State ex rel. Philipp Transfer Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
| Decision Date | 05 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | The STATE of Missouri, ex rel. PHILIPP TRANSFER LINES, INC., and Philipp Transit Lines, Inc., Relators-Appellants, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of the State of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent, and Churchill Truck Lines, Inc., Dodds Truck Lines, Inc., Garrison Motor Freight, Inc., Frisco Transportation Company, Anderson Motor Service, Inc., Middlewest Freighways, Inc., Lovelace Truck Service, Inc., Sanders Truck Line, Inc., Niedergerke Truck Line, Inc., Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, Inc., Burggrabe Truck Line, Inc., Creech Bros. Truck Line, Inc., Inman Freight System, Inc., Main Line Hauling Co., Inc., Intervening Respondents-Respondents. 30576. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Tom B. Kretsinger, Liberty, for relators-appellants.
Paul W. Phillips, Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.
John E. Burruss, Jr., Jefferson City, for intervening respondents-respondents.
Before CLARK, P. J., and DIXON and SOMERVILLE, JJ.
This case originated when Philipp Transfer Lines, Inc., hereafter "Transfer," and Philipp Transit Lines, Inc., hereafter "Transit," both motor freight common carriers, filed a supplement to the Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau Tariff. Under the tariff supplement, Transfer and Transit, in various combinations of their certificated routes, offered through service at joint rates to and from numerous points of origin and destination throughout Missouri. The Missouri Public Service Commission, hereafter "Commission," ordered the tariff suspended pending publication of notice and a hearing.
In response to the notice of hearing, a number of motor freight carriers who were or would be in competition with Transfer and Transit in areas affected by the tariff intervened as opponents. Eleven of such carriers have participated throughout the progress of the case. They appear here and have filed briefs as intervening respondents. The decision of the Commission, rendered after hearing, ordered Transfer and Transit to cancel the tariff and to cease and desist from the joint transport of freight along the routes and at the rates published in the suspended tariff. Transfer and Transit appealed the Commission decision to the Circuit Court of Cole County, which affirmed the Commission, and they now seek further review of that result here. We affirm.
A grasp of the issues posed in the case requires exposition of terms and procedures peculiar to the regulation of carriers who transport freight by motor trucks on the highways of the state.
Supervision of motor freight carriers by the Commission is, initially, through control over certificates of public convenience and necessity without which no truck line may operate on the highways as a common carrier. § 390.051. 1 Upon approval by the Commission, a certificate issued to a truck line conveys authority for the transport of goods either as a regular route carrier or an irregular route carrier. In general, regular routes as designated in a certificate are described by terminal and intermediate points along a specific course of travel. § 390.020(15). Irregular routes are described by the identification of a base area, usually shown as a radius from a fixed point, and without advance specification of any particular destination terminal. § 390.020(8). In that selection of destinations and routes of travel, however, irregular route carriers are prohibited from transporting freight between points on the route of any regular route carrier. § 390.051(8).
Regular route carriers are protected from general competition by other truck lines because of the prohibition against duplication of service by any irregular route carrier and the exclusion of other regular route carriers from the same route except those carriers which have received a certificate of public convenience and necessity for that particular route from the Commission. In return for the protected franchise, a regular route carrier must operate on established schedules regardless of the quantity of freight tendered for carriage. Irregular route carriers, by contrast, operate on call and demand, which signifies that they have no established schedules but move only to destinations of choice when sufficient freight is offered to justify the carriage. 2
Under the practice in the motor freight industry, a tariff is the term which describes a publication of services offered by a motor freight carrier. The tariff will list points of origin and destination served by that carrier, other points served in combination with other carriers, the commodities and goods accepted for transport and the rates charged.
As among regular route carriers, through routes and joint rates may be established by a practice known as interlining. Under this concept, two or more carriers transfer shipments at points of joint service, that is, points where the certificated regular routes meet, thus enabling the initiating carrier to offer destination service to shippers who wish goods transported beyond the terminus of that carrier's regular route. Regular route carriers have the right to establish through routes and joint rates over routes for which the respective carriers already hold certificates and may do so without specific approval by the Commission. State ex rel. Philipp Transit Lines, Inc., et al. v. Public Service Commission, 523 S.W.2d 353 (Mo.App.1975).
Turning now to the suspended tariff of Transfer and Transit, the present controversy centers on through routes and joint rates resulting from interchange of freight between these two carriers, providing a service beyond that which each carrier alone could offer by utilizing only its own certificated routes. Such service is described through the medium of the tariff published by Transfer and Transit and suspended by order of the Commission.
Transfer and Transit as common carriers of motor freight hold a number of certificates of public convenience and necessity issued to them by the Commission authorizing service other both regular and irregular routes. In the subject tariff, these two carriers proposed to interline freight at points of common service Marthasville or Washington, Missouri, and, through joint rates, each carrier will offer shippers through service to points beyond those served by the carrier upon its certificated routes alone. In contrast to the joint routes and through rates between regular route carriers approved in State ex rel. Philipp, supra, the subject case involves combinations of two irregular routes, or, of an irregular with a regular route, to accomplish an interline joint carriage from origin to destination.
The Commission, under the authority of § 390.041(3), has established rules and regulations to be observed by motor freight carriers. Among these is Commission Rule 35 to General Order 33-F published at 4 CSR 240-110.050(2), hereafter "Rule 35." In substance, Rule 35 provides that establishment of joint service at through rates is limited to carriers authorized to provide service on regular routes. Thus, the tariff of Transfer and Transit is in violation of Rule 35 because the through routes there described include combinations of irregular routes.
Rule 35 is an expression of interpretation and application by the Commission of § 390.116, the pertinent portion of which states:
"Common carriers of property may establish reasonable through routes and joint rates, charges and classifications with other such carriers or with common carriers by railroad or express * * * "
The term "common carrier" means any person, firm or corporation which holds itself out to the general public as providing the service of transporting persons or property for hire by motor vehicle on the public highways. § 390.020(5). Common carriers are distinguished from contract carriers in that the latter do not serve the general public and operate under different provisions of Commission regulation. As employed in § 390.116, the term "common carriers" does not distinguish between regular and irregular route carriers.
In support of Rule 35 and the interpretation of § 390.116, the Commission contends that the word "routes" used in the phrase "through routes" is limited to the routes of regular carriers because only in this classification are points of origin and destination specified in the certificate, thereby creating routes. They argue that an irregular carrier, to the contrary, does not possess "route" authority in the strict sense because the certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizes area service, i. e., from a base area to any point in the state which the shipper selects along courses of travel which depend from trip to trip on the destination of the consignment. The Commission suggests that participation in interlining must of necessity entail advance designation of a point where interchange will occur and, as to an irregular carrier, this results in the creation by the joint tariff of a regular route in contravention of exclusive Commission authority on the subject.
The language of § 390.116 and the arguments fielded by the respective parties here indicate that at least some doubt may exist as to what combinations of certificated routes may be made by motor freight carriers without Commission approval. In such a circumstance, the Commission observes that its interpretation, exemplified by Rule 35, has controlled joint service tariffs since 1951 and the rule has apparently been accepted by the industry without challenge prior to the subject case. 3 The Commission suggests that the legal construction and administrative interpretation placed upon a statute which is vague, indefinite or ambiguous carries great persuasive influence where the agency charged with executing the statute has adopted a particular meaning and has followed it for some time. Among other cases supporting this proposition, State ex rel. Jackson County v. Public Service Commission, 532 S.W.2d 20 (Mo.ban...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Gulf Transport Co. v. Public Service Com'n of State, V-K
...of its actions depends directly on whether it has statutory power and authority to act. State ex rel. Phillip Transfer Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 599 S.W.2d 82 (Mo.App.1980); State ex rel. Beaufort Transfer Co. v. Clark, 504 S.W.2d 216 (Mo.App.1973). Where such authority is l......
-
Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Mo. v. Mo. Gas Energy
...depends primarily on whether the Commission had statutory power and authority to act.” State ex rel. Philipp Transfer Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 599 S.W.2d 82, 86 (Mo.App.1980). The Commission is “an administrative body created by statute and has only such powers as are expressly con......