Estes v. Perry

147 S.E. 370, 167 Ga. 902, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 60
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 23, 1929
DocketNo. 6589
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 147 S.E. 370 (Estes v. Perry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estes v. Perry, 147 S.E. 370, 167 Ga. 902, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 60 (Ga. 1929).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Sixteen natural persons and one corporation instituted a joint action against the members of the Georgia Public Service Commission, to enjoin that body from exercising jurisdiction over the businesses, conducted separately by the several plaintiffs, of operating over the public highways in the State, and between different towns and cities and over separate definite routes, certain lines of “motor-bus” for the purpose of carrying passengers and goods for hire. The plaintiffs allege that the law defining the powers of the Public Service Commission does not confer jurisdiction to regulate their several businesses; that they do not hold themselves out as ready, willing, and able to transport any person who may present himself, or any goods that may be offered; but that each reserves and exercises the right of individual contract, and of acceptance of only such persons and only such goods as he elects to transport. The foregoing states the case as made by the pleadings and evidence. The defendants did not introduce evidence. The exception is to a judgment refusing a temporary injunction.

It is declared in article 4, section 2, paragraph 1, of the constitution of this'State (Civil Code (1910), § 6463) : “The power [903]*903and authority of regulating railroad freights and passenger tariffs, preventing unjust discriminations, and requiring reasonable , and just rates of freight and passenger tariffs are hereby conferred upon the General Assembly, whose duty it shall be to pass laws, from time to time, to regulate freight and passenger tariffs, to prohibit unjust discrimination on the various railroads of this State, and to prohibit said roads from charging other than just and reasonable rates, and enforce the same by adequate penalties.” In 1879 the legislature provided means for carrying this provision of the constitution into effect, by creating the Kailroad Commission of Georgia and prescribing its powers and duties. (Ga. Laws 1878r9, p. 125).- In sections 3-10 of this act certain visitatorial powers were conferred upon the Kailroad Commissioners over “railroad corporations.” In section 12 it was 'declared: “That the terms ‘ railroad corporation, or ‘ railroad company, ’ contained in this act shall be deemed and taken to mean all corporations, companies, or individuals now owning or operating, or which may hereafter own or operate, any railroad, in whole or in part, in this. State, and the provisions of this act shall apply to all persons, firms, and companies, and to all associations of persons, whether incorporated or otherwise, that shall do business as common carriers upon any of the lines of railroad in this State (street-railways excepted), the same as to railroad corporations hereinbefore mentioned.” This is contained in § 2642 of the Civil Code of 1910. Thus far the jurisdiction of the commission over the businesses to be controlled was clearly limited to those of persons doing “business as common carriers upon any of the 'lines of railroad in this State (street-railways excepted).” These, of course, would not extend to operators of motor-buses traversing the public'highways. The law as embodied in the act of 1879 was amended (Acts 1908, p. 67; Acts .1919, p. 94), but these amend7 ments did not purport to confer jurisdiction over any business which- was not comprehended by the act of 1879. The first act extending the jurisdiction as. declared by the original act of 1879 was the act approved October 21, 1891 (Ga. Laws 1890-91, ,p. 151). By this act the visitatorial powers of the commissioners were extended to all companies or persons owning, controlling, or operating lines of express or telegraph.. The operation of motor-buses palpably would not fall under this provision.. The act was [904]*904again amended (Ga. Laws 1905, p. 120), but this did not purport to extend the jurisdiction of the commissioners over persons, where it had not been conferred by the previous acts.

The next amendment was the act of 1907 (Ga. Laws 1907, p. 72). This act, among other things, related to extension of the jurisdiction of the railroad commission, and will be referred to presently. The act was subsequently amended by the act approved August 21, 1922 (Ga. Laws 1922, p. 143). This act changed the name to Georgia Public Service Commission, and conferred upon that body all the powers and jurisdiction theretofore devolving on the Railroad Commission of Georgia. It remains to be seen whether the act of 1907 extended the jurisdiction so far as to include jurisdiction over operators of motor-buses such as the plaintiffs in this case. The caption of the act includes the statements: “to revise, enlarge, and more clearly define the powers, duties, and rights of said commission; . . to extend its powers and jurisdiction over docks and wharves, terminal companies, cotton compress companies, . . railway terminals or terminal stations; over telephone or telegraphic companies . . operating any public telephone service; . . over street-railroads; . . over gas and electric light and power companies . . operating public gas plants, electric light and power plants furnishing power to the public.” In part section 5 follows: “The powers and duties heretofore conferred by law upon the Railroad Commission are hereby extended and enlarged, so that its authority and control shall extend to street-railroads and street-railroad corporations, companies or persons owning, leasing, or operating street-railroads in this State; . . over docks and wharves and corporations, companies, or persons owning, leasing, or operating the same; over terminals or terminal stations and corporations, companies, or persons owning, leasing, or operating such; cotton compress corporations or associations, and persons or companies owning, leasing, or operating the same; and over telegraph or telephone corporations, companies, or persons owning, leasing, or operating a public telephone service or telephone lines in this State; over gas and electric light and power company, corporation or persons owning, leasing, or operating public gas plants or electric light and power plants furnishing service to the public.”

It is to be observed that the foregoing specifically designates the [905]*905new subjects over which the jurisdiction of the railroad commission should extend. Also that these, as those theretofore existing, do not include by name or class operators of motor-buses. In part section 6 follows: "Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the Railroad Commission of Georgia shall have and exercise all the power and authority heretofore conferred upon it by law, and shall home the general supervision of all common carriers, railroads, express corporations or companies, street-railroads, railroad corporations or companies, dock of wharfage corporations or companies, terminal or terminal station corporations or companies, telephone and telegraph corporations or companies within this State, . . and to require all common carriers and other public service companies under their supervision to establish and maintain such public service and facilities as may be reasonable and just, . . and to require such publication by common carriers in newspapers of towns through which their lines extend of their schedules as may be reasonable and which the public convenience demands.

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

Related

Collins v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott
87 S.E.2d 337 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Mogis v. Lyman-Richey Sand & Gravel Corp.
189 F.2d 130 (Eighth Circuit, 1951)
Georgia Public-Service Commission v. City of Albany
179 S.E. 369 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
McIntyre v. Harrison
157 S.E. 499 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Atlantic Log & Export Co. v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co.
155 S.E. 525 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 S.E. 370, 167 Ga. 902, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estes-v-perry-ga-1929.