State ex rel. Missouri Pac. Freight Transport Co. v. Public Service Commission
| Decision Date | 12 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 45569,No. 1,45569,1 |
| Citation | 295 S.W.2d 128 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. MISSOURI PACIFIC FREIGHT TRANSPORT COMPANY, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Missouri, et al., Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
George W. Holmes, Harold L. Harvey, St. Louis, for appellant.
Glenn D. Evans, Gen. Counsel, Frank J. Iuen, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Jefferson City, for respondents.
June R. Rose, Jefferson City, for intervenor-respondents.
VAN OSDOL, Commissioner.
The Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company, relator, applied to the Public Service Commission of Missouri for a modification and enlargement of relator's present authority to render freight-carrying service by motor vehicle between points or towns on the lines of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. Relator was seeking to remove the restriction in its present certificates of authority whereby its operation is limited to motor-carrier service from 'depot to depot' between named points or towns, and to enlarge relator's operation by the procurance of authority to perform pickup and delivery service in connection with its line-haul or road-haul operation between such named points or towns. The Commission, after hearing, denied relator's application; and the Circuit Court's judgment, upon review, affirming the Commission's order denying relator's application was affirmed by the Kansas City Court of Appeals. State ex rel. Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, Mo.App., 288 S.W.2d 679. After opinion, the Kansas City Court of Appeals transferred the case to this court on the ground of the general interest and importance of questions involved in the case. This court determines the cause the same as on original appeal. Const. art. V, Sec. 10, V.A.M.S.
The case involves some questions of the rights of an individual to engage in the business of a common carrier of property by motor vehicle on the highways of Missouri and of the sphere of the Public Service Commission's action in granting or denying authority to render such motor-carrier service in Commission's exercise of its powers and responsibilities in looking to the transportation needs of the public.
During the period from January 9, 1936, to March 12, 1941, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as 'Railroad') applied for and received certificates authorizing it to transport freight as a common carrier by motor vehicle over the routes herein involved. The authority requested and granted specified transportation of freight between points or towns on Railroad's lines 'from depot to depot,' that is, Railroad's authority was specified as or limited to that of picking up freight by truck at Railroad's depots and moving it by truck to other depots on Railroad's lines. No authority was granted Railroad to pick up freight at a consignor's dock at any point or town and deliver same in a continuous operation to a consignee's dock at another point or town. Freight was to be collected by local draymen and delivered to Railroad's depot at a given point, there to be loaded onto Railroad's trucks; and freight delivered by Railroad's trucks to a depot was to be picked up by local draymen and delivered to the consignee's dock or store.
As an exemplification of the purpose of the applications and the orders granting Railroad the authority for depot-to-depot motor-carrier service, we quote Railroad's Assistant General Freight Agent who testified in behalf of Railroad in support of the application for one of Railroad's certificates granted in 1936, as follows, Re Thompson, Trustee, Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 23 Mo.P.S.C. 38, at page 42. Again, Railroad's General Superintendent of Transportation testified in support of another application for authority granted by Commission in 1936, as follows, 'We don't want to go into the trucking business, we simply want to relieve these trains of this small amount of merchandise that is moving to the local towns.' Re Thompson, Trustee, Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 23 Mo.P.S.C. 386, at page 389. This, and other like testimony introduced in support of Railroad's applications, prompted Commission during the years 1936 to 1941 to grant certificates authorizing the proposed motor-carrier service which was manifestly auxiliary or supplementary to Railroad's transportation of freight by rail. The service by truck, as stated, was specified as transportation between depots at named points on Railroad's lines. Railroad did not seek and was not granted authority to operate an independent 'all-out' motor-carrier service which would have put Railroad's motor-carrier operation in direct competition with certificated common carriers of freight by truck then serving the areas involved.
However, in 1952, Railroad filed its application seeking authority from the Commission to render a pickup and delivery service in connection with the movement of its 'over-the-road' motor equipment. The Commission was of the opinion that if the proposed enlargement or extension of Railroad's road-haul operation to include pickup and delivery were authorized it would be a new and different type of service, and that, in order to justify the granting of authority for such extended operation and service, it would be necessary for the applicant, Railroad, to prove public convenience and necessity; and the application was denied on the ground that Railroad had failed to prove public convenience and necessity. Re Thompson, Trustee, Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 4 Mo.P.S.C.,N.S., 212. Railroad did not appeal.
Some time thereafter, Railroad transferred its certificates to relator, Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company, a corporation wholly owned by and subsidiary to Railroad.
In relator's instant application, as in Railroad's application of 1952, it is sought to have the authority (formerly granted to the Railroad) modified, enlarged or broadened, as stated, so as to permit relator to pick up, transport between points or towns, and deliver freight in its over-the-road motor equipment directly from and to its customers, thereby entirely abandoning the use of Railroad's depot facilities insofar as motor-carried freight is concerned.
At the hearing upon the instant application, Commission announced (as Commission had ruled at the hearing upon the former application filed by Railroad in 1952) that relator was required to prove public convenience and necessity in order to be entitled to authority to perform and render the operation and service sought. Evidence was introduced tending to support and to refute the issue of public convenience and necessity. There was evidence that adequate service of the type proposed is now being rendered by other authorized common carriers of freight by truck to all the points involved (except two, Houstonia and Hughesville); and that, if relator should be granted the authority requested, it would have an adverse financial effect on motor carriers of freight presently authorized to serve the areas. The Commission denied the application as to all towns named therein (except as to Houstonia and Hughesville) on the ground that relator failed to prove public convenience and necessity.
We have examined the record of the hearing before the Commission and find that the Commission's order denying the application was supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. See Cosnt. art. V, Sec. 22; State ex rel. Rice v. Public Service Commission, 359 Mo. 109, 220 S.W.2d 61.
Upon this appeal, however, appellant-relator takes the position that Commission's order or award is unlawful, unjust and unreasonable. But relator does not contend Commission's conclusion (that public convenience and necessity was not shown) was not supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. Relator contends that no showing of public convenience and necessity could be lawfully required because, it is said, (1) a carrier authorized to serve any community has inherent authority to perform pickup and delivery service in such community; (2) Commission has no statutory to prohibit a carrier from using its road-haul vehicles to perform such service; and (3) a restriction prohibiting a carrier from using its road-haul vehicles to perform such service is contrary to public policy in that it requires the carrier to use wasteful and slow methods of transportation.
Commission concedes that such authority as here sought may be and has been granted to rail carriers and that such authority could have been granted to relator's predecessor, Railroad, upon proof of public convenience and necessity. As stated, however, the record indicates Railroad specifically limited its request, originally, to depot-to-depot operations--operations supplementary or auxiliary to, or jointly with its rail transportation service; and Railroad was granted the specific authority it then requested upon proof of public convenience and necessity as to such depot-to-depot auxiliary or supplemental service Railroad specifically sought. We cannot know what...
To continue reading
Request your trial