Opinion ID: 1865421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consistent with the Public Interest

Text: Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, supra, is traditionally cited for the interpretation of the captioned phrase. There, this court made the following comments: Attention is called to the difference in the finding necessary for contract carriers, that is, `consistent with the public interest,' and for common carriers, that there must be a `certificate of public convenience and necessity'. Section 301(8), Title 48 [Code 1940], supra. A contract carrier can give preferential service, and is not limited to schedules or routes: a common carrier is thus bound.    This carrier cannot extend the preferential service nor other advantages of a contract carrier.    It is not a question of whether the public needs this service, as when a common carrier seeks a permit, but whether such service would be detrimental to the public interest. It is said to be a form of private transportation.