State v. Department of Public Works of Washington

• Decision Date: 03 December 1926
• Docket Number: 20246.
• Citation: 141 Wash. 168,250 P. 1088
• Parties: STATE ex rel. KRAKENBERGER et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF WASHINGTON et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

250 P. 1088

141 Wash. 168

STATE ex rel. KRAKENBERGER et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF WASHINGTON et al.

No. 20246.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 3, 1926

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; Wilson, Judge.

The Department of Public Works of the State of Washington made an order denying an application by B. Krakenberger and another for certificate for operation of through auto stage service which was affirmed by the superior court, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Charles T. Peterson and G. E. Peterson, both of Tacoma, for appellants.

John H Dunbar, of Olympia, H. C. Brodie, of Tacoma (Lindsay L Thompson, of Tacoma, Thos. H. Maguire, of Portland, Or., and

p>Page Frank P. Christensen, of Olympia, of counsel) for respondents.

MITCHELL J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court which affirmed an order of the department of public works denying an application of the appellants for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the operation of through auto stage service between Seattle and Hoquiam and intermediate points. At the present time persons desiring to travel by auto stage between Seattle and Hoquiam in either direction may do so over the line of one company operating between Seattle and Tacoma; thence over another operating between Tacoma and Olympia; and thence over another operating between Olympia and Aberdeen-Hoquiam. The two lines entering Olympia use the same station building. The two lines entering Tacoma use the same station building. In the application of the appellants before the department in stating fully, as they were required to do by the terms of the written application form used, the conditions relied upon as justification for the granting of the certificate applied for, only 'the giving of through service and reduced fares' was alleged. There was no charge or complaint that either one or more of the companies already in the field were giving inadequate service. A large number of protests were filed against the application by parties who appeared at the hearing before the department, including all the transportation companies now serving the territory. Upon the hearing the department of public works found that the territory which the appellants proposed to serve is already served by other certificate holders under the law; that no complaint had been filed with the department to the effect that the service now being rendered by certificate holders over the route is inadequate or insufficient for the public needs; and that the department has made no order relative to rates, facilities or service which the certificate holders failed or refused to obey. Upon the hearing...