Coast Truck Line v. Asbury Truck Co.

WASTE, C. J.

Defendant appeals from an order granting a temporary injunction. The action was brought by plaintiff, a duly certificated common carrier, to enjoin the defendant trucking company from transporting vegetables for compensation over the public highways of the state between Los Angeles and Oceanside and other points, without first obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Railroad Commission, as required by the Auto Stage and Truck Transportation Act. (Stats. 1917, p. 330.)

In response to an order to show cause why such injunction should not issue, defendant offered in evidence two orders or decisions of the Railroad Commission, dated respectively March 31, 1927, and June 9, 1927, which orders or decisions, when read together, are sufficiently comprehensive to authorize the defendant to transport vegetables for hire between the points above named. In opposition to this showing there was introduced in evidence two subsequent orders or decisions of the Railroad Commission. The first of these, dated August 16, 1927, rescinds and vacates the earlier decisions relied on by the defendant, while the second, dated December' 1, 1927, grants to the defendant a certificate of public convenience and necessity “for the transportation of oil well supplies, heavy machinery, pipe, steel and tanks”. Upon this showing the trial court properly concluded that the defendant was not possessed of a certificate authorizing it to transport vegetables. A temporary injunction was thereupon issued.

Section 67 of the Public Utilities Act (Stats. 1915, p. 115), provides that “no court of this state (except the Supreme Court to the extent herein provided) shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct or annul any order or decision of the commission, or to suspend or delay the

[339]

execution or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties”. Relying on this section, defendant urged in the court below and contends upon this appeal that the superior court was without jurisdiction to proceed in this cause. With this contention we cannot agree.

The action of the superior court in the instant cause does not run counter to any provision of the foregoing section. It has not attempted to “review, reverse, correct or annul” any order or decision of the commission, nor has it undertaken to “enjoin, restrain, or interfere” with the commission in the performance of its official duties. It has merely given effect to the most recent and final order of the commission by enjoining defendant from operating in violation thereof. The validity of the several orders of the commission was not involved nor under review in the court below. The interpretation of the several orders at most was the only question before the court. As a court of general jurisdiction the superior court may properly interpret and give effect to any document or order even though it be the result of action by the legislative, executive or judicial branch of the government.