Opinion
No. 37628.
January 22, 1951.
1. Carriers — motor bus lines — certificate of public necessity and convenience.
On an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate buses to and from the state capital over a route upon which another bus company already held a certificate and with which route the applicant company connected at several points, when the testimony showed without dispute that the present certificate holder was rendering good service on ample schedules, and would supply additional buses when needed or directed to do so and when the only testimony in support of the application was that of witnesses resident along the routes of the appellant that they preferred a through line to and from the capital, an order granting the application would be reversed as not supported by evidence of the substantial nature required in such cases.
2. Carriers — motor bus lines — certificate of public necessity and convenience.
A duplicate certificate of public necessity and convenience should not be granted to a motor carrier when another authorized carrier is rendering adequate service over the route applied for, or if the present service is not adequate, until the present carrier is given opportunity to furnish such additional service as is required.
Headnotes as approved by Arrington, C.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Hinds County; H.B. GILLESPIE, Judge.
Stevens Cannada, for appellant.
I. Preliminary statement. Baltimore Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 68 L.Ed. 667, 264 U.S. 258; Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Shields v. Utah, Idaho Cent. R. Co., 305 U.S. 177, 59 S.Ct. 160, 83 L.Ed. 111; Tri-State Transit Company of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 441; Tri-State Transit Company of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gulf Transport Company, 201 Miss. 744, 29 So.2d 825.
II. There is no evidence of a substantial public need for the proposed service. Pond, Public Utilities, p. 10; Public Utility Reports, 1926A, p. 180; Watson Bros. Van Lines and Heavy Hauling Co., Extension — Household Goods, 7 F.C.C. 31, 690.
III. The change-of-bus theory. Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Gully v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 176 Miss. 388, 168 So. 609; Sec. 7696, Code 1942; Mississippi-Gulfport Compress and Warehouses, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 189 Miss. 166, 196 So. 793; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 441; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gulf Transport Company, 201 Miss. 744, 29 So.2d 825; Vanderhoof Sons, Extension — West Orange, Interstate Commerce Commission, Docket No. MC-65639 Sub 3, January 26, 1950.
IV. The "access to Jackson" theory. Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gulf Transport Company, 201 Miss. 744, 29 So.2d 825.
V. The "bridge-the-gap" theory.
VI. The coordinated rail-bus service proposed by appellee. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. — Purchase — White Line Motor Freight Co., Inc., 40 M.C.C. 457; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Mobile Ohio Transportation Co., 191 Miss. 364, 2 So.2d 845.
VII. The Gulf's existing certificates into Jackson. Sec. 7643 Code 1942.
VIII. The closed-door restriction does not eliminate competition. Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gulf Transport Co., 201 Miss. 744, 29 So.2d 825.
IX. The interstate phase of the case.
X. The duplication of franchises has been consistently condemned by the courts, Barnes v. Consolidated Coach Corp., 223 Ky. 465, 3 S.W.2d 1087; Bradford v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 189 La. 327, 179 So. 442; Canton Coach Co. v. Public Utilities, 174 N.E. 244; Chicago R. Co. v. Commerce Comm. ex rel. Chicago Motor Coach Co., 336 Ill. 51, 167 N.E. 840; Citizens Coach Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 23 M.C.C. 465; Commercial Motor Freight v. Public Utilities Comm. of Ohio, 138 Ohio St. 151, 33 N.E.2d 989; Corporation Comm. v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 54 Ariz. 159, 94 P.2d 443; Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Florida Motor Lines v. State R. Comm., 101 Fla. 1018, 132 So. 851; Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 167 So. 664; Loran Motor Coach Co. v. Public Utilities Comm. of Ohio, 134 Ohio St. 401, 17 N.E.2d 647; Magee Truck Lines, Inc. v. Bond, 190 Miss. 428, 200 So. 586; McKee v. Public Service Commission, 124 W. Va. 10, 18 S.E.2d 577; Sec. 7642 Code 1942; Motor Freight v. Public Utilities, 184 N.E. 11; N.C. Utilities Comm. v. Carolina Coach Co., 224 N.C. 390, 30 S.E.2d 328; Santee v. Brady, 209 Ark. 224, 189 S.W.2d 907; Shelton v. Anacortes — Mount Vernon Stage Co., 23 Wn.2d 840, 162 P.2d 450; State ex rel. Scofield v. Public Service Commission, 211 S.W.2d 547; Theel Bros. Rapid Transit Co., Application, 72 N.D. 280, 6 N.W.2d 560; Trescot Transfer Co. v. Sawyer, 138 S.C. 337, 136 S.E. 481; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 441; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gulf Transport Co., 201 Miss. 744, 29 So.2d 825; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Mobile Ohio Transportation Co., 191 Miss. 364, 2 So.2d 845.
XI. The prima facie presumption in favor of the Commission's order. Adams v. Bullock, 94 Miss. 27, 47 So. 527; Baltimore Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 264 U.S. 258, 68 L.Ed. 667; Corpus Juris, Vo. 42, p. 692; Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Frost v. Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, 278 U.S. 515, 73 L.Ed. 483; Gulf, M. O.R. Co. v. Luter Motor Express, 190 Miss. 523, 1 So.2d 231; Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, et al., 82 F. Supp. 153, affirmed 338 U.S. 802; Interstate Common Carrier Council of Maryland, Inc., et al. v. United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, 84 F. Supp. 414, affirmed, 338 U.S. 843, 70 S.Ct. 91; Magee Truck Lines, Inc. v. Bond, 190 Miss. 428, 200 So. 586; Rock Island Motor Transit Co. v. United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, 7 F.C.C. 80, 573; Teche Lines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 165 Miss. 594, 142 So. 24, 143 So. 486; Texas Pacific Motor Transport Co. v. United States and Interstate Commerce Commission 89 F. Supp. 107; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 441; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Mobile Ohio Transportation Co., 191 Miss. 364, 2 So.2d 845.
XII. The Commission's action was arbitrary and capricious. Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission and American Buslines, Inc., 209 Miss. 874, 48 So.2d 584; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 441; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gulf Transport Co., 201 Miss. 744, 29 So.2d 825.
XIII. No specific findings of facts were made by the Commission. Inland Motor Freight, et al. v. United States, 60 F. Supp. 520; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 441.
P.F. Osborn and G.B. Herring, for appellee.
I. The public policy of the State of Mississippi and the United States permits and encourages regulated competition between regulated monopolies with respect to transportation of persons for hire by motor vehicle when in the public interest. Tri-State Transit Co. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 197 Miss. 48, 19 So.2d 441; 67 A.L.R. 957; Santee v. Brady, 189 S.W.2d 907; State v. Public Service Commission (Mo.), 211 S.W.2d 547; Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Public Service Commission (Ind.), 27 N.E.2d 348; Greyhound Lines v. Taylor, 209 S.W.2d 330; Pickwick Greyhound v. Public Service Commission (Kan.), 295 P. 647; M.K. O. Coach Line v. State, 81 P.2d 660; Southland Greyhound Lines v. Railroad Commission, 73 S.W.2d 604, (Tex.); Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Taylor, (Tenn.), 203 So.2d 366; Robinson v. Gallagher Transfer Co. (Wyo.), 125 P.2d 157; Utah Light Co. v. Commission, 111 P.2d 683; Coleman v. Drake (Ga.), 188 S.E. 897; Bradford v. Louisiana Commission, 179 So. 442; Land Transportation Co. v. U.S., 75 F. Supp. 915; Chesapeake Ohio R. Co. v. U.S., 51 S.Ct. 337; Sec. 5, Chap. 142, Laws 1938; Tri-state Transit Co. v. Mobile Ohio Transportation Co., 2 So.2d 848; 37 Am. Jur. 530, Sec. 12, in annotation on p. 957, 67 A.L.R.; Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 200 So. 585; Campbell v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 334 Ill. 293, 165 N.E. 790; Bartonville Bus Line v. Eagle Motor Coach Line, 326 Ill. 200, 157 N.E. 175; Columbus, D. M. Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 116 Ohio St. 92, 155 N.E. 646; Warren-Salem Coach Line Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 116 Ohio St. 383, 156 N.E. 453; Buckeye Stages v. Public Utilities Commission, 117 Ohio St. 540, 159 N.E. 561; Norfolk S.R. Co. v. Comm., 141 Va. 179, 126 S.E. 82; Pan American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M.C.C. 208; Santa Fe Trail Stages Application, 21 M.C.C. 748-749; Atlantic Greyhound Extension, 44 M.C.C. Mt. Hood Stages, 535; Atlantic Greyhound Extension, 41 M.C.C. West Coast Lines, 16 M.C.C. 377; Burlington Transportation Co., 33 M.C.C. 759; Missouri Pacific Transportation Co. Extension, 2 M.C.C. 556; Chesapeake O. Ry. Co. v. UL S., 283 U.S. 35; Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M.C.C. 190; Dollar Lines, 40 M.C.C. 71; West Coast Bus Lines, Ltd., 41 M.C.C. 535; Santa Fe Trail Stages, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 21 M.C.C. 725, 748, 749; Burlington Transportation Co. Common Carrier Application, 33 M.C.C. 759, 767; U.S. Compiled Statutes, 1901, pp. 3200-3202; U.S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 17 S.Ct. 540; Sec. 7758 Code 1942; Sec. 1088 Code 1942; Title 49, Sec. 5, U.S.C.A.; Chap. 142; Sec. 6, Sub-section (c), p. 191, Laws 1938; Sun Insurance Co. v. V.E. Mac Transportation Co., 132 F.2d 535; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Parker, 65 S.Ct. 1490; McLean Trucking Co. v. U.S., 64 S.Ct. 370; National Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C.A., preceding Sec. 301; Mississippi Motor Carrier Regulatory Act, Chap. 142, Laws 1938; Louisiana Supreme Court, 47 So.2d Advance Sheet Sept. 21, 1950, 668; H. L. Delivery Service v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 35 So.2d 713; North Bend State Line v. Denney, (Wash.), 279 P. 752; Santa Fe Trail Stages, Inc., Application, 21 M.C.C. p. 747; 42 C.J. p. 688, Sec. 123; Bradford v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 179 So. 445; Tri-State Transit Co. v. Dixie Greyhound, 19 So. 441, 444, 445; 21 M.C.C. 736; McJunkin v. Railroad Commission, et al., 165 So. 368; Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission, et al., 160 So. 22; 37 Am. Jur. Sec. 167, p. 604; 75 A.L.R. pp. 241, et seq.; Airline Motor Coaches, Inc., Extension of Operations — Trinity, Texas, 24 M.C.C. 117.
II. The Mississippi Public Service Commission has been legally delegated legislative authority to determine when and to what extent a proposed operation is in the public interest, and whether the public convenience and necessity will be served by such proposed operation. Its findings will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence unless in violation of law. Chaps. 139, 142, Sec. 8(a) Laws 1938; Dixie Greyhound Lines v. Mississippi Railroad Comm., 174 Miss. 1, 163 So. 443; Mississippi-Gulfport Compress v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 189 Miss. 166, 196 So. 793; Hammond Lumber Co. v. Public Service Commission of Oregon, 9 A.L.R. 1223; Mill Creek Coal and Coke Co. v. Public Service Commission, 7 A.L.R. 1081; Norfolk W. Railroad Co. v. Public Service Commission, 8 A.L.R. 155; A.T. S.F.R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 335 Ill. 70, 166 N.E. 466; Wichita Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 132 Kan. 459, 295 P. 668, P.U.R. 1931B 442; Deppman v. Department of Public Works, 151 Wn. 78, 275 P. 70; Palmyra Tel. Co. v. Modesta Tel. Co., 336 Ill. 158, 167 N.E. 860, P.U.R. 1930A 295; San Diego Co. Ferry Co. v. Railroad Commission, (Cal.) 292 P. 640, P.U.R. 1930E 644; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana v. Mobile Ohio Transportation Co., 2 So.2d 845; Gulf, Mobile Ohio R. Co., et al. v. Luther Motor Express, 12 So.2d 420; Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 19 So.2d 441; Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 83 L.Ed. 1147, 1161; United States v. Lowden, 84 L.Ed. 208, 214; McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 88 L.Ed. 544, 557; Barnett Line, Inc. v. United States, 89 L.Ed. 2128, 2140; North Alabama Motor Express v. Rookis, 12 So.2d 183, 185; Tri-State Transit Co. v. Gulf Transport Co., 29 So.2d 825.
III. No law was violated by the Public Service Commission, and no legal right of appellant was invaded by the Public Service Commission in granting the certificate of public convenience and necessity to appellee, and the record is replete with substantial evidence supporting the finding of the Commission. G.M. O. Railroad Co. v. Luther Motor Express, 12 So.2d 420; State, ex rel. Hutton v. City of Baton Rouge, 47 So.2d 665; H. L. Delivery Service, et al. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 35 So.2d 713; Stephenson v. Binford, 77 L.Ed. 288; Tri-State Transit Co. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, 19 So.2d 444; Chicago Railroad Company case, 67 A.L.R. 938; Davidson Transfer Storage Co. v. United States, 42 F. Supp. 215; U.S. v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, 90 L.Ed. 821, 327 U.S. 515; Chap. 142, Sec. 33, Laws 1938; Tri-State Transit Co., Extension of Operation in St. Louis, Missouri, 29 M.C.C. 381; Burlington Transportation Co., Extension of Operations, p. 788, 28 M.C.C.; Santa Fe Trail Stages, Inc. Application 21 M.C.C. 735; McJunkin v. Railroad Commission, et al., 165 So. 368; Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission, et al., 160 So. 22; Parker Case, 65 S.Ct. 1490; 37 Am. Jur. Sec. 167, p. 604; Dollar Lines — Purchase — United States System, Inc., 40 M.C.C. 63; Mt. Hood Stages, 44 M.C.C. 548; Atlantic Greyhound Corporation Extension, 16 M.C.C. 379; Warren Salem Coach Line Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 116 Ohio St. 383, 156 N.E. 453; Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M.C.C. 190; Airline Motor Coaches Extension, 24 M.C.C. 117, et seq.
The appeal here is from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, which affirmed an order of the Mississippi Public Service Commission granting to the appellee, Gulf Transport Company, a certificate of public convenience and necessity, with certain restrictions to operate as a common carrier of passengers, baggage, and light express over U.S. Highway 80, between Newton and Jackson, Mississippi.
The Gulf Transport Company operates as a motor carrier in the State of Mississippi from the Tennessee line on Highway 15 through New Albany, Pontotoc, Houston, Mathiston, Ackerman, Louisville, Philadelphia, Newton, Bay Springs, Laurel, Lucedale, thence to Pascagoula and Mobile, Alabama. It also operates the following routes: From Kosciusko on Highway 35 to Forest, Raleigh, thence to Bay Springs, where it connects with its main line; from Philadelphia to Meridian to the Alabama line; from Hattiesburg to Beaumont; and from Jackson through Crystal Springs, Monticello, and Tylertown into the State of Louisiana.
The application of the Gulf Transport Company seeks certificate rights to operate between Newton, Mississippi, and Jackson, Mississippi, over U.S. Highway 80, and return over the same route, serving all intermediate points, except no local passengers will be handled between Newton and Jackson, Mississippi, and intermediate points. This is commonly called a closed door operation. The purpose of seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity as stated by the Gulf Transport Company is: "The applicant recognizes that Southern Bus Lines, Inc., holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier of passengers over U.S. Highway 80 between Jackson and Newton, and this application is not for the purpose of duplicating the local service between these points. The applicant operates as a common carrier of passengers on Mississippi Highway 15 from the Tennessee line to the Alabama line through Newton, Mississippi, and also to Bay Springs, Raleigh, Carthage, and Kosciusko, through Forest, Mississippi. Applicant also operates south from Jackson to the Louisiana line. The main purpose of the application is to give a better service to the public from points on the present lines of the applicant to and from Jackson, Mississippi, to give the applicant access to Jackson, and to connect the operations of applicant in East Mississippi with its line running south from Jackson, all in the interest of public convenience and necessity."
The appellant, Southern Bus Lines, Inc. who now holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity over the route involved from Newton to Jackson, Mississippi, filed a protest to the granting of the requested application. At the conclusion of the hearing the Commission granted the requested application, the order reading in part as follows: "It is, therefore, ordered That the applicant be, and the same is hereby, granted authority to operate as a common carrier by motor vehicle of passengers, baggage and light express between Newton and Jackson, Mississippi, over U.S. Highway 80 and return over the same route, serving all intermediate points; provided, however, that on its westbound schedules applicant may not pick up any passengers, light express or baggage at any point on U.S. Highway 80, except interchange passengers, light express and baggage from its own lines at Forest and Newton, Mississippi, and provided, further, that on its eastbound schedules applicant may not pick up any passengers, light express and baggage at any point on U.S. Highway 80 east of Jackson, (but not including Jackson) except interchange passengers, light express and baggage from its own lines at Forest and Newton, Mississippi, and on said eastbound schedules, may not discharge any passengers, light express or baggage at any point on U.S. Highway 80 except interchange passengers for its own lines at Forest and Newton, Mississippi, and passengers, light express and baggage originating at points on its own line beyond Crystal Springs, Mississippi."
Eighteen witnesses testified in support of the application, likewise eighteen witnesses testified for the protestant against the application. In addition to these witnesses, the president and vice-president and traffic manager of the Gulf Transport Company all testified for the Gulf. The traffic manager of the appellant testified in opposition thereto. A large number of witnesses who testified for the applicant had not ridden a bus in a long time. Some of these witnesses testified that they did not ride a bus, and would continue to use their automobiles. A number of these witnesses testified that they were not familiar with the schedules of the respective bus lines with reference to interchanges in reaching the City of Jackson, Mississippi.
The substance of the testimony of the witnesses for the applicant was that the proposed service of the Gulf Transport Company would be a convenience, that it would be an improvement over the present schedule, and that they preferred a bus with direct service to Jackson without change. The proposed service by Gulf was that they would operate two round trips a day into Jackson from the north, using U.S. Highway 80 from Newton into Jackson, and would operate two round trips a day from the south, using U.S. Highway 80 from Forest into Jackson.
The appellant's lines traverse the State of Mississippi, serving, especially, east Mississippi. Its lines connect with the routes of appellee, Gulf Transport Company, at Pontotoc, Houston, Mathiston, Ackerman, Philadelphia, Newton, Forest, Raleigh, Laurel, Meridian, Hattiesburg, Kosciusko, and Carthage. The eighteen witnesses who testified for the appellant, and who live in the towns and vicinities heretofore named, testified that the service rendered by the appellant was adequate and satisfactory, and in their opinions there was no need for the new service as proposed by the Gulf Transport Company. The traffic manager of the appellant testified that the appellant operated ten schedules a day each way between Jackson and Newton, that there had been no complaint made to the Company or to the Public Service Commission with reference to the service furnished by it from Newton to Jackson or any of the other interchange or junction points. The appellant also offered to add any additional buses needed over the route involved. In addition to this, the appellant offered to place a special bus at Newton for the sole purpose of transporting Gulf's passengers into the City of Jackson. That the appellant was giving good service between Newton and Jackson was not contradicted.
From a careful study of the testimony and the exhibits filed herein, (Hn 1) we are of the opinion that there is no substantial evidence to support the order of the Public Service Commission, that it is manifestly against the evidence and contrary to the law. We have examined the large number of authorities citied by the respective parties and find that the applicable principle of law involved here is well-settled by our Court. The sole question involved in this case is a question of a duplication of certificate rights. This case is controlled by the following cases in which the Mississippi Motor Carrier Regulatory Act, Chapter 142, Laws of 1938, Chapter 4, Title 28, Vol. 6, Miss. Code of 1942, was before the Court. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Tri-State Transit Co. of La. v. Mobile Ohio Transp. Co., 191 Miss. 364, 2 So.2d 845; Tri-State Transit Co. of La., Inc. v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 441; Tri-State Transit Co. of La., Inc., v. Gulf Transport Co., 201 Miss. 744, 29 So.2d 825.
Without entering into a discussion of these authorities, which we deem unnecessary, the Court, in construing the provisions of the Regulatory Act, held that (Hn 2) a duplicate certificate of public convenience and necessity should not be granted to another motor carrier over a route served by another carrier where such carrier was rendering adequate service. The Court, in Tri-State Transit Co. of La., Inc., v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., supra, said: "The rule is, and we find no authority to the contrary, that a certificate should not be granted where there is existing adequate service over the route applied for, and, if inadequate, unless the existing carrier has been given an opportunity to furnish such additional service as may be required. Chicago Rys. Co. v. Commerce Commission ex rel. Chicago Motor Coach Co., 336 Ill. 51, 167 N.E. 840, 67 A.L.R. 938, and authorities in the annotations. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489, does not hold to the contrary." [ 197 Miss. 37, 19 So.2d 444.]
The Court answered the main contentions of the appellee which are raised on this appeal in a case which is similar in many respects to the instant case, Tri-State Transit Company of La., Inc. v. Gulf Transport Co., supra. The Tri-State Transit Co. of La. was the predecessor Company to the appellant here. In that case the appellee, in addition to other routes, was asking for a certificate from Forest to Jackson, Mississippi, over U.S. Highway 80, with closed doors.
In the recent case of Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. American Bus Lines, Inc., Miss., 48 So.2d 584, the Court reaffirmed the rule as announced in the cases cited.
The judgment of the Circuit Court will be reversed and the application dismissed.
Reversed and judgment here for the appellant.
The above opinion is adopted as the opinion of the Court, and for the reasons therein indicated, judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and judgment rendered here for the appellant.