Patrick v. Smith, 5168.

Decision Date01 December 1930
Docket NumberNo. 5168.,5168.
Citation45 F.2d 924,60 App. DC 6
PartiesPATRICK et al., Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia, v. SMITH.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Robert E. Lynch and William A. Roberts, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Leon Robbin and Jacob Milwit, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

The appellee, as plaintiff below, brought suit to enjoin the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia from enforcing a certain regulation adopted by it, whereby he would be required to furnish a bond or indemnity insurance or a statement of financial responsibility in order to secure a license to operate his taxicab within the District. It is conceded that the taxicab was to be operated as a common carrier of passengers for hire; and that appellee was denied a license to operate it within the District unless he complied with the regulation aforesaid. The controlling question in the case is whether the commission possesses the lawful authority to make and enforce such a regulation.

The lower court held that the commission did not possess such authority, and enjoined its enforcement. Whereupon this appeal was brought.

The Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia was created by section 8 of an Act of Congress approved March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 974). The powers and duties of the commission are expressly set forth in that section. The provisions which are cited in behalf of the commission as authority for the regulation in question are to be found in paragraphs 2, 92, and 96 of the section.

Paragraph 2 provides that every public utility doing business in the District of Columbia is "required to furnish service and facilities reasonably safe and adequate and in all respects just and reasonable."

Paragraph 92 provides that the provisions of the section are to be interpreted and construed liberally "in order to accomplish the purposes thereof," and further provides that the commission shall have, in addition to the powers specified and mentioned, all additional, implied, and incidental powers proper and necessary to carry out the powers specified in the section; and further provides that no rules, ordinances, acts, or regulations of the commission shall "be declared inoperative, illegal, or void for any omission of a technical nature in respect thereto."

Paragraph 96 provides that, if the commission finds "that repairs, improvements, or changes in any * * * facilities of any common carrier ought reasonably to be made, or that any addition of service or equipment ought reasonably to be made thereto, or that the vehicles * * * of any * * * common carrier are unclean, insanitary * * * or that any addition ought reasonably to be made thereto, in order to promote the comfort or convenience of the public or employees, or in order to secure adequate service or facilities, the commission shall have power to make and serve an order directing that such repairs, improvements, changes, or additions to service or equipment be made within a reasonable time. * * *"

Acting under this alleged authority, the commission in December, 1929, issued an official order entitled "Rules and Regulations Governing the Equipment and Operation of Motor Vehicles * * * Operated for Hire in the District of Columbia," reading in part as follows:

"Section 9(a) No person, firm or corporation shall operate any motor vehicle, as herein defined, unless and until the person, firm or corporation shall:

"(1) File with the Commission a sworn statement showing the ability of the person, firm or corporation to pay all damages which may result from any and all accidents due to the negligent use or operation of such vehicle; or

"(2) File with the Commission security, indemnity or a bond guaranteeing the payment by the person, firm or corporation of all such damages, or

"(3) Insure to a reasonable amount the person's, firm's or corporation's liability to pay such damages; and unless the person, firm or corporation shall

"(4) File with the Commission, as often as the Commission shall in writing demand, in form prescribed by the Commission, evidence of the person's, firm's or corporation's compliance with the provisions of this section."

The commission also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Washington Gas Light v. Public Service, No. 08-AA-148.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 2009
    ...118. People's Counsel of the District of Columbia v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 472 A.2d 860, 864-66 (D.C.1984). 119. See Patrick v. Smith, 60 App. D.C. 6, 7, 45 F.2d 924, 925 (1930). 120. See also Gold Kist, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 741 F.2d 344 (11th Cir.1984) (rejecting agency position that......
  • Jones v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 20, 1962
    ...have only such authority to promulgate regulations as the Congress has specifically vested in them in any given field. Patrick v. Smith, 60 App.D.C. 6, 45 F.2d 924 (1930), and cases there cited at 45 F.2d The Commissioners rely first on Section 1-226, D.C.Code (Feb. 26, 1892, 27 Stat. 394, ......
  • Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 1977
    ...St.2d 45, 46, 245 N.E.2d 351, 352 (1969). See also A. Priest, Principles of Public Utility Regulation 10 (1969); cf. Patrick v. Smith, 60 App.D.C. 6, 45 F.2d 924 (1930). On the other hand, "[m]odern regulatory legislation . . . is generally regarded as a newly conceived system of legal arra......

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