Schulte v. Southern Bus Lines
| Decision Date | 24 February 1947 |
| Docket Number | 4-8075 |
| Citation | 199 S.W.2d 742,211 Ark. 200 |
| Parties | Schulte v. Southern Bus Lines |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; J. Mitchell Cockrill, Judge.
Affirmed.
Ward Martin, for appellant.
Henry Donham and Smith & Sanderson, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court affirming an order of the Arkansas Public Service Commission which denied to appellant a certificate authorizing him to operate a motor passenger transportation line over State Highway 81 and U. S. Highway 65 from Hamburg (via a detour of about two and one-half miles off State Highway 81 to Ladelle) to Pine Bluff, with a "shuttle" service from Star City to Gould and return.
The application of appellant was opposed by two other motor carriers, who asserted that existing facilities, provided by previously licensed carriers, were sufficient to handle traffic along the proposed route.
The highways of the state are constructed and maintained by the public and the convenience of the public is always the paramount consideration in determining the right of any carrier to use the highways. No carrier may have any vested right, by reason of its license, to the exclusive use of the highways for any given period. The General Assembly in the Act authorizing the issuance of certificates of authority for use of highways by carriers specifically provided (§ 9 sub-division (d), Act 367, approved March 26, 1941) that "no certificate issued under this Act shall confer any proprietary or property rights in the use of the public highways." See Santee v. Brady, 209 Ark. 224, 189 S.W.2d 907. But a carrier who has been granted a license to operate over a given route has the right, under the law, when another carrier asks for a permit to operate over the same route, to oppose the granting thereof, and to show, if possible, that the existing service is adequate and that a duplication thereof by another carrier would not serve public convenience.
In the case at bar twenty witnesses testified on behalf of appellant and twenty-seven testified for appellees. The testimony on behalf of appellant indicated a need for additional service while the effect of the evidence on behalf of appellees was to show that the existing service was entirely adequate. It may be said, however, that much of the criticism of the existing facilities by witnesses for appellant was directed to a period when abnormal conditions, brought on by the war, prevailed. It was shown that the city council of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri Pacific Transp. Co. v. Inter City Transit Co.
...Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v. Gray, 205 Ark. 62, 167 S.W.2d 636; Santee v. Brady, 209 Ark. 224, 189 S.W.2d 907; Schulte v. Southern Bus Lines, 211 Ark. 200, 199 S.W.2d 742; Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Missouri Pac. Transp. Co., 211 Ark. 295, 200 S.W.2d 772; Arkansas Express, Inc., v. Col......
-
Fisher v. Branscum, 5--4328
...Traction Co. v. Bourland, supra; Potashnick Truck Service, Inc. v. Missouri & Arkansas Transportation Co., supra; Schulte v. Southern Bus Lines, 211 Ark. 200, 199 S.W.2d 742; Wisinger v. Stewart, supra; Boyd v. The Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 222 Ark. 599, 262 S.W.2d 282; National T......
-
Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Batesville Truck Line, Inc
... ... 1941, which is the "Arkansas Motor Carrier ... [3] See Camden Transit Co. v ... Owen, 209 Ark. 861, 192 S.W.2d 757; Schulte ... v. Southern Bus Lines, 211 Ark. 200, 199 S.W.2d 742; ... and Arkansas Express Inc. v. Columbia Motor ... ...
-
Arkansas Motor Freight Lines v. Batesville Truck Line
...1941, which is the "Arkansas Motor Carrier Act." 3. See Camden Transit Co. v. Owen, 209 Ark. 861, 192 S.W.2d 757; Schulte v. Southern Bus Lines, 211 Ark. 200, 199 S.W.2d 742; and Arkansas Express Inc. v. Columbia Motor Transport Co., 212 Ark. 1, 205 S.W.2d 716. In Vol. 2, page 67 of the Ark......