Court Opinion

ID: 9683722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:35:47.492691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:49.903748
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motions for Rehearing.
PER'CURIAM.
In attempting to distinguish' the case of Thompson v. Hovey Petroleum Company, Tex.Sup., 236 S.W.2d 491, in which case the Railroad Commission did not file a motion for rehearing, the Commission says that the order under review in that case “did not contain a finding, as the statute requires, that there existed a public necessity for the proposed service.” This is incorrect. The order in that case expressly found: “The Commission Further Finds from the evidence and its own records, after [carefully] considering the existing transportation facilities, and demand for the need of the additional service that the service and facilities of the' existing carriers serving the territory are inadequate; * * * and that the public convenience will be promoted by the granting said application and permitting the operation of motor vehicles on the highway designated in said application as a common carrier for hire.1
*898Inadequacy of existing services creates a public necessity for additional services. Kerrville Bus Co. v. Continental Bus System, Tex.Civ.App., 208 S.W.2d 586, Austin, Writ Ref.N.R.E.
The Commission further says in its motion for rehearing that: “The judgment of this Honorable Court filed April 18, 1951, would to a large extent nullify the work of the Commission for the last ten (10) years in the regulation of transportation of property for hire over the highway under House Bill 351 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 911b]. If the orders appellants attack collaterally are void most of the orders entered by the Commission pursuant to House Bill 351 granting Specialized Motor Carrier Certificates are also1 void, including every order entered granting certificates to appellants authorizing the transportation of household goods.”
As to this we need only say that in both the Hovey case and in our original opinion in this case we wrote what the Commission and this court thought the law to be. Our error in the Hovey case has been adjudicated 'by the Supreme Court and it is our duty to apply the law as there announced, without regard for the consequences.
The motions are overruled.
Overruled.