TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Spontak v. Public Service Commission

Spontak v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 73 Pa. Super. 219 (1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 13, 1919
Docket
Nos. , No. 130
Judges
Head, Henderson, Keller, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams
Citations
73 Pa. Super. 2191919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 213
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Public Service Company Law — Common carriers — Operating automobiles as common carriers — Evidence. On a complaint against an owner of an automobile who keeps his car standing upon the public streets and solicits passengers at a uniform charge of 25 cents per passenger carried, and during the time that he was operating his car, carried all passengers who applied, up to the limit of the capacity of the car, a finding of the Public Service Commission, holding him to be a common carrier and ordering him to cease from carrying passengers until he shall have obtained a certificate of public convenience, is reasonable and in conformity with law.
Summary
Appeal, No. 130, April T., 1919, by respondent, from order of the Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the case of Charles Spontak v. The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on appeal. Complaint before the Public Service Commission that the respondent was operating an autobus as a common carrier at Lambert, Fayette County. The commission made an order that the respondent cease and desist from carrying on or engaging in the public service set forth in the complaint, to wit, operating a motor vehicle as a common carrier, until he should obtain a certificate of public convenience in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Company Law. Respondent appealed. Error assigned was the order of the commission.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Porter

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Porter, J.,

The Public Service Commission, after complaint duly filed and a full hearing, determined that the appellant was operating, as a common carrier, a motor vehicle, and ordered him to cease and desist from carrying on or engaging in said public service, until he shall have obtained from the commission a certificate of public convenience in approval thereof. The defendant appeals from that order.

The only question presented by this appeal is, was there competent evidence sufficient to warrant the finding that the appellant was operating his motor car in the carrying of passengers for hire in such a manner as to constitute him a common carrier? We are not called upon to pass on the weight of the evidence; it is not for *221 us to say that the commission ought to have believed one witness rather than another. There was testimony to the effect that the appellant was the owner of a Ford touring car which he, a part of the time, operated as a taxicab, between Masontown and Bonco. He would keep the car standing upon the public street and solicit passengers; he made five or six trips a day and had a uniform charge of 25 cents per passenger carried, and during the time that he was operating his car he carried all passengers who applied, up to the limit of the capacity of the car. This testimony was sufficient to sustain the finding that the appellant was a common carrier of passengers: Lloyd v. Haugh, 223 Pa. 148 ; Terminal Taxicab Co. v. District of Columbia, 241 U. S. 254 . The fact that the defendant did not operate his car constantly did not take him out of the class of common carriers of the public; the public does not mean everybody all the time: Peck v. Tribune Co., 214 U. S. 185 .

•The order is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at costs of the appellant.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1921: 11922: 11933: 11937: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Anderson v. Witthaus102 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. 1937)
  2. Beatty v. P. S. C.169 A. 21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
  3. Adams v. Public Service Commission77 Pa. Super. 381 (1921)
  4. Brightman Manufacturing Co. v. Taylor & Co.3 Pa. D. & C. 292 (1922)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Anderson v. Witthaus102 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. 1937)
  2. Beatty v. P. S. C.169 A. 21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
  3. Brightman Manufacturing Co. v. Taylor & Co.3 Pa. D. & C. 292 (1922)
  4. Adams v. Public Service Commission77 Pa. Super. 381 (1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Terminal Taxicab Co. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252 (1916) 167
Peck v. Tribune Co., 214 U.S. 185 (1909) 116
Lloyd v. Haugh, 72 A. 516 (Pa. 1909) 58

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list