Case Title: Freeman Truck Line v. Merchants Truck Line

Citation: 604 So. 2d 223

Docket Number: 07-CC-59380

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1992-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
604 So. 2d 223 (1992) FREEMAN TRUCK LINE, INC. v. MERCHANTS TRUCK LINE, INC., Shippers Express, Inc. and AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc. No. 07-CC-59380. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 13, 1992. Rehearing Denied August 12, 1992. Douglas C. Wynn, Wynn & Mitchell, Greenville, for appellant. John A. Crawford, Butler Snow O'Mara Stevens & Cannada, Harold D. Miller, Jr., Butler Snow Firm, Jackson, for appellee. Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., BANKS and McRAE, JJ. McRAE, Justice, for the court: Freeman Truck Line, Inc. (hereinafter Freeman) filed an application for intrastate transport authority with the Public Service Commission of Mississippi (hereinafter Commission) on October 27, 1986. Merchants Truck Line, Inc., Shippers Express, Inc. and AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc. (collectively, Merchants) protested the application. The Commission granted Freeman's petition, and Merchants appealed to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. The circuit court reversed and remanded for further findings. Freeman implores this Court to review the circuit court's reversal order. The appeal, interlocutory in nature, is not properly before us. We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice. Freeman began its operations in 1943 as a distribution carrier interchanging freight originating in or destined to various points in north central Mississippi. Freeman asked the Commission to grant its application because it held interstate authority to serve all points in Mississippi and its delineation from intrastate authority was confusing and had caused problems with drivers and customers. These problems arose primarily in the Jackson and Memphis break-bulk terminals when a shipper would deliver both interstate shipments which it could serve and intrastate shipments, some of which Freeman could not serve. Ten public witnesses supported Freeman's application including Yancy Delapp, general manager and vice-president of Acme Frame Products in Tutwiler, Mississippi. Acme employs approximately one hundred people and manufactures picture frames. Delapp testified that the carriers serving Acme were Shippers, Merchants and Freeman and out of the three, Freeman gave them the best service. Additionally, he stated that he would recommend Freeman to its customers and would also use Freeman for all shipments throughout the state if the application were granted. During the testimony of Larry Kerr, president of Shippers, the following transpired: At the close of the hearing, the Commission authorized Freeman: On appeal, the circuit court reversed the Commission's Amended Order and stated the following: At issue here is the Commission's alleged consideration of extrinsic evidence, consisting of sixty-three letters, evidenced by Commissioner Snyder's comments set out supra. Freeman/Appellant and Merchants/Cross-Appellants both cite several issues; however, because we find this case to be improperly before this Court, we only address its procedural posture. The appeal to the circuit court was from a final order of the Public Service Commission and thus proper. See Miss. Code Ann. § 77-1-45. The appeal from the circuit to this Court, however, was interlocutory. An order is interlocutory when "the substantial rights of the parties involved in the action remain undetermined and when the cause is retained for further action." 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 585 (1962). In Leathers v. Tupelo Coffee Co., 423 So. 2d 122 (Miss. 1982), we were called upon to review a circuit court order which remanded a case to the Workmen's Compensation *225 Commission for further findings. We held: Leathers, 423 So. 2d at 123. As in Leathers, Freeman's appeal runs counter to the interests of judicial efficiency. The matter involves questions of fact which can only be resolved on remand to the Commission. In addition, the instant case is not properly before us since the trial court did not grant, nor did Freeman request, an interlocutory appeal pursuant to the technical requirements of Sup. Ct.R. 5(a). We dismiss the appeal without prejudice and direct the Commission to comply with the circuit court's order. APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND CAUSE REMANDED TO THE MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN and BANKS, JJ., concur.