Opinion
Docket No. 135, Calendar No. 38,038.
Submitted January 18, 1935.
Decided March 5, 1935.
Appeal from Michigan Public Utilities Commission. Submitted January 18, 1935. (Docket No. 135, Calendar No. 38,038.) Decided March 5, 1935.
Joseph A. Smith and H. R. Moore, doing business as the Exhibitors Truck Service Company, applied for a permit to operate motor vehicle freight service as a contract carrier between Detroit and various points. Petitioners review order denying application by appeal in the nature of certiorari. Affirmed.
McIntyre McIntyre, for petitioners.
Harry S. Toy, Attorney General, Peter J. Monaghan, Jr., and Edmund E. Shepherd, Assistants Attorney General, for Michigan Public Utilities Commission.
Appellant, plaintiff herein, desires to serve theaters located in various towns and cities of the State by transporting films and theater supplies under express written contracts with their owners and operators. The commission found that the proposed operation would impair the efficient public service of certain authorized common and contract motor carriers now adequately serving the same territory.
Appellee says that in all fairness it must be conceded that the record in this case is rather meagre and fails to disclose certain facts which might be helpful in setting the question at rest. It is certain that the disputed field of business endeavor, that of the Saginaw-Bay City area, is both narrow and restricted. Appellant emphasizes these admissions, and argues that the finding of the commission amounts to a stifling of legitimate competition and urges that there are no facts in the record justifying a refusal of a license.
The first question is a matter for the determination of the legislature and not of the courts. As to the second, we do not weigh the evidence. A question of fact was presented to and determined by the commission. On review by certiorari this court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of the commission on issues of fact. Testimony was taken in support of appellant's application for a permit and in opposition thereto.
From a consideration of the record presented to us on this appeal, we cannot say that the commission's order denying the permit is without support either in the facts disclosed at the hearing or by an investigation of the commission. In re Consolidated Freight Co., 265 Mich. 340 (4 P. U. R. [N. S.] 397). Under this authority, such determination must be affirmed. It is so affirmed, without costs, there being no private parties appearing as appellees.
POTTER, C.J., and NELSON SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, BUTZEL, and EDWARD M. SHARPE, JJ., concurred.