State v. Price
| Decision Date | 06 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | 17577. |
| Citation | 210 P. 787,122 Wash. 421 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. PRICE. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Cowlitz County; Homer Kirby, Judge.
H. B Price was convicted of transporting passengers for hire without obtaining from the Public Service Commission a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and without procuring insurance on his automobile, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Jos O'Neill, of Castle Rock, for appellant.
Wm Stuart, of Kelso, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the violation of chapter 111, Laws 1921. The facts have been stipulated, and are to the effect that the appellant was running a motor vehicle over the county road between Castle Rock and Toutle, Wash., and in making such trips had accepted passengers for transportation and received pay for carrying them; that he had not obtained from the commission a certificate of public convenience and necessity as provided by section 4 of chapter 111, Laws 1921, nor had the appellant procured insurance on the car that he was operating.
The appellant had a contract with the United States government to carry mail between the two points named, and in executing his contract used a passenger automobile, with which he made one daily run from Castle Rock to Toutle and return. It is a stipulated fact that he had accepted passengers and freight when there was room for them in his vehicle, and on several occasions, when there was no room, passengers and freight were refused. It is the appellant's contention that under these facts he does not come within the operation of chapter 111 for two reasons--the first being that the law applies only to common carriers operating between fixed termini; and, second, that before the act can apply to the appellant the commission must determine, as a question of fact, that the automobile was being operated between fixed termini as a carrier.
The answer to appellant's first contention is that it is not necessary for the vehicle owner, in order for the act of 1921 to apply to him, that he be a common carrier, as that term is technically defined. The act provides that all persons who transport persons or property for compensation over any public highway between fixed termini or on a regular route must have a license, etc., and provides certain exceptions none of which apply to the appellant. The facts show that the appellant was carrying passengers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Public Service Commission of Wyoming
...carrier may be required to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity, or at least a license. State v. Smith, supra; State v. Price, 122 Wash. 421, 210 P. 787; Public Service Commission v. Fox, 96 Misc. 283, N.Y.S. 59, and see the Maryland and Oklahoma cases hereinafter specifically ......
-
Figenskau v. McCoy
... ... L.H. McCOY, Motor Vehicle Registrar, of the State of North Dakota, Ben C. Larkin, C. W. McDonnell and E. O. Cart, as the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of North Dakota, Respondents No ... Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U.S ... 183, 20 S.Ct. 633, 44 L. ed. 725; State v. Goeson, ... 65 N.D. 706, 262 N.W. 70; State v. Price, 122 Wash. 421, 210 ... A ... private carrier is not converted into a common carrier by the ... Act. Stephenson v. Binford, 53 ... ...
-
State v. Johnson
...of in the case of Interstate Transit Co. v. Derr, above. It was directly determined adversely to the position taken in State v. Price, 210 P. 787, 122 Wash. 421, and again in the state of Washington, while it was held such an exemption did not render the act void (State v. Seattle Taxicab C......