Case Name: HUNT v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-12-05
Citations: 265 Mich. 241
Docket Number: Calendar No. 37,462
Parties: HUNT v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
Judges: Potter, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred with Weadock, J. McDonald, C. J., and North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred in the result.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 265
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
HUNT v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
Licenses — Renewals—Proration—Statutes—Motor V ehicles— Freight Carriers.
Refusal of public utilities commission to issue renewal license to freight carrier under Act No. 312, Pub. Acts 1931, § 5, for one month, the remaining period during which said act would remain in effect, and requiring renewal for year is affirmed.
Mandamus by Louis A. Hunt and another, doing business as L. A. Hunt & Son, to compel Michigan Public Utilities Commission to issue a permit as a private carrier of freight for hire, and for. writ of prohibition to restrain interference with plaintiff’s motor vehicles.
Submitted November 2, 1933.
(Calendar No. 37,462.)
Writs denied December 5, 1933.
Raymond A. Ratting (Emerson R. Boyles, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Patrick, H. O’Brien, Attorney General, and M. Thomas Ward, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.

Opinion:
Weadock, J.
Plaintiffs applied to the Michigan public utilities commission for a renewal of permit as a freight carrier, tendering a fee of $13.64, one-twelfth of the annual fee, being for one month from September 18 to October 17, 1933, when the repeal of Act No. 312, Pub. Acts 1931, would take effect.
That sum being refused and the sum of $130.16, the fee for a year, being demanded by the commission that sum was paid under protest and a petition was filed, for mandamus.
An order to show canse was allowed and the commission answered that it advised plaintiff that it was necessary to file an application for a license for one year and based its action on the provisions of section 5 of Act No. 312, Pub. Acts 1931, under which fees may be pro-rated and credited.
A mandamus and writ of prohibition is denied.
Potter, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred with Weadock, J. McDonald, C. J., and North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred in the result.