US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

TERMINAL TAXICAB CO., INC. V. KUTZ, 241 U. S. 252 (1916)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 241 U. S. 252 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

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


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 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 241 U. S. 253

the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™