White, C. J.
This is an appeal by Bankers Dispatch Corporation, hereinafter referred to as B.D.C., from a Nebraska State Railway Commission order granting a contract carrier permit to Wells Fargo Armored Service.
Samardick of Grand Island-Hastings, Inc., filed an application with the Nebraska State Railway Commission on September 23, 1968, seeking authority to operate in Nebraska instrastate commerce as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting cash, letters, checks, and other commercial papers, data processing materials, and other documents and records related thereto. B.D.C. filed a protest to the granting of the application.
Subsequent to the filing of the application, Wells Fargo acquired the operating authority of Samardick. [263]*263By stipulation of the parties, Wells Fargo was the applicant in the commission proceedings and is the appellee here. The commission granted the contract carrier permit to Wells Fargo and this appeal by B.D.C. followed.
On appeal from the Nebraska State Railway Commission, this court is usually only called upon to decide if the commission acted within the scope of its: authority and whether the order in question was reasonable and not arbitrarily made. Poulson v. Hargleroad Van & Storage Co., 183 Neb. 201, 159 N. W. 2d 302 (1968). It is this latter issue that is involved here.
The commission consistently treated Wells Fargo’s application as one for a contract carrier permit. The application, as filed, sought such a permit. However, the commission need not be bound by the applicant’s own definition of the proposed service. If it is in fact an application in the nature of a common carrier, the commission should treat it as such. Midwest Mail Service, Inc. v. Bankers Dispatch Corp., 174 Neb. 809, 119 N. W. 2d 692 (1963).
A contract carrier has been generally defined by this court as “one who furnishes transportation service to meet the special needs of the individual shipper or shippers. In other words the commission is required to weigh the special needs of shippers desiring the new contract carrier service against the adequacy of the existing common carrier service.” Hagen Truck Lines. Inc. v. Ross, 174 Neb. 646, 119 N. W. 2d 76 (1963). If the service can be performed as well by common carrier, a need for a contract carrier has not been established.
A contract carrier permit application is governed by section 75-311, R. S. Supp., 1969: “A permit shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing in whole or in part the operations covered by the application, if it appears after notice and hearing from the application or from any hearing held thereon that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service of a contract carrier by motor vehicle, and to [264]*264conform to the provisions of sections 75-301 to 75-322.01 and the lawful requirements, rules and regulations of the commission thereunder, and that the proposed operation, to the extent authorized by the permit, will be consistent with the public interest; otherwise, such application shall be denied.”
“Consistent with the public interest,” as used by the quoted section, means that the proposed contract carrier service does not conflict with the legislative policy of the state in dealing with transportation by motor vehicles. Samardick of Grand Island-Hastings, Inc. v. B.D.C. Corp., 183 Neb. 229, 159 N. W. 2d 310 (1968). To be contrasted with this is the heavier burden put upon an applicant for a common carrier certificate. In that case, the applicant must meet the test of “public convenience and necessity,” also set out in section 75-311, R. S. Supp., 1969: “A certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor * * * if it is found * * * that the proposed service * * * is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied.”
In determining such public convenience and necessity, the deciding factors are “whether the operation will serve a useful purpose responsive to a public demand or need; whether this purpose can or will be served as well by existing carriers; and whether it can be served by applicant in a specified operation without endangering or impairing the operations of existing carriers contrary to the public interest.” Moritz v. Transcontinental Bus Lines, Inc., 153 Neb. 206, 43 N. W. 2d 603 (1950).
The original application in this case stated that only the Omaha National Bank would be served in the operation. Wells Fargo revealed at the hearing that there were at least four more proposed contracting parties. In addition, Wells Fargo proposes to add as many contracts as it can by actively soliciting business. The vice president of Wells Fargo of Nebraska testified that his company intends to make contacts with “all the poten[265]*265tial cliente” in order to provide service for them.
Wells Fargo had authority prior to the application in question to transport coin and currency in armored vehicles between all points in Nebraska. By the present application, Wells Fargo hopes to also carry shipments of letters, checks, and data processing material. B.D.C. presently serves all of the various correspondent banks used by Wells Fargo as supporting witnesses. B.D.C. already transports all the requested commodities for these banks, with the exception of coin and currency.
Thus, given Wells Fargo’s admitted intention of active solicitation, the only real distinguishing factor between the service now rendered by B.D.C. and that which is to be performed under the contract carrier permit is that Wells Fargo could provide such service on a contract basis. The evidence does not support this as being sufficient to constitute a “service to meet the special needs of the individual shipper or shippers.” Hagen Truck Lines, Inc. v. Ross, 174 Neb. 646, 119 N. W. 2d 76 (1963).
The language in Midwest Mail Service, Inc. v Bankers Dispatch Corp., 174 Neb. 809, 119 N. W. 2d 692 (1963) is in point: “The fact that the proposed service will be used by a limited class of persons or businesses is not a controlling factor. Many services rendered by common carriers are limited or specialized, depending upon the nature of the industry being served. It seems clear to us that applicant desires authority to transport the designated articles for the general needs of all shippers. These are factors indicating a common carrier service and not that of a contract carrier. Even though applicant purports to transport only a limited number of articles for a limited number of businesses who alone have occasion to transport them, the evidence indicates that applicant intends to hold itself out to perform transportation service for all shippers of articles named in the permit.”
We conclude, therefore, that , the proposed service is [266]*266that of a common carrier and, if such authority is to be granted, it must be shown that it is required by public convenience and necessity.
As mentioned earlier, one deciding factor in determining public convenience and necessity is whether the proposed service can or will be served as well by existing carriers. Appellee contends that its witnesses showed they supported its application in order to provide competition as to service as well as rates. It is true that some of the witnesses said that service competition was part of the basis for their opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
White, C. J.
This is an appeal by Bankers Dispatch Corporation, hereinafter referred to as B.D.C., from a Nebraska State Railway Commission order granting a contract carrier permit to Wells Fargo Armored Service.
Samardick of Grand Island-Hastings, Inc., filed an application with the Nebraska State Railway Commission on September 23, 1968, seeking authority to operate in Nebraska instrastate commerce as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting cash, letters, checks, and other commercial papers, data processing materials, and other documents and records related thereto. B.D.C. filed a protest to the granting of the application.
Subsequent to the filing of the application, Wells Fargo acquired the operating authority of Samardick. [263]*263By stipulation of the parties, Wells Fargo was the applicant in the commission proceedings and is the appellee here. The commission granted the contract carrier permit to Wells Fargo and this appeal by B.D.C. followed.
On appeal from the Nebraska State Railway Commission, this court is usually only called upon to decide if the commission acted within the scope of its: authority and whether the order in question was reasonable and not arbitrarily made. Poulson v. Hargleroad Van & Storage Co., 183 Neb. 201, 159 N. W. 2d 302 (1968). It is this latter issue that is involved here.
The commission consistently treated Wells Fargo’s application as one for a contract carrier permit. The application, as filed, sought such a permit. However, the commission need not be bound by the applicant’s own definition of the proposed service. If it is in fact an application in the nature of a common carrier, the commission should treat it as such. Midwest Mail Service, Inc. v. Bankers Dispatch Corp., 174 Neb. 809, 119 N. W. 2d 692 (1963).
A contract carrier has been generally defined by this court as “one who furnishes transportation service to meet the special needs of the individual shipper or shippers. In other words the commission is required to weigh the special needs of shippers desiring the new contract carrier service against the adequacy of the existing common carrier service.” Hagen Truck Lines. Inc. v. Ross, 174 Neb. 646, 119 N. W. 2d 76 (1963). If the service can be performed as well by common carrier, a need for a contract carrier has not been established.
A contract carrier permit application is governed by section 75-311, R. S. Supp., 1969: “A permit shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing in whole or in part the operations covered by the application, if it appears after notice and hearing from the application or from any hearing held thereon that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service of a contract carrier by motor vehicle, and to [264]*264conform to the provisions of sections 75-301 to 75-322.01 and the lawful requirements, rules and regulations of the commission thereunder, and that the proposed operation, to the extent authorized by the permit, will be consistent with the public interest; otherwise, such application shall be denied.”
“Consistent with the public interest,” as used by the quoted section, means that the proposed contract carrier service does not conflict with the legislative policy of the state in dealing with transportation by motor vehicles. Samardick of Grand Island-Hastings, Inc. v. B.D.C. Corp., 183 Neb. 229, 159 N. W. 2d 310 (1968). To be contrasted with this is the heavier burden put upon an applicant for a common carrier certificate. In that case, the applicant must meet the test of “public convenience and necessity,” also set out in section 75-311, R. S. Supp., 1969: “A certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor * * * if it is found * * * that the proposed service * * * is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied.”
In determining such public convenience and necessity, the deciding factors are “whether the operation will serve a useful purpose responsive to a public demand or need; whether this purpose can or will be served as well by existing carriers; and whether it can be served by applicant in a specified operation without endangering or impairing the operations of existing carriers contrary to the public interest.” Moritz v. Transcontinental Bus Lines, Inc., 153 Neb. 206, 43 N. W. 2d 603 (1950).
The original application in this case stated that only the Omaha National Bank would be served in the operation. Wells Fargo revealed at the hearing that there were at least four more proposed contracting parties. In addition, Wells Fargo proposes to add as many contracts as it can by actively soliciting business. The vice president of Wells Fargo of Nebraska testified that his company intends to make contacts with “all the poten[265]*265tial cliente” in order to provide service for them.
Wells Fargo had authority prior to the application in question to transport coin and currency in armored vehicles between all points in Nebraska. By the present application, Wells Fargo hopes to also carry shipments of letters, checks, and data processing material. B.D.C. presently serves all of the various correspondent banks used by Wells Fargo as supporting witnesses. B.D.C. already transports all the requested commodities for these banks, with the exception of coin and currency.
Thus, given Wells Fargo’s admitted intention of active solicitation, the only real distinguishing factor between the service now rendered by B.D.C. and that which is to be performed under the contract carrier permit is that Wells Fargo could provide such service on a contract basis. The evidence does not support this as being sufficient to constitute a “service to meet the special needs of the individual shipper or shippers.” Hagen Truck Lines, Inc. v. Ross, 174 Neb. 646, 119 N. W. 2d 76 (1963).
The language in Midwest Mail Service, Inc. v Bankers Dispatch Corp., 174 Neb. 809, 119 N. W. 2d 692 (1963) is in point: “The fact that the proposed service will be used by a limited class of persons or businesses is not a controlling factor. Many services rendered by common carriers are limited or specialized, depending upon the nature of the industry being served. It seems clear to us that applicant desires authority to transport the designated articles for the general needs of all shippers. These are factors indicating a common carrier service and not that of a contract carrier. Even though applicant purports to transport only a limited number of articles for a limited number of businesses who alone have occasion to transport them, the evidence indicates that applicant intends to hold itself out to perform transportation service for all shippers of articles named in the permit.”
We conclude, therefore, that , the proposed service is [266]*266that of a common carrier and, if such authority is to be granted, it must be shown that it is required by public convenience and necessity.
As mentioned earlier, one deciding factor in determining public convenience and necessity is whether the proposed service can or will be served as well by existing carriers. Appellee contends that its witnesses showed they supported its application in order to provide competition as to service as well as rates. It is true that some of the witnesses said that service competition was part of the basis for their opinion. However, it was shown that the service which the witnesses were commenting on, i.e., the authority to transport letters, checks, and other commercial papers, data processing material, and other documents and records related thereto, was a service which was already furnished by B.D.C. The singular exception to this was the transportation of coins and currency, which is of such minor significance in this instance that it does not distinguish the two operations. In fact, Wells Fargo’s predecessor in interest, Samardick, never transported combined shipments of coin and currency and data processing materials on any regularly scheduled basis, even though it had authorization to do so.
In addition, many of those same witnesses stated they had not even discussed the proposed services with the appellee. Many stated that if the application were granted they would then find out what Wells Fargo might be able to provide that was advantageous to them. Contrary to appellee’s contentions, all but one of the witnesses stated that B.D.C.’s services had been satisfactory. There was testimony showing that B.D.C'. had been able to adjust its existing schedules and implement new ones in order to satisfactorily accommodate various banks’ needs.
Inasmuch as B.D.C. can provide the service in question, we believe that the granting of such a permit in this instance would endanger or impair the operations of [267]*267the existing common carrier, B.D.C., contrary to the public interest. B.D.C. derives over one-fourth of its revenue from the service it provides for banks which supported Wells Fargo’s application. In addition, it must be remembered that Wells Fargo has no intention of limiting itself to the specified customers. This will not mean “limited competition of a nonfatal nature,” as was found by the Railway Commission. On the contrary, all of the bank business now enjoyed by the common carrier will be subject to applicant’s competition. Wells Fargo’s diversion of B.D'.C.’s business would deprive B.D.C. of revenue that is- needed in order to give satisfactory service to its present customers, the shipping public.
Fair and reasonable competition is not undesirable. However, the competition here cannot be termed either fair or reasonable. It is competition that at best would merely permit one carrier to gain a competitive advantage over another in performing what are substantially the same services. In this instance, such competition is not in the public interest. We believe that the granting of such a permit does not promote adequate, economical, and efficient motor carrier service such as is required by the legislative policy set out in section 75-301, R. R. S. 1943. On the contrary, it would only lead to unfair or destructive competitive practices such as are expressly condemned by that section.
We conclude, therefore, that the granting of the contract carrier permit was without support of the evidence. A need for a more specialized service than that now provided by B.D.C. was not shown. The granting of the permit was shown to have an effect on B.D.C. which would be contrary to the public interest. It was not shown that a denial of the application would have an adverse effect upon the shippers. As a result we reverse the order of the Railway Commission as unreasonable, arbitrary, and of no force and effect.
Reversed.