From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trans. Corp. v. P.U.C.O

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 5, 1963
191 N.E.2d 156 (Ohio 1963)

Opinion

No. 37894

Decided June 5, 1963.

Motor transportation companies — Private contract carrier — Application for permission to add shipper — Deficiency in subsisting service — Need for service proposed by applicant — Proof sufficient to establish — Findings and order of commission not unreasonable or unlawful.

APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.

Nat Farinacci Son, Inc., a common carrier by motor vehicle, applied for a contract motor carrier permit to haul for the Grand River Lime Company of Grand River, Ohio, as shipper, lime, lime products, etc., from Grand River to various steel mills in Ohio. The appellant, which was operating under an irregular-route certificate and had been transporting material for the Grand River Lime Company since the beginning of that company, protested the application.

After a full hearing, the Public Utilities Commission found that the lower rates proposed by the applicant, unchallenged by appellant as to reasonableness and fairness, constitute a deficiency in the service of appellant; that the presence of an operating common carrier in the subject area demonstrates a need for the service which the applicant proposes to render; and that the application was well made and should be granted.

The commission ordered that, conditioned on the payment of taxes and filing of bond as required by the rules and regulations of the commission, a contract motor carrier permit be issued to the applicant.

Mr. Vernon L. Stouffer and Mr. Joe F. Asher, for appellant.

Mr. Mark McElroy and Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorneys general, Mr. Jay C. Flowers and Mr. Andrew R. Sarisky, for appellee.

Mr. Noel F. George and Mr. Kiehner Johnson, for applicant.


The findings and order of the commission are not unreasonable or unlawful. The order of the Public Utilities Commission is affirmed on authority of Wooster Freight Lines, Inc., v. Public Utilities Commission, 163 Ohio St. 11.

Order affirmed.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and SMITH, JJ., concur.

SMITH, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of GIBSON, J.


Summaries of

Trans. Corp. v. P.U.C.O

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 5, 1963
191 N.E.2d 156 (Ohio 1963)
Case details for

Trans. Corp. v. P.U.C.O

Case Details

Full title:BULK TRANSPORT CORP. (E. BROOKE MATLOCK, INC., SUBSTITUTED PROTESTANT)…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 5, 1963

Citations

191 N.E.2d 156 (Ohio 1963)
191 N.E.2d 156

Citing Cases

Stillpass Transit Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm

The amendment of Section 4923.07, Revised Code (130 Ohio Laws 1163), by the addition of the words, "The…

Owens Motor Freight, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm

The burden was upon the applicant to show a deficiency in the service of existing and protesting carriers.…