State ex rel. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
| Decision Date | 18 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 488 S.W.2d 942 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. NATIONAL TRAILER CONVOY, INC., et al., Relators-Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of the State of Missouri, Respondent. 25887. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard M. Webster, Myers, Webster & Perry, Webb City, for National Trailer Convoy, Inc., and Morgan Drive Away, Inc.
Herman W. Huber, Jefferson City, for Transit Homes, Inc.,
Jeremiah D. Finnegan, William F. Liliensiek, Gen. Counsels, Missouri Public Service Commission, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, C.J., and CROSS, DIXON, PRITCHARD, SWOFFORD and WASSERSTROM, JJ.
This is an appeal from the action of the Missouri Public Service Commission granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to William R. Wade d/b/a Wade's Mobile Home Movers. The appellants were intervenors and protestants before the Commission. The Circuit Court affirmed the action of the Commission and the relators-appellants have duly appealed to this court.
Wade, a former employee of appellant National Trailer Convoy, Inc., had set up his own business with headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri to engage in the moving of mobile homes or house trailers upon the highways. Each of the three appellants was also engaged in that business with terminals or headquarters in Kansas City, and each was at all times operating its intrastate business under certificates of convenience and necessity previously issued to them by the respondent, Missouri Public Service Commission.
Wade applied for a certificate under the terms of Section 390.051 V.A.M.S. to tow or move house trailers as a common carrier to and from and between all points within a radius of 100 miles of Kansas City, Missouri and to, from and between all points within the state of Missouri, on the one hand, and all points within said 100 mile radius of Kansas City, Missouri, including Kansas City, Missouri, on the other hand.
After hearings, the Commission issued its order granting a certificate to Wade, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
'Ordered 1.
Common Carrier, Intrastate Irregular:
To transport or tow as a common carrier by motor freight 'house trailers' to, from and between all points within a 90 mile radius of Kansas City, Missouri including Kansas City, Missouri.
Such service is authorized irrespective of the location of such points on the routes of regular motor carriers.'
Application for rehearing was denied by the Commission and the relators, having exhausted all of their administrative remedies, filed a petition for review of this order in the Circuit Court of Cole County, pursuant to Section 386.510 V.A.M.S. That court affirmed the order of the Commission and this appeal followed.
It is the position of the appellants, that the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri erred in affirming the report and order of the Commission in that there was no competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record from which the Commission could find that public convenience and necessity would be promoted by or that there was a public need for the broad grant of authority, as required by Section 390.051 V.A.M.S.; that the Commission failed to give proper consideration to present service being furnished by common carriers, including appellants, and the adverse affect upon them of the granting of the certificate to Wade, and that the Commission's order is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, contrary to law and therefore unjust, unreasonable and unlawful.
The respondent denies any error in the Commission's order or in the actions of the Circuit Court and vigorously asserts that the results of these proceedings are justified by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record and that the action of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.
Section 386.510 V.A.M.S. provides for proceedings for review of orders of the Public Service Commission by the Circuit Court and appeal therefrom to this court. The proceedings in the Circuit Court are to be tried and determined as suits in equity. Both the proceedings in the Circuit Court and here are based exclusively upon 'the evidence and exhibits introduced before the commission and certified to by it.' Our determination upon this appeal also falls within the mandate of Section 22, Article 5, of the Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S., which provides, in part:
'All final decisions, findings, rules and orders of any administrative * * * body * * * which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law; and such review shall include the determination whether the same are authorized by law, and in cases in which a hearing is required by law, whether the same are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.'
We must first determine the provisions and requirements of the statutes relating to the power of the Public Service Commission to order certificates of convenience and necessity in cases such as that now before us. This authority is found in Section 390.051 V.A.M.S.
This statute provides that no person shall engage in the business of common carrier in intrastate commerce on any public highways unless it has a certificate of authority from the Commission (Section 390.051(1)).
It provides for a written application to contain specified information (Sec. 390.051(2)); for hearing and intervention of classes of interested parties (Sec. 390.051(3)).
This section further provides:
The record before us clearly indicates that there are only two real areas of controversy between the parties. First, was the issuance of the certificate to Wade supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record that there was a public need and necessity for the service? Second, was sufficient consideration extended by the commission to the presently existing service and adverse effects thereon on the certification to Wade?
Addressing the problem of public necessity for the service sought, it is not inappropriate (but indeed necessary) for us to recognize and emphasize the fact that we cannot weigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the commission. Rather, our appellate function is to determine whether the commission could have reasonably made its findings and reached its results upon due consideration of all the evidence before it or, stated differently, is the finding of the commission supported by competent and substantial evidence. State ex rel. Byers Transportation Co. v. Public Service Commission, Mo.App., 246 S.W.2d 825; Goetz v. J. D. Carson Co., 357 Mo. 125, 206 S.W.2d 530 Wood v. Wagner Electric Corp., 355 Mo. 670, 197 S.W.2d 647, 649.
This administrative proceeding is deeply impressed with a public interest. The purpose of our public service commission laws is basically to secure uniformity of operating conditions among similar carriers; to secure adequate and sustained service for the public at the least possible cost; to prevent economic waste that follows useless duplication of service; and to protect and conserve investments already made to furnish and maintain such public service. State ex rel. Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company v. Public Service Commission, Mo.Sup., 295 S.W.2d 128. In this case, the court said, l.c. 133--134:
'* * * the policy of regulation upon which our present commission plan is based is at once the reason and the justification for the holding of our courts that the regulation of an existing system of transportation, which is properly serving a given field, is to be preferred to competition among several independent systems.'
The applicant for a certificate of convenience and necessity has the burden of establishing the need for the service sought, that such service is in the public interest, and will not work an undue hardship or adversely burden or affect the ability to perform the public service being accomplished by existing carriers.
In State ex rel. Eldon Miller, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, Mo.App., 471 S.W.2d 483, this court said, l.c. 488:
In State ex rel. Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma Coach Lines v. Public Service Commission, 238 Mo.App. 317, 179 S.W.2d 132, the court said, l.c. 136:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Gulf Transport Co. v. Public Service Com'n of State, V-K
...in favor of regular route carriers. In defense of its policy, the respondents cite to this court State ex rel. Nat. Trail Con., Inc. v. Public Service Comm., 488 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Mo.App.1972). The respondents direct this court to the following language within that "The purpose of our Public......
-
State ex rel. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
...of need in some towns can support a grant of wider authority in the general vicinity. State ex rel. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 488 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Mo.App.1972); State ex rel. Byers Transp. Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 246 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Mo.App.......
-
State ex rel. Oliver v. Public Service Commission
...Truck Service, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 129 S.W.2d 69, 72(1--5) (Mo.App.1939); State ex rel. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 488 S.W.2d 942, 944(1) (Mo.App.1972) and cases cited In making such determination, recognition must likewise be given to the pow......
-
State ex rel. Twehous Excavating Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission, State of Mo.
...is served. State ex rel. Beaufort Transport Co. v. Clark, 504 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Mo.App.1973); State ex rel. National Trailer Con., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm., 488 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Mo.App.1972); State v. Burton, 374 S.W.2d 639, 643 (Mo.App.1963). The effect upon other common carriers is to be......