Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke

Citation69 L.Ed. 445,36 A. L. R. 1105,266 U.S. 570,45 S.Ct. 191
Decision Date12 January 1925
Docket NumberNo. 283,283
PartiesMICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION et al. v. DUKE
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. H. E. Spalding, of Detroit, Mich., for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 571-572 intentionally omitted] Missrs. Hal H. Smith and Percy J. Donovan, both of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal under section 266, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1243), from an order granting an interlocutory injunction restraining appellants from enforcing against appellee, plaintiff below, Act No. 209, Public Acts of 1923 of Michigan. The act provides that no person shall engage or continue in the business of transporting persons or property by motor vehicle for hire upon the public highways of the state over fixed routes or between fixed termini, unless he shall have obtained from the Michigan Public Utilities Commission a permit so to do. The permit shall be issued in accordance with the public convenience and necessity, and may be withheld when it appears that the applicant is not able to furnish adequate, safe or convenient service to the public. Sections 1, 2. Section 3 provides that:

'Any and all persons * * * engaged * * * in the transportation of persons or property for hire by motor vehicle, upon or over the public highways of this state * * * shall be common carriers, and, so far as applicable, all laws of this state now in force or hereafter enacted, regulating * * * transportation * * * by other common carriers, including regulation of rates, shall apply with equal force and effect to such common carriers * * * by motor vehicle. * * *'

Section 7 provides that:

'Any and all common carriers under this act shall carry insurance for the protection of the * * * property carried by them in such amount as shall be ordered by said commission * * * or shall furnish an indemnity bond * * * conditioned upon the payment of all just claims and liabilities resulting from injury to * * * property carried by such carrier, and in a company authorized to do business in this state, in an amount to be fixed and approved by said commission.'

A rule adopted by the commission requires all common carriers, defined by the act, to take out such an indemnity bond; and the commission has announced that no permit will be given until there has been filed with it a certificate of the bonding company showing that such bond had been issued. The act imposed upon every such carrier a fee for the privilege of engaging in the business defined in section 1, and appropriates all fees to the general highway fund. And it prescribes punishment by fine or imprisonment or both for violations of the act or of any lawful order, rule or regulation of the commission.

At the time of the passage of the act, plaintiff had three contracts to transport from Detroit, Mich., to Toledo, Ohio, automobile bodies made at the plants of three manufacturers in Detroit and intended for the use of an automobile manufacturer at Toledo. He had been doing such hauling for some years, and had a large investment in property used exclusively for that purpose. He employed 75 men and operated 47 motor trucks and trailers upon the public highways of Michigan, which formed a part of the route between Detroit and Toledo. He had no other business and did not hold himself out as a carrier for the public. It was shown that defendants intended to enforce the act against him, and that, unless he obtained the permits required, they would cause his vehicles to be stopped on the highways by state police and local officers, and the prescribed penalties to be imposed upon him. Plaintiff alleged that the enforcement of the act would cause him irreparable injury, the loss of his contracts, the destruction of his business, and the loss of a substantial part of his capital investment. He assailed the act as invalid; and, among other things, averred that it contravenes the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, that it is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that it violates the Constitution of Michigan, because it contains a plurality of objects, and its real object is not expressed in the title. The lower court held that section 7, providing for indemnity bonds imposes a direct burden on interstate commerce, and that the provisions of section 3 applicable to private carriers are foreign to the title of the act and fall under the condemnation of the state Constitution. See opinion of the same judges in Liberty Highway Co. v. Michigan Public Utilities Commission (D. C.) 294 F. 703, 706, 708, decided the same day that the injunction was granted in this case.

Plaintiff is a private carrier. His sole business is interstate commerce, and it is limited to the transportation covered by his three contracts. He has no power of eminent domain or franchise under the state, and no greater right to use the highways than any other member of the body public. He does not undertake to carry for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
211 cases
  • Cobb v. Department of Public Works
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • July 11, 1932
    ...* * *" Defendants, in an attempt to distinguish the present case from the ruling in Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke, 266 U. S. 570-577, 45 S. Ct. 191, 69 L. Ed. 445, 36 A. L. R. 1105, upon the ground that that was a case where a private and not a common carrier was complaining,......
  • State v. Caplan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 8, 1927
    ...may not require a private carrier engaged in interstate commerce to become a public carrier, Michigan Pub. Util. Com. v. Duke, 26C U. S. 570, 45 S. Ct. 191, 69 L Ed. 445, 449, 36 A. L. R. 1105, and while it is established by Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307, 45 S. Ct. 324, 69 L. Ed. 623, 6......
  • Malone v. Van Etten
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 4, 1947
    ...... Idaho 295] . . . Appeal. from Public Utilities Commission. . . . Reversed and ... Smith, 31 Ariz. 297, 252 P. 1011; Michigan Public. Utilities Comm. v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570, 45 S.Ct. ......
  • State ex rel. Rice v. Evans-Terry Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 25, 1935
    ......Price, state auditor of public. accounts, against the Evans-Terry Company. From a decree ... Truck Owners' Assn., et al. v. Public Service Commission. of Wisconsin, 242 N.W. 668; Hicklen v. Coney,. 290 U.S. ... Sheriff, 69 Miss. 103, 107; Pond on Public Utilities (3. Ed.), page 840; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610,. ... due process. Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570, 45 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 48-3, March 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553,561-68 (1931); Frost v. Railroad Comm'n, 271 U.S. 583, 591-99 (1926); Michigan Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570, 576-78 (1925). 115. Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630, 636-42 (1914). 116. E.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (due process liberty......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT