State ex rel. Schmidt v. Department of Public Works

• Decision Date: 15 February 1923
• Docket Number: 17759.
• Citation: 123 Wash. 705,213 P. 31
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SCHMIDT v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

213 P. 31

123 Wash. 705

STATE ex rel. SCHMIDT v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS et al.

No. 17759.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 15, 1923

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John M Wilson, Judge.

Suit by the State, on the relation of A. D. Schmidt, against the Department of Public Works and others, to enjoin defendants from interfering with the business of plaintiff in operating motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers for compensation between Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Or., on the ground that the business so conducted by him was purely interstate commerce. From an order denying injunctive relief and dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Vance &amp Christensen, of Olympia, for appellant.

Lindsay L. Thompson and Raymond W. Clifford, both of Olympia, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant as relator, brought this action in the court below to enjoin respondents from interfering with his business of operating motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers for compensation between Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Or., upon the ground that the business so conducted by him was purely interstate commerce, and that respondents had, and have, no jurisdiction thereof. From a judgment denying injunctive relief and dismissing the action he has appealed.

The action was tried on the merits, and it appears that the appellant, having in no wise complied with the provisions of chapter 111, Laws of 1921, was operating a regular service by automobile, carrying passengers for hire between the points indicated, when he was arrested at the instance of the Department of Public Works for failure to have a certificate of public convenience and necessity, as required by the terms of the act, and that a continuance of such interference with his operations is threatened. This case is governed and controlled by the recent decision in the case of Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al. v. Schoenfeldt et al. (Wash.) 213 P. 26, and upon the authority of that case the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

PEMBERTON J. (dissenting).

In the case of Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schoenfeldt (Wash.) 213 P. 26, the defendants had not complied with any of the provisions of chapter 111 of the Laws of 1921, providing for the supervision and regulation of the transportation of persons and property for compensation over the public highways of this state by motor vehicle.

In this case the appellant was arrested because he was engaged in interstate commerce, carrying passengers between Seattle and Portland, Or., without first securing a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 4 of said chapter 111, Laws of 1921. Appellant concedes that he must comply with all the provisions of the law, but insists that section 4 of the law does not apply to those engaged in interstate commerce.

The only question involved in this case...