Case Name: Melvin H. Hissem, v. Matthews B. Guran and Chancy Myers
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 148
Docket Number: No. 18771
Parties: Melvin H. Hissem, v. Matthews B. Guran and Chancy Myers.
Judges: Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 148–148

Head Matter:
No. 18771
Melvin H. Hissem, v. Matthews B. Guran and Chancy Myers.
Error to Summit Appeals.
118. AUTOMOBILES—1. Carriers of property under a definite contract, but not for others than their contractees, and not operating under a public franchise, are neither a common carrier nor a transportation company.
2. Such private carriers not subject, to law regulating motor propelled vehicles.
3. Certified motor transportation companies not entitled to protection against such private carriers.

Opinion:
MARSHALL, C. J.
1. The owner of a motor propelled vehicle engaged in the business of carrying and transporting property in such vehicle for hire over the highways of this state pursuant to a definite contract describing the property to be carried and the points to and from which the same shall be carried and the compensation to be paid, such owner not holding himself out to the public as willing to carry property for other persons, and not in fact carrying property for any other persons than those with whom he has thus contracted," and not operating under any public franchise, is not a common carrier and is not a motor transportation company as that term is defined in Sections 614-2 and 614-84, General Code (110 O. L., 212, 213).
2. Persons, corporations and firms who operate as such private carriers in carrying and transporting property over the highways of this state for hire are not subject to the provisions of the law regulating the operation of motor propelled vehicles, as enacted in 110 Ohio Laws, 212 to 223, inclusive, General Code.
3. A motor transportation company holding a certificate of convenience and necessity under the provisions of the act regulating motor transportation is not entitled to protection from competition as against owners of such privately operated motor vehicles over the same routes covered by such certificate.
Judgment affirmed.
Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.