Home/Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)/Consolidated Coach Corp. v. Kentucky River Coach Co.

Consolidated Coach Corp. v. Kentucky River Coach Co.

60 S.W.2d 127, 249 Ky. 65, 1933 Ky. LEXIS 473
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedMay 5, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 60 S.W.2d 127 (Consolidated Coach Corp. v. Kentucky River Coach Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Consolidated Coach Corp. v. Kentucky River Coach Co., 60 S.W.2d 127, 249 Ky. 65, 1933 Ky. LEXIS 473 (Ky. 1933).

Opinion

OPINION op the Court by

Judge Perry

Affirming in part and reversing in part.

*66 By sections 2739j-2, 2739j-3 and 2739j-4 Kentucky Statutes, it is provided that no one stall operate any motor-propelled vehicle for the transportation of persons for compensation on any public highway in the state without having first obtained, from the commissioner of motor transportation, a certificate declaring that the public convenience and necessity requires such operation. The commissioner is given power to issue to any applicant a certificate of public convenience and necessity or to refuse to issue it, or to issue it for the partial exercise of the privilege sought, and subject to such terms and conditions as in his judgment the public convenience and necessity require. It is the duty of the commissioner to refuse any application for a permit over a route where there have been already two or more lines established, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the existing operations are not sufficient to take care of the traveling public.

By section 2739j-14, applications for a permit are to be heard before the commissioner upon reasonable notice to all parties interested. By section 2739j-15, upon granting or refusing an application, he shall make a written statement of the finding of facts, rulings of law; and other matters pertinent to the question at issue, which shall be filed with the proceedings. By section 2739j-16, he has authority to issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses, and from his decision an appeal may be taken to the Franklin circuit court and from that court to the Court of Appeals.

About the last of April, 1930, the appellant, Consolidated Coach Corporation, made application for a permit to operate a motorbus line between the towns of 'Whitesburg and Harlan. About the same time, application was also made by the appellee, Kentucky River Coach Company, for a permit to operate its bus line over the shorter route along said highway, between the towns of Cumberland and Harlan, for which shorter route the appellant was also an applicant.

Upon the hearing called upon appellee’s-application, a certificate was awarded to it and refused the appellant. Thereupon the appellant brought suit in the Hranklin circuit court to set aside the judgment of the commissioner. The circuit court, on hearing the case, approved the judgment of the commissioner.

*67 Later, upon completion of 'the highway between the towns of Cumberland and Whitesburg, appellee applied for a permit extending its bus line from Cumberland to Whitesburg, for which permit the appellant and others were also applicants.

Upon the hearing of the commissioner upon this application, the United Coach Corporation was awarded a certificate thereover and the same again refused appellant. Thereupon the appellant brought suit in the Franklin circuit court to set aside the action of the commissioner in awarding this permit to appellee. The circuit court, on hearing the case, again approved the judgment of the commissioner in each case, and the appellant, Consolidated Coach Corporation, appeals therefrom.

The situation is roughly shown in the following-map:

nfiysMa6Bhcj84m

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

Related

City of Louisville v. Louisville Scrap Material Co.
932 S.W.2d 352 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1996)
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co.
148 S.E.2d 100 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Whittaker v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines
234 S.W.2d 174 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1950)
Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Taylor
209 S.W.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1948)
Short Way Lines, Inc. v. Black
182 S.W.2d 17 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1944)
Furstenberg v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.
272 N.W. 756 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1937)
Cannonball Transit Co. v. Sparks Bros. Bus Co.
72 S.W.2d 1021 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Cardinal Bus Lines v. Consolidated Coach Corp.
72 S.W.2d 7 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 S.W.2d 127, 249 Ky. 65, 1933 Ky. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-coach-corp-v-kentucky-river-coach-co-kyctapphigh-1933.