Document: 344 U.S. 157 73 S.Ct. 204 97 L.Ed. 168 LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING CO.v.WOOD et al. No. 37. Argued and Submitted Nov. 10, 1952. Decided Dec. 8, Rehearing Denied March 9, 1953. See 345 913, 638. Mr. Glenn M. Elliott, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner. John R. Thompson Eugene Warren, Little Rock, Ark., respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner, Lloyd Fry Roofing Company, manufactures asphalt roofing products in Tennessee, sends them trucks to customers nearby states. Some these are driven by their owners who have allegedly leased Five driver-owners while carrying Fry's interstate shipments on Arkansas highways were arrested having failed obtain a permit as required all contract carriers § 11 Motor Act.1 Petitioner brought this action an state court enjoin state's Public Service Commission from further molestation prosecution drivers. bill asserted both federal grounds denying that law could be applied require permit. alleged were: Neither petitioner Company nor truck drivers get permit, because exempted 'private' duty, was such 'private carrier'—that is, commercial enterprise, its own exclusively operated bona fide driveremployees. Since, claimed, employees, it necessarily followed they need not permits 'contract carriers' business transporting goods hire.2 ground prevent application statute requiring either or would unduly burden commerce violation United States Constitution invade field regulation preempted Federal Carrier Act.3 2 Answering bill, State asked dismiss it, strongly urging petitioner's lease operation employees mere pretenses, subterfuge enable others evade escape regulatory provisions Act. After lengthy hearings trial found fact leases also fide, therefore private carrier exempt For reason held Act did Accordingly enjoined prayed. Reviewing facts itself Supreme Court arrangements shams, shipper—not any kind. In situation reality hire, engaged very kind which then dismissed denied rehearing, thereby rejecting questions raised. 219 Ark. 553, 244 S.W.2d 147. Certiorari granted Commerce Clause questions. 343 962, 72 1060. 3 We urged set aside findings before passing upon constitutional presented. contends without evidential support subsidiary do ultimate conclusion shams. Whether rejection place contentions more favorable position, we consider. there is much record evidence, oral written, some tends contention good-faith contrary. details conduct resemble differ patterns courts other cases been contrived avoid legal regulation. See, e.g., v. LaTuff Transfer Service, D.C., 95 F.Supp. 375, cited. There no exceptional circumstances justify us Court's findings; factual foundation, accept them. 4 finding operate hire makes defined Section requires outlines certain considerations commission may weign granting refusing Among matters adequacy transportation services already being performed 'any railroad, street railway motor carrier'. Refusal certificate based unconstitutional obstruction Buck Kuykendall, 267 307, 45 324, 69 623. To deny reasons conflict with holding. 5 Unlike case, has refused grant carriage highways. It nothing except apply And here expressly disclaims 'discretionary right refuse where commerce.' asserts power purpose than register appropriate agency.4 Such identification necessary, urges, order properly valid police, welfare, safety regulations using Nor showing whatever attempted will attempt attach burdensome conditions manner National Interstate issued thereunder. Moreover, imposes duty reconciling Commission, just officials cooperate states duly authorized officials. Here neither obtained authority Commission. Indeed, whole case built premise must national agency. our prior make clear can regulate so long undue imposed commerce, requirement burden.5 time enough consider apprehended when if attempts impose enforce At present hold only powerless identify themselves users 6 Affirmed. 7 DOUGLAS whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BURTON MINTON join, dissenting. 8 involved immaterial determination question That whether person necessity convenience Arkansas. precisely what required, made instant case. 9 'We litigation 'were Commission.' 557, 147, 149. 10 label 'Certificate Necessity Convenience' accurate word 'permit,' permission dependent consideration following factors:1 'the reliability financial condition applicant'—his 'sense responsibility toward public' service maintained carrier'—'the likelihood proposed permanent continuous throughout twelve months year' effect existing service'—'any tending show want said application.' issue appears applicant fit, willing, able' perform 'will promote public interest' policy Act.2 This use Arkansas' control Washington tried exercise over her As Brandeis, speaking said, 'not merely burden, but obstruct (interstate commerce). Id., at page 316, 326. 12 interest safety, exaction fee highway maintenance, like different character. South Carolina Highway Dept. Barnwell Bros., 303 177, 189, 625, 58 510, 515, 82 734, So intrastate business. Eichholz 306 268, 622, 59 532, 83 641. 13 exacted one authorizing 'to engage business.' Until today commerce. concern solely Congress gave carriers. 49 U.S.C. 304(a)(2), U.S.C.A. 304(a)(2). mandatory 309. broad powers investigation carriers, id., 304(c), provided injunctions against violations, 322(b), criminal sanctions. 322(a). phase operation, seeks regulate, left untouched. determine leasing sham, one. words field, precluding inconsistent overlapping regulations.3 Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 61 399, 85 581; Hill Florida ex rel. Watson, 325 538, 65 1373, 89 1782; Rice Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 67 1146, 91 1447; Bethlehem Steel Co. New York Labor Relations Board, 330 767, 1026, 1234; La Crosse Tel. Corp. Wisconsin Employment 336 18, 379, 93 463; Plankinton Packing 338 953, 70 491, 94 588; International Union Automobile, Aircraft Agricultural Implement Workers O'Brien, 339 454, 781, 978. 'No shall vehicle unless force respect persons * *' Ark.Acts 1941, 367 937, 947—948. Act's definition is: 'The term vehicle's means person, common included under Paragraph 7, 5(a) Act, which, individual contracts agreements, directly indirectly equipment franchise rights, arrangement, transports passengers property compensation.' 367, 8. Compare Part II 303(15), 303(15). Stat. 543, amended, 54 919, 301 seq., seq. specifically referred original in, considered rejected 'It appeared that, act calls 'public necessity,' had recognized, suit begun, discretion willing plaintiffs compliance law.' Clark Poor, 274 554, 556, 47 702, 71 1199. affirmed dismissing bill. Columbia Terminals Lambert, 30 28, 32, 309 620, 60 471, 84 983. 29, District upheld Missouri reading: hereby declared unlawful property, both, first do. 623, statute's invalidation, since say benefit not. Agreeing holding, ordered complaint dismissed. Comm., 273—274, 534—535, 641; H. P. Welch Hampshire 79, 84, 85, 438, 440, 441, 550; Maurer Hamilton, 598, 726, 969, affirming Pa. 17, A.2d 466; McDonald Thompson, 305 263, 176, 164, Cir., F.2d 937; Inc., 734. Cf. Hood & Sons, Du Mond, 525, 657, 665, 43 865. relevant parts Ark.L.1941, pp. 947 949, follows: '(a) No '(c) Subject qualified therefor part operations covered application, hearing thereon, able conform lawful requirements, rules extent Two (2) Act; otherwise denied. '(e) applications permits, take into his sense public; carrier; year, service; application. '(f) specify scope thereof issuance, thereafter, reasonable terms, conditions, limitations consistent character holder necessary carry out, carrier, requirements established provided, however, restrict substitute add within facilities, development demands require.' 11, note 1, supra. whose ruling sustained, 983, point. ruled particular F.Supp., 30.

Category: 7