Terminal Taxicab Co. v. Kutz

Citations

• 241 U.S. 252
• 36 S. Ct. 583
• 60 L. Ed. 984
• 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1750

Syllabus

<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>In this ease 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.</p>