Carbon Motorway, Inc. v. Barton Truck Line, Inc.

Utah Supreme Court

Carbon Motorway, Inc. v. Barton Truck Line, Inc.

382 P.2d 210, 14 Utah 2d 261, 1963 Utah LEXIS 196

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMay 29, 1963

DocketNos. 9716, 9717

StatusPublished

This text of 382 P.2d 210 (Carbon Motorway, Inc. v. Barton Truck Line, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carbon Motorway, Inc. v. Barton Truck Line, Inc., 382 P.2d 210, 14 Utah 2d 261, 1963 Utah LEXIS 196 (Utah 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

CROCKETT, Justice.

These proceedings are companion to Ashworth Transfer, Inc. et al. v. Barton et [262]*262al., 14 Utah 2d 258, 382 P.2d 209 reported herewith, which deals with the abandonment by Wasatch Fast Freight, Inc. (successor to Fuller-Toponce Freight Line) of the general authority to operate as a common motor carrier of freight from Salt Lake City on the south to the Utah-Idaho line on the north, and intermediate points. As there indicated, these plaintiffs, Carbon Motorways, Inc. and Wycoff Co., Inc., and also Beehive Motor Lines and Barton Truck Lines, filed varying applications for authority to take over parts of the service which Wasatch sought to abandon. After separate hearings on these applications the entire authority was granted to Barton Truck Lines and the applications of the others including these plaintiffs were denied.

The plaintiffs are not in an advantaged position to contend that public convenience and necessity do not require the service which they sought to render; and, for which incidentally, the record amply justifies the Commission’s finding of need. As to whom the authority should be granted, it was the Commission’s prerogative to decide, so long as the carrier met the required qualifications. See Sec. 54-6-5, U.S.C.1953.

Com plaint is made of the facts that the Commission denied motions to consolidate the hearings; and that after they were held it did consolidate them for the purpose of considering the entire problem and making its decision. It is to be observed that all interested parties actually participated in each of the hearings. The Commission appears to have been careful and even indulgent in allowing participation by the interested parties, the cross-examination of witnesses by their counsel, and the presentation of their own evidence at the proper time. From our survey of the situation we are not persuaded that the Commission exceeded the broad latitude of discretion it has as to its own proceedings. See Lake Shore Motor Coach Lines, Inc. v. Welling, 9 Utah 2d 114, 339 P.2d 1011.

On the basis of the rule of review stated in the case of Ashworth Transfer et al. v. Barton, referred to above, the orders are affirmed. Costs to defendant Barton Truck Lines.

HENRIOD, C. J., and CALLISTER, McDONOUGH, and WADE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CROCKETT, Justice.

These proceedings are companion to Ashworth Transfer, Inc. et al. v. Barton et [262]*262al., 14 Utah 2d 258, 382 P.2d 209 reported herewith, which deals with the abandonment by Wasatch Fast Freight, Inc. (successor to Fuller-Toponce Freight Line) of the general authority to operate as a common motor carrier of freight from Salt Lake City on the south to the Utah-Idaho line on the north, and intermediate points. As there indicated, these plaintiffs, Carbon Motorways, Inc. and Wycoff Co., Inc., and also Beehive Motor Lines and Barton Truck Lines, filed varying applications for authority to take over parts of the service which Wasatch sought to abandon. After separate hearings on these applications the entire authority was granted to Barton Truck Lines and the applications of the others including these plaintiffs were denied.

The plaintiffs are not in an advantaged position to contend that public convenience and necessity do not require the service which they sought to render; and, for which incidentally, the record amply justifies the Commission’s finding of need. As to whom the authority should be granted, it was the Commission’s prerogative to decide, so long as the carrier met the required qualifications. See Sec. 54-6-5, U.S.C.1953.

Com plaint is made of the facts that the Commission denied motions to consolidate the hearings; and that after they were held it did consolidate them for the purpose of considering the entire problem and making its decision. It is to be observed that all interested parties actually participated in each of the hearings. The Commission appears to have been careful and even indulgent in allowing participation by the interested parties, the cross-examination of witnesses by their counsel, and the presentation of their own evidence at the proper time. From our survey of the situation we are not persuaded that the Commission exceeded the broad latitude of discretion it has as to its own proceedings. See Lake Shore Motor Coach Lines, Inc. v. Welling, 9 Utah 2d 114, 339 P.2d 1011.

On the basis of the rule of review stated in the case of Ashworth Transfer et al. v. Barton, referred to above, the orders are affirmed. Costs to defendant Barton Truck Lines.

HENRIOD, C. J., and CALLISTER, McDONOUGH, and WADE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 P.2d 210, 14 Utah 2d 261, 1963 Utah LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carbon-motorway-inc-v-barton-truck-line-inc-utah-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack