Court Opinion

ID: 9601310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:41:32.712815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:34.995275
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: I must respectfully dissent on the ground that the commission’s order in the instant case was lawful and reasonable.
Adherence to the practice and decision of the court in this case would tend to monopolize common-carrier service and eliminate competition — granting existing common carriers more business than they had before.
Second-guessing the commission on a matter of evidence is not the function of the appellate court. The commission’s finding that the applicant will be able to perform an individualized, specialized motor contract carrier service different from, and more suitable to the needs of the shippers than any common-carrier service now *103available is, in my opinion, quite definitely supported by the evidence. The testimony of Edgar E. Smith to the effect that the service of Thunderbird would probably be more available than any other carrier, and thus give Mayfield-Smith an advantage, is confirmed by his further testimony that Mayfield-Smith owns part of the stock of Thunderbird.
It is common knowledge and one of the economic facts of life that ownership of an interest in a business tends to compel the obedience of those subject to the owners control. Both the commission and the trial court must have construed this testimony to mean that the service of Thunderbird would be more available to Mayfield-Smith than the service of any other common carrier. In my opinion that is a correct interpretation of this evidence. This was a question of fact to be determined by the commission, and, having done so, it must stand as a finding of fact which supports the decision of the commission.
There is no evidence in the record that issuance of the permit to Thunderbird would take business away from other common carriers which they enjoyed prior to issuance of the temporary permit to Thunderbird.
In my opinion the decision of the court herein tends to invade the sanctity of the commission’s power to make its own policy decisions within the realm of law and reason. I respectfully submit the lower court should be affirmed.