Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc.
Citations: 233 Ark. 887; 349 S.W.2d 672; 1961 Ark. LEXIS 500Docket: 5-2447
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 25, 1961; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Neill Bohltnger, Associate Justice, addresses an appeal involving a corporation seeking authority to operate as a common carrier for mobile homes in Arkansas. The appellant has interstate authority in all states and intrastate authority in 35 states. It applied to the Arkansas Commerce Commission for intrastate operation, defining "initial movement" as transporting trailers from assembly to dealers, and "secondary movement" as all other movements. The appellee, Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc., already operates in this capacity under the Commission's authority, alongside Wendell Chandler Trucking Company, which has been in the business since 1958. The Commerce Commission initially denied the appellant's application, a decision upheld by the circuit court, prompting the appeal. The legal standard emphasizes the deference courts give to the findings of fact by the Commission, which has firsthand witness testimony. While the Supreme Court can review evidence and make determinations, it typically affirms Commission findings unless they contradict the majority of testimony. The law does not support monopolies and stipulates that a new certificate cannot be issued if existing service adequately meets public needs unless additional service is warranted. The Commission must prioritize public convenience and necessity over the interests of existing carriers and new applicants. The court reinforces that the necessity considered must reflect public needs, not individual desires. Determining public convenience and necessity requires evaluating both the necessity for the proposed service and the convenience it offers. "Necessity" refers to an improvement over existing transportation modes, justifying its costs. To reverse a commerce commission order, it must be established that current services are inadequate or that additional services would benefit the public. The public is analyzed in segments: 1. Mobile home dealers, who need licensed service for transporting homes from plants to sales locations. 2. Users of mobile homes, including students, military personnel, and visitors, who utilize these homes as temporary or permanent dwellings. 3. Highway travelers, particularly concerning the increasing size and weight of trailers, which necessitate a specialized public transportation system due to safety regulations and the skills required for their movement. The excerpt emphasizes that unregulated movement of these trailers poses safety hazards, underscoring the need for proper licensing and regulation by the commerce commission. The president and general manager of Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc. and Wendell Chandler, owner of Wendell Chandler Trucking Company, are related and share an office in Little Rock, where they also share a telephone. The appellees operate from this single location, lacking additional business sites. Of the 30 trucks utilized by Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc., only one is company-owned; the rest are rented, while Wendell Chandler owns two pieces of equipment. Their operational plan involves drivers storing equipment at their homes. Communication is limited to the Little Rock office, from which drivers receive instructions upon returning from trips. When dispatching trucks beyond the local area, extra charges apply for the distance traveled without a load. Testimony reveals significant inadequacies in the transportation service for mobile homes, leading customers to seek unlicensed operators despite preferring legal ones. The use of improperly equipped vehicles, such as passenger cars and farm tractors, further exacerbates the issues. The appellant carries the burden to prove the inadequacy of services and the necessity for additional support. The record indicates the appellant has met this burden, and there is no evidence that the appellees have plans to improve service deficiencies. The court concludes that additional service is warranted to benefit the public and believes the Arkansas Commerce Commission and the circuit court did not adequately consider public convenience and necessity. Consequently, the court reverses the decision and remands the case to the Pulaski Circuit Court, instructing it to direct the Arkansas Commerce Commission to approve the appellant's application.