State ex rel. Interstate Transit Lines v. Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 19 June 1939
• Citation: 132 S.W.2d 1082,234 Mo.App. 554
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES, APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI ET AL., RESPONDENTS
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

132 S.W.2d 1082

234 Mo.App. 554

STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES, APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

June 19, 1939

Appeal from Cole Circuit Court.--Hon. Nike G. Sevier, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

T. W Bockes and Watson, Ess, Groner, Barnett & Whittaker for appellant.

(1) The burden of proof is upon applicant to establish public convenience and necessity requiring its proposed service. The applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof and the Commission had no power to grant the authority sought by Burlington Transportation Company. State ex rel. Henson v. Brown, 326 Mo. 230, 233, 31 S.W.2d 208, 209; State ex rel. Mo. P. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 327 Mo. 249, 255, 37 S.W.2d 576, 578; State ex rel. Alton Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 1139, 1144, 49 S.W.2d 619, 621; Application of Alton Transp. Co., 17 Mo. P. S. C. 613, 619; Application of Interstate Transit Lines, Comm. Case No. 8867; Application of V. A. Cornelison, Comm. Case No. B-4955. (2) Public convenience and necessity justifying an extension of the applicant's pre-existing certificate cannot be predicated upon the alleged advantages of through service. Re Hastings 18 Mo. P. S. C. 80; Re Application of M. S. Baird, 18 Mo. P. S. C. 346, 350; North Bend Stage Lines v Denney, 153 Wash. 439, 279 P. 752; North Bend Stage Lines v. Dept. Pub. Works, 162 Wash. 46, 297 P. 780; State ex rel. Krakenberger v. Dept. Pub. Works, 141 Wash. 168, 250 P. 1088; State ex rel. Henson v. Brown, 326 Mo. 230, 31 S.W.2d 208. (3) Applicant Burlington Transportation Co. has no right of priority in motor bus operation based upon the Burlington Railroad's established railway service. State ex rel. Alton Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 330 Mo. 1, 10-11, 49 S.W.2d 614, 618; Re Pennsylvania General Transit Co., P. U. R. 1931-C, 383; State ex rel. Alton Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 1139, 49 S.W.2d 619; State ex rel. Mo. P. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 327 Mo. 249, 257, 37 S.W.2d 576, 579; Application of Alton Transp. Co., 17 Mo. P. S. C. 613, 619. (4) The Public Service Commission may not lawfully authorize additional motor carrier operation between points or over highways already adequately served. R. S. of Mo., 1929, sec. 5268 (as amended Laws Mo., 1931, pp. 304 et seq.); State ex rel. Electric Co. of Mo. v. Atkinson, 275 Mo. 325, 335, 204 S.W. 897, 898; State ex rel. Detroit-Chicago Motorbus Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 324 Mo. 270, 276, 23 S.W.2d 115, 117; Re Interstate Transit Lines, P. U. R. 1931-A, 318, 325; State ex rel. Alton Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 330 Mo. 1, 10-11, 49 S.W.2d 614; State ex rel. Alton Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 1139, 49 S.W.2d 619; State ex rel. Alton Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 49 S.W.2d 622; State ex rel. Mo. P. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 327 Mo. 249, 257, 37 S.W.2d 576, 579; Pacific Northwest Traction Co. v. Dept. Pub. Works, 151 Wash. 659, 276 P. 566; North Coast Transp. Co. v. Dept. of Pub. Works, 157 Wash. 79, 288 P. 245, 247; Continental Freight Forwarding Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm., 126 Ohio St. 16, 183 N.E. 790; McClure v. Pub. Utilities Comm., 121 Ohio St. 485, 169 N.E. 560. Possible future need will not justify granting authority to invade territory already well served. R. S. of Mo., 1929, secs. 5264-(b), (e), 5268 and 5269 (Laws Mo., 1931, pp. 304 et seq.); State ex rel. City of Duluth v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 179 Minn. 548, 229 N.W. 883; 51 C. J. 52, par. 95. (5) Proof of convenience and necessity justifying service to points not already served could not empower the Commission to authorize additional service between points already adequately served. Re Hastings, 18 Mo. P. S. C. 80; Re Alton Transportation Co., 17 Mo. P. S. C. 613; State ex rel. Alton Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 1139, 49 S.W.2d 619; McClure v. Pub. Utilities Comm., 121 Ohio St. 485, 169 N.E. 560; State ex rel. Henson v. Brown, 326 Mo. 230, 31 S.W.2d 208. (6) The Commission may not lawfully grant a new certificate or extension of certificate over a certificated route unless and until the Commission has given the established carrier reasonable notice and opportunity to remedy and satisfy any inconvenience, inefficiency or insufficiency of service. R. S. of Mo., 1929, sec. 5269; Re Interstate Transit Lines, P. U. R. 1931-A, 318; State ex rel. Electric Co. of Mo. v. Atkinson, 275 Mo. 325, 335, 204 S.W. 897, 898; Egyptian Transp. System v. L. & N. Ry. Co., 321 Ill. 580, 152 N.E. 510, 513; 51 C. J. 52, par. 95. (7) The Commission overestimated its authority and jurisdiction and denied all restraints imposed upon it by statute and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Commission's Report and Order, dated February 8, 1936, Comm. Cases Nos. B-4144 and B-4145; R. S. of Mo., 1929, secs. 5268 and 5269. (8) The Commission's action in considering the application and in granting Burlington Transportation Company the authority it sought was premature.

Charles A. Orr for appellant, V. C. Ringo.

The application of appellant Ringo was the only lawful application before the Public Service Commission. If the application of Burlington Transportation Company to render unlawful additional service between points now already served be disregarded, then the application of appellant Ringo remains as the only offer to render lawful service between points now unserved. North Coast Transp. Co. v. Dept. of Pub. Works et al., 288 P. 245.

J. H. Linton, H. J. Nelson, R. W. Hedrick and Russell B. James for respondent, Burlington Transportation Co.

(1) The issuance of temporary authority to operate over highways other than those forming a motor bus carrier's permanent route when a portion of the permanent route is impassible is within the Commission's power and is lawful and proper. Mo. Bus & Truck Law; Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm. Law; State Pub. Util. Comm. v. Springfield Gas & Elec. Co., 291 Ill. 209, 125 N.E. 891. (2) The scope of the reviewing power of the court. Appeal of Beasley Bros., 220 N.W. 306, 310; Motor Carrier Regulation by Certificates of Necessity and Convenience, 36 Yale Law Journal, 163, note 111; Florida Motor Lines, Inc., v. R. R. Comm., 101 Fla. 1018, 132 So. 851; Y. & M. V. R. R. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm., 170 La. 441, 128 So. 39; Certificates of Convenience and Necessity, 28 Mich. Law Review, 276; Court Review of Orders of the O. Pub. Util. Comm., 2 Univ. of Cincinnati Law Review, 253; People v. McCall, 219 N.Y. 84, 113 N.E. 795 (aff. 245 U.S. 345); N. Y. Cent. Sec. Co. v. United States, 54 F.2d 122, (aff. 287 U.S. 12); Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U.S. 352; State Pub. Util. Comm. v. Springfield G. & E. Co., 291 Ill. 209, 125 N.E. 891; Miss. Valley Tr. Co. v. Begley, 310 Mo. 287, 275 S.W. 540, 544; Keller v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 261 U.S. 428, 442; Berkemeier v. Reller, 296 S.W. 739, 752; Nat. Labor Relations Bd. v. Pa. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 271; State ex rel. Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, Inc., v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 110 S.W.2d 364, 366; State ex rel. Pitcairn et al. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 110 S.W.2d 367, 368; State ex rel. Pitcairn et al. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 111 S.W.2d 222, 225. (3) Scope of Commission's authority. (4) The record contains substantial evidence to support the order. State ex rel. Pitcairn et al. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 111 S.W.2d 222, 227. (5) Interstate's contention that the commission erred in granting certificate to Burlington because the letter did not see fit to attack the quality of interstate's service over other routes is directly in conflict with the law of this State. Mo. Bus & Truck Law (subsec. (a) of sec. 5268, pp. 307, 308, Laws of Mo., 1931 Mo. Stat. Ann. sec. 5268 (a), p. 6684); State ex rel. Pitcairn et al. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 111 S.W.2d 222, 229. (6) Certificates of convenience and necessity contemplate future requirements of the public. Pub. Serv. Comm. Law, sec. 5174, R. S. Mo. 1929; Prentis v. A. Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226; Appeal of Beasley Bros., 220 N.W. 306, 309. (7) Monopoly. State ex rel. Sikeston v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 336 Mo. 985, 82 S.W.2d 105; Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M. C. C. 190, 202; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 35, 42-43. (8) State ex rel. Pitcairn et al. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 111 S.W.2d 222. (9) In the Ringo appeal the circuit court's judgment should be affirmed.

OPINION

SHAIN, P. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, affirming orders and decrees of the Public Service Commission of Missouri.

The outstanding facts and questions involved are well stated by the commission in its report as follows:

"On March 11, 1935, Burlington Transportation Company filed application for a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate as a passenger-carrying motor carrier over a regular route between the cities of St. Joseph and Kansas City, Missouri, over U.S. Highways 59 and 45. On the same day V. C. Ringo, an individual, filed his application numbered B-4145, for a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate as a passenger-carrying motor carrier over a regular route covering part of the same route applied for by the Burlington Transportation Company, namely, running from Rushville over U.S. Highway 45 to Parkville. The Burlington Transportation Company's application was in effect an application for an extension of its existing intrastate certificate of public convenience and necessity No. 26, since under that certificate it already had the right to operate as a passenger-carrying motor carrier from St Joseph north to the Iowa-Missouri line on Highways 275 and 71. In its application it also asked for the extension of its existing interstate permit (which covered the same route as its...