Opinion
September 16, 1955. Rehearing Denied October 19, 1955.
Petition for review from the State Railroad and Public Utilities Commission.
J. Hardin Peterson, Jr., Lakeland, for petitioners.
Lewis W. Petteway and R.Y. Patterson, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondent.
Ben Haywood is the holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission. The certificate, which authorizes the transportation of household goods, non-radially over irregular routes, to, from and between all points and places in the State of Florida, contains a provision that the motor vehicle equipment involved shall be domiciled only in Tampa, Florida.
The petitioners and the certificate holder filed a petition before the Commission for an approval of the transfer of the certificate from the holder to the petitioners. The joint petition sought not only the transfer of the certificate but also the authority to change the domicile of the motor vehicle equipment to be used in the contemplated operation to Lakeland, Florida, rather than Tampa, Florida, as provided in the original certificate. After a hearing the Commission refused to approve or grant the petition, so far as it sought a change of domicile, and the present certiorari proceeding is brought to review the order.
We have the view that the order of the Commission is supported by the law and the evidence and must be sustained. The basic contention of the petitioners, that the Commission had no authority to consider, or require evidence on, the question of whether or not "public convenience and necessity" would permit a new carrier in the city to which petitioners requested transfer of domicile, would not seem to have any sound basis in logic or any of the controlling statutory provisions. See section 323.03, Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A. Nor does the case relied on by petitioners, Benton Bros. Film Express, Inc. v. Florida Railroad Public Utilities Commission, Fla., 57 So.2d 435, permitting the extension of a certificate so as to authorize the carrying of additional products on the same route without evidence of necessity, support the contention that a change in the terms or conditions of an existing certificate would never require evidence of public convenience and necessity. Certainly, an alteration of the domicile of the carrier, such as is sought by the petitioner, involves something vastly more important than a mere change in the name of the holder, a simple transfer of the rights of the original holder, or, as in the Benton case, a minor change in the number of products that could be carried to the same patrons under already existing schedules along specified routes. Compare Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 158 Fla. 68, 27 So.2d 658, which clearly indicates that a transfer of a certificate may involve the question of public necessity.
The petition for certiorari should be denied.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C.J., and HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.