill for review in the Ingham county circuit court praying for modification of the order by deletion therefrom of the noted restrictions. From decree dismissing its bill of complaint and order denying its motion for rehearing plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff claims the right to establish through routes and joint rates between points on its regular routes and points on Best Way's irregular routes, to tack or combine operations under the two certificates, and to interchange equipment between the two, all without the necessity for showing or determination by defendant of public convenience and necessity in regard thereto. It contends that the restrictions in defendant's order are unreasonable, unlawful, not in accord with commission rules and practice, and constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law.

The law applicable to motor vehicle carriers is to be found in P.A.1933, No. 254, as amended, C.L.1948, § 475.1 et seq., Stat.Ann. § 22.531 et seq. Article 2, § 1, prohibits the operation by any common motor carrier of property for hire upon any public highway without a certificate of public convenience and necessity from defendant. Section 2 empowers defendant to determine the question of public convenience and necessity after considering, inter alia, adequacy of existing facilities and the extent of public demand for additional service. Section 5 provides that a certificate of public convenience and necessity shall be refused if defendant shall determine that existing service is reasonably adequate; and, further, that, if a certificate be issued to a common motor carrier of property, it may be for operation over fixed routes or between fixed termini, on the basis, as the sense of the entire act and this section clearly indicates, of defendant's determination of the public convenience and necessity in relation to such fixed routes or termini. Section 10 vests defendant with power to fix, alter, regulate and determine rates, fares, charges and classifications and to regulate operating and time schedules in order to insure adequate service and prevent unnecessary duplication of service and, finally, to supervise and regulate common motor carriers in all matters affecting the relations between them and other motor carriers. Section 11 empowers defendant to authorize common carriers to interchange equipment and to furnish through service whenever the public interest will be served thereby. Article 5, § 5, provides that no certificate or permit shall be construed to be a franchise nor to be irrevocable, nor assigned or transferred without defendant's approval.

From the above noted statutory provisions and a reading of the entire act the legislative intent clearly appears that the guiding and controlling principle to be applied, in the consideration of these matters, is that all motor carrier service and the manner, methods, conditions, extent, types and routes thereof, etc., shall be fixed and regulated by def...