|
|
Terminal Taxicab Co., Inc. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252 (1916)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Terminal Taxicab Co., Inc. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252 (1916)
Terminal Taxicab Company, Incorporated v. Kutz No. 348 Argued May 2, 3, 1916 Decided May 22, 1916 241 U.S. 252
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
In determining whether a corporation is or is not a common carrier, the important thing is what it actually does, and not what its charter says it may do.
A corporation authorized by its charter to carry passengers and goods by automobiles, taxicabs, and other vehicles, but not to exercise any of the powers of a public service corporation, and which does such business, including the carrying of passengers to and from railroad terminals and hotels under contracts therewith, and also does a garage business with individuals, held, in this case, to be a common carrier within the meaning of the District of Columbia Public Utility Act of 1913, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, as to the terminal and hotel business, but not as to the garage business.
Such a corporation is bound under the Public Utilities Act to furnish information properly required by the Commission in regard to its terminal and hotel business, but not as to its private garage business, and an order of the Commission requiring information as to all classes of business should be so modified and limited as not to include an inquiry into such garage business.
In this case, held that the omission from a general order of the Commission of concerns doing such a small volume of business as, in the opinion of the Commission, did not bring them within the meaning of the Act did not amount to such a preference as to deny those affected by the order the equal protection of the law.
43 App.D.C. 120 modified.
The facts, which involve the construction and application of the provisions of the Act of March 4, 1913, creating the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Terminal Taxicab Co., Inc. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252 (1916) in 241 U.S. 252 241 U.S. 253. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5Q3WADK6HPMPDAP.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Terminal Taxicab Co., Inc. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252 (1916), in 241 U.S. 252, page 241 U.S. 253. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5Q3WADK6HPMPDAP.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Terminal Taxicab Co., Inc. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252 (1916). cited in 1916, 241 U.S. 252, pp.241 U.S. 253. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5Q3WADK6HPMPDAP.
|