*1 Ferguson-Wellston Appellant, Company, Bus State ex rel. (2d)W. 312. Commission. 58 Service Two, March
Division
Glen Mohler for relator. respondent. G. Murrell for
D. McDonald and C. D. *2 WESTHUES, Bespondent adopted in this the statement C. by of facts made relator. short point we, and there- and fore, adopt it as the statement of It reads: the case. appeal affirming judgment “This from the of the Circuit Court majority an of of Commission, Public Service which in application the Commissioners an appellant denied for certificate of a necessity of pas- convenience motor carrier as a of (St. sengers municipalities between Ferguson of and Florissant Ferdinand), County, in St. Louis Missouri. Two of Commission- dissenting opinion. ers dissented filed the order and a opinion majority solely upon “The view was based jurisdiction Commission is without certificate under 1931, May provisions approved of an Legislature, act of 1931, and appearing 304, particularly in the sub- page Laws at (b) (e) divisions of Section 5264 act. of that Ferguson “The evidence discloses 8 respectively corporate Florissant are 5.5 and from the miles St. ‘sub- Louis and within defined as the the area territory’ by (e). urban of St. Louis subsection The fur- evidence operation proposed ther that the shows fall within the does not (b), appellant of subsection since not be would municipality, nor would not thereunder municipality, major portion within a e., (2.5) operation, pro- i. entire two five-tenths miles out of the posed 3.8 munici- route miles would outside the limits pality. resulting majority opinion “The concedes these facts and con- operation
clusion that over Commission excepted (b) by not withdrawn or subsection Section 5264. said, however, (e). by to be subsection denied 285 years prior hearing', had been “Appellant, number of super- its permit of and under operating under a the Commission application Ferguson, purpose of Wellston to and the vision from its lines Florissant.” for an additional to extend was 1929, pertain- of Missouri Chapter 33, Statutes Article Revised by regulation transportation of ing to the a new hire, repealed by vehicles for regulates trans- thereof. The new article article enacted lieu for hire. persons by motor vehicles portation both 1931, state- by As noted pp. Laws 304 to [See inclusive.] of, meaning controversy in over the subdi- this case arose ment the 304, Laws 1931. The sub- page of Section visions follows: divisions read as carrier,’ act, means when used in this “(b) term The ‘motor corpora- association, joint-stock company, firm, partnership, person, whatsoever, court lessee, appointed trustee, or receiver tion, *3 at- trailers without trailer or any or operating motor vehicle with persons or transportation of tached, highway for the upon public transportation furnishing such providing or or or of property both however, this act shall Provided, service, for hire as a common carrier. transpor- used the apply motor vehicles not so construed as to to be along hire, over and passengers property for tation of or municipal cor- corporation a regular any municipal or routes within forming part territory a adjacent thereto, poration and the suburban such corporation or system municipal transportation within such of territory, the adjacent where corporation suburban municipal and municipal cor- major such part of such is within the limits of ” poration. “(e) territory,’ act, means when in this The term ‘suburban used beyond corporate limits of territory extending the that one mile 50,000 for each municipality in and mile additional this State one more than one when population portion or thereof. Provided that territory so any such municipality within limits of is contained the municipali- described, operating in and out of such motor carriers anywhere permitted to territory ties shall be within said larger territory so described.” within limits the important it most correctly interpret a statute In order to J.C. law was enacted. purpose to for which the [59 ascertain the 1931, 8, page 958, Article Laws Referring to title of see. the 570.] that provisions we find considering article 304, of the entire the Legislature upon Public the to confer it was intention of the the license, regulate authority the Service Commission the over persons property transportation supervise by highways for hire. public motor vehicles this State (c) 5267, 307, 1931, page reads as Subdivision of Section Laws follows: juris-
(c) relating duties, authority All powers, laws public are diction commission common carriers service over hereby except applicable carriers, made to all such motor as herein specifically provided.” otherwise
There no doubt that all motor intended persons juris- for property carriers hire of should be under expressly exempted diction Public Service Commission unless therefrom in It the act. will be noted that in subdivision transportation system operating any city Section a within territory, major part system is suburban where the such city, provisions exempted of the act. proviso leaving purpose made for mu- the evident serving regulate systems nicipalities power transportation territory. people surrounding of such cities ex [State Com., In (2d) 34 W. rel. 326 Mo. Service 486.] territory is defined. Tak- subdivision Section 5264 suburban ing Louis the com- applying city that definition and it to the of St. territory St. Louis are mission that within suburban found Ferguson, points located the of Florissant and applicant permit between in this desires which the ease knowledge transportation passengers. is common busses size, are municipalities, number of other some of considerable territory Louis de- located within as suburban of St. by (e), defining what is meant fined after statute. Subdivision by above proviso. proviso, suburban this as territory, contains out, by depriving juris- it of upon set commission is relied diction to case. in this by given placed If thereon the com the construction mission the *4 municipalities within the vehicles for hire located between the various T'mb: large territory cities city suburban and other the St. was the any regulation this would remain without whatever. That a construction Legislature intention of unthinkable. Such the we general act. Nor do would be with of the inconsistent the scheme construction, when language subject think to such a the used is existing the into act and purpose we take consideration of the the the purpose of passed. conditions at the the The main time act was Service Com new act was of the Public to extend the did carriers property. What motor mission over motor carriers of Legislature proviso it the the then have in when enacted mind municipali operating such said: and out of “Motor carriers in (b) the trans ties.” in subdivision must be remembered act systems city from exempted the portation Louis are of the of St. territory. suburban This permitted operate in to the suburban municipalities territory, (e), the as includes in subdivision defined systems transportation located within the the area defined so that the within through larger permitted city of the are to in lying territory. municipalities the suburban The ter- “suburban ritory,” (e), that term defined in subdivision of smaller munici- fifty less thousand than inhabitants is limited mile palities of to one city limits. beyond Therefore, motor carriers within municipalities smaller prohibited would be and out from property points carrying passengers to more than one mile city beyond municipalities limits of such proviso unless the grants right. (e) them that in subdivision the evident Legislatore it proviso. when intent of enacted In other words, proviso in must be read connection with subdivision territory” the definition “suburban in subdivision (e). we this the intention is proviso grants When do clear. The to carriers, operating motor in out municipalities of the smaller regulation coming cities, right under the and carry such smaller property beyond passengers and one permits mile limit and anywhere larger territory within the described, them to so larger city. competition operators with the If it in were'not operators vehicle the motor the smaller cities proviso for the would disadvantage and at a the result would be an placed inconvenience general reciprocity. is enforced public. necessary It is not language proviso in the give employed or strained limited conclusion. oper- this What a motor carrier to reach construction municipality? description The out of a fits ating in and well any city passengers in operates and carries who motor carrier beyond point city to another within the or from one property territory. description suburban The fit city within a does not limits applicant in this case. The does not applicant for seek point any city, from one to another within nor is carry passengers major applicant portion of locat- proviso as to come under so in within one subdi- ed purpose passengers applicant’s transport is to from (b) The vision municipality. municipality to another one in, proviso therefore, We, in subdivision hold exempt any operation carrier did not proviso to1 car only effect of the motor The of the act. (b) operat in subdivision the act exempted from riers, territory within municipalities located the suburban ing in anywhere carry right to or larger city, the territory. larger must, legally transport in pas this applicant The s between the vehicle hire senger by motor Ferdinand), (St. obtain a certificate Florissant Ferguson and *5 necessity from the Service Commission. convenience plain with intent of harmony is in construction 568; Koppel C. J. see. statutory construction. [59 with (2d) (2).] c. 602, 4 l. 817 S. W. Mo. 319 Rowland, County, judgment Circuit Court of Cole It follows denying jurisdiction affirming commission case, court to set must be reversed with instructions to the circuit commission remand order of and to the cause aside the .the proceed to determine the commission with instructions to hear and opinion. in manner not inconsistent with this It is so ordered. CC., Cooley Fitzsimmons, concur. C., is a- foregoing opinion by Westhues,
PER CURIAM:—The J., Ellison, Tipton, P. opinion J., court. dópted Leedy, J., sitting. concur; not Long
Mary Long, Minors, by their Daniel R. L. Long, Lillian Mary Long, Appellants, Guardian, L. Louis Union Trust v. St. Corporation, and the Curators College, Company, of Central (2d)W. Corporation. 1071. Two, March Division