*1 221 gen- than the dates other he on tions election.

eral FREIGHTWAYS, UINTAH Plaintiff, in this the facts appears from

It principles enunci light case, in the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of Express Co., machinery set above, Pacific there was ated Clark Tank Defendants. actually could de which trustees up by the think the qualification. We voter termine No. upon the statute misconstrued

trustees purpose, since they relied for such trustees, with election had to do 17-6-3.1 Even to be elected. was none there reflecting or facts showing addresses list was available of the voters status the sewer district voters

segregate living districts general bisected

those presumption district. the sewer

outside not rebut accuracy the tax rolls was that ad persons cast ballots

ted, This, the tax rolls.

mittedly not on irregularities, many other with the

together compels us to decide that aggregate, compliance with was no

there trustees the imposing

the statutes thereof, election, give notice

duty to call qual voters’ and determine the election

hold if, before stated

ifications. As we have reason, was void election

for no other election general having been held on a

day. callister,

WADE, JJ., concur.

CROCKETT, J., in the result. concurs property handling freight both

rier of commerce',” in intrastate and in express specifically limiting its ac- subparagraph, Daggett County “against tivities * * * petroleum products movement *2 ”*** emphasizes Plaintiff bulk in predecessors in its interest did in one transport petroleum in bulk between fact Uintah Basin in points in the 1938and gasoline oil and crude between 1940- and Active solicitation of all kinds including liquid the solicitation of traffic products in bulk petroleum was carried on plaintiff through agents its even though specialized equipment it owned neces- sary petroleum petroleum haul to bulk products. present,

From to defendant Pacific Co., Express hereinafter P.I.E., called in in- its and/or Mattsson, S. specific authority William has Gustin, terest has had to and Richards & actively petroleum City, plaintiff. transported in bulk over Richards, for Lake Salt irregular points and routes between all Kesler, Gen., Atty. K. Mark Pratt A. places Tank in the state of Clark Utah. City, for defendants. Boyle, Lake Salt defendant, and hereinafter Clark, spe- had a similar

referred to as justice. authority granted predecessors cific it its dating from 1942. proceeding is a on a writ to review This of the Public Commission Service an 25, 1962, plaintiff caused to On October suspension published of a tariff ordering naming rate for the a tariff by plaintiff. transportation between of crude oil in bulk Basin, Utah, operates points under a certificate of Plaintiff Uintah necessity and issued in 1958 become effective November to have "operate objections authorizing it to as a common car- and filed written P.I.E. Clark authority. suspended. their Plaintili tariff he asking that liberally so the term should be request tempo- denied that for refused the Commission construed, include it but insisted that the matter for and set rary suspension Al- petroleum bulk. authority to haul in December hearing on though so, even the Commission found that plaintiff argued that it had hearing theAt plaintiff’s predecessor in had trans- interest petroleum transport and to ported 1938 and crude oil bulk between the term because: (1) bulk products presumably gasoline, and crude oil and grant used 1940-1946, it had between sufficiently to include the broad is specific authority any right to do plain- petroleum, (2) transport bulk transportation may claimed should have petro- transport acquired the tiff having regarded been abandoned. in inter- bulk leum “freight urged that Defendants est. review, plaintiff contends On controlling commodity de- express” is the ambiguous and is not is not the certificate subject subject or clarification scription Commission, and that the Commission Commission, and that is capriciously in arbitrarily deter *3 authority whether the merely denote used to had mining that transportation of relates right transport petroleum authority or Secondly, was ever “passengers.” na questions of this in bulk. In review of any by acquired plaintiff ture, always guided the we have been interest. utility to enter principles: “When a desires held that the word a different The Commission a field or render new or new receiving plaintiff’s service, must, used in certificate condition to a authority to include the perform, intended the to so show that a. certificate was petroleum prod- transport petroleum ‘public sought given is one service ” 1 necessity.’ Secondly, tariff ucts permanently suspended the Public Service Commission “Where authority, its authority scope given If the within the stricken. any technically upheld if it has urged plaintiff, will be is not un in the evidence and of commerce would fall within foundation all articles 28, 96 P.23 ice Comm.of Mulcahy, al., et al., 117 P.2d et Fuller-Toponce v. Truck Co. Public Serv reasonable, capricious.3 390 P.2d 586 arbitrary,” or [or] rely heavily We COMPANY, DITCH GREEN WATER a Utah given by language the Commission to the Appellant, Plaintiff and used in the of convenience and certificate

necessity.4 case,5 In the Milne a similar CITY, municipal corporation, SALT LAKE Respondent. question came before this court and we held Defendant and scope that the Commission acted within No. 9795. of its when it that “com found generally” modities did not include the au thority transport petroleum in bulk.

From a review the record we conclude

that the Commission acted within the

of its and did not act in an arbi

trary capricious manner. affirmed,

Order no costs awarded.

CALLISTER, WADE, CROCKETT and

JJ-, concur.

HENRIOD, Chief (concurring Justice result) : However,

I concur in the result. since simply was a case

this involves the tariffs, protest made,

filing of to which whether, in

I have doubts as to such serious proceeding, certificated tariffs, person filing can be made an proceeding.

issue in such a restrictive *4 Inc., Public Service Transfer Co. v. 2. Milne Truck Lines v. Public Service 3. Salt Lake Comm., Comm., P.2d 2d 13 Utah 2d Mulcahy Comm., supra; Inc., Public Service Truck Lines 4. Milne Comm., Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service ibid. Union 465, 132 P.2d 128. 5. Ibid. U.C.A.1953, 54-6-4.