Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sadler

Court of Appeals of Texas

Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sadler

147 S.W.2d 1102, 1941 WL 76760

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 29, 1941

DocketNo. 8972.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 147 S.W.2d 1102 (Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sadler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sadler, 147 S.W.2d 1102, 1941 WL 76760 (Tex. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

BLAIR, Justice.

This litigation arose as an appeal under the Motor Carrier Act (Vernon’s Ann.Civ. St. Art. 911b, Sec. 20), from an order of the Railroad Commission granting appellee, Comet Motor Freight Lines, a corporation, a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate a certain common carrier motor carrier service. Appellants, several railroad and motor carrier companies serving parts of the territory involved, unsuccessfully sought in the trial court and here seek to set aside the order granting the certificate and to enjoin any operation under it, contending as follows:

1. That the order granting the certificate is void because there was no substantial evidence adduced before the Commission showing a public convenience and necessity for the proposed service, and that for the same reason the order is arbitrary and unreasonable.

2. That the application made by Frank A. 'Blankenbeckler, trustee, for the certificate to be issued to a corporation to be formed did not meet the requirements of Art. 911b, Sec. 1(a) of the Motor Carrier Act.

3. That the application for the certificate.did not meet the requirements of Art. 911b of the Motor Carrier Act, in that it did not point out the inadequacies of the existing service over the proposed route.

4. That the findings of fact of the Commission were not sufficient to support the order granting the certificate; and that the “Commission failed to file along with its order findings of fact as required by Art. 911b, Sec. 12(a) ” of the Motor Carrier Act.

Neither of these contentions is sustained.

Point “1” presents the sole legal question that the order granting the certificate is void because there was no substantial evidence adduced before the Commission showing a public convenience and necessity for the service, and that for the same reason the order was arbitrary and unreasonable. The first part of point “4” presents the legal question that the findings of fact of the Commission áre not sufficient to support the order granting the certificate. The pertinent assignments of error raise only these two legal questions as to the sufficiency of the evidence and findings of fact, which are so related that they will be considered together; and neither of these questions or contentions is sustained.

Two hearings of the application for the certificate were held by the Examiner of the Commission, one at Mineral Wells lasting two days, and another at Austin lasting one day. The testimony taken at these hearings was reduced to writing in question and answer form by the official reporter. Numerous exhibits, maps, and other data relating to the amount of freight available for transportation and the proposed routes were also introduced on these hearings. Upon these records, and other matters of which the Commission took judicial knowledge, it entered its order granting the certificate, making extensive findings of fact and conclusions upon which it based its order, which authorized appellee to operate a common carrier motor carrier service as follows:

Route 1. San Antonio to Wichita Falls and all intermediate points, using State Highway No. 66, U. S. Highway No. 281.

. Route 2. Stephensville to Fort Worth and all intermediate points, using State Highway No. 10, U. S. Highway No. 377.

Route 3. Burnet to Austin and all intermediate points, using State Highway No. 29.

Route 4. Austin to Blanco, using U. S. Highway No. 290 to the junction of U. S. Highway No. 290 and U. S. Highway No. 281, thence to San Antonio.

The certificate -authorized the transportation of property and commodities generally for hire over these routes giving “through over night service between San Antonio and Wichita Falls; Austin and Wichita Falls and vice versa; San Antonio and Fort Worth, Austin and Fort Worth, and vice versa seven days a week, using six (6) truck tractors with van trailers, but not serving Wichita Falls on shipments originating in Fort Worth and vice versa.”

A photostatic copy of a map introduced in evidence before the Commission and in the trial court, showing by a connected line the complete route of all proposed *1105 operations together with the distances he-tween the principal cities and towns to be served, is here inserted: ‘

Since the findings of fact made by the Commission in its order granting the certificate are attacked as being insufficient *1106 to support the order, we quote them in full, as follows:

*1105

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