
    
      In re APPLICATION OF SMITH TO OPERATE AS CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIER. EXHIBITORS TRUCK SERVICE CO. v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
    1. Appeal and Error — Finding as to Impairment of Present Adequate Service.
    On appeal in the nature of certiorari from denial of application for permit to operate as a contract motor carrier of films and theater supplies, finding of public utilities commission that petitioner’s proposed operation would impair efficient public service of certain authorized common and contract carriers now adequately serving same territory held, not a matter for determination by the courts.
    2. Same — Certiorari—Scope op Review by Supreme Court.
    On review by appeal in the nature of certiorari from an order of the public utilities commission, Supreme Court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of the commission on issues of fact.
    
      3. Same — Public Utilities Commission — Finding of Fact Affirmed Where Supported by Evidence.
    Determination by publie utilities commission on question of fact is affirmed on appeal wiere Supreme Court cannot say order is without support either in facts disclosed upon hearing or by investigation of the commission.
    
      4. Costs' — Appellee Not a Private Party.
    Costs are not awarded upon affirmance of determination of publie utilities commission on appeal in the nature of certiorari where no private party appears as appellee.
    Appeal from Michigan Public Utilities Commission.
    Submitted January 18, 1935.
    (Docket No. 135, Calendar No. 38,038.)
    Decided March 5, 1935.
    Joseph A. Smith and H. R. Moore, doing’ business as the Exhibitors Truck Service Company, applied for a permit to operate motor vehicle freight service as a contract carrier between Detroit and various points. Petitioners review order denying application by appeal in the nature of certiorari.
    Affirmed.
    
      McIntyre <& McIntyre, for petitioners.
    
      Harry S. Toy, Attorney General, Peter J. Monaghan, Jr., and Edmund E. Shepherd, Assistants Attorney General, for Michigan Public Utilities Commission. '■
   Bushnell,. J.

Appellant, plaintiff herein, desires to serve theaters located in various towns and cities of the State by transporting films and theater supplies under express written contracts -with their owners and operators. The commission found that the proposed operation would impair the efficient public service of certain authorized common and contract motor carriers now adequately serving the same territory.

Appellee says that in all fairness it must he conceded that the record in this cáse is rather meagre and fails to disclose certain facts which might he helpful in setting the question at rest. It is certain that the disputed field of business endeavor, that of the Saginaw-Bay City area, is both narrow and restricted. Appellant emphasizes these admissions, and argues that the finding of the commission amounts to a stifling of legitimate competition and urges that there are no facts in the record justifying a refusal of a license.

The first question is a matter for the determination of the legislature and not of the courts. As to the second, we do not weigh the evidence. A question of fact was presented to and determined by the commission. On review by certiorari this court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of the commission on issues of fact. Testimony was taken in support of appellant’s application for a permit and in opposition thereto.

From a consideration of the record presented to us on this appeal, we cannot say that the commission’s order denying the permit is without support either in the facts disclosed at the hearing or by an investigation of the commission. In re Consolidated Freight Co., 265 Mich. 340 (4 P. U. R. [N. S.] 397). Under this authority, such determination must be affirmed. It is so affirmed, without costs, there being no private parties appearing as appellees.

Potter, C. J., and Nelson Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, Butzel, and Edward M. Sharpe, JJ., concurred.  