APPLICATION OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MILK PRO. ASS'N

APPLICATION OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MILK PRO. ASS'N
1957 OK 143
312 P.2d 500
Case Number: 37502
Decided: 06/11/1957
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

APPLICATION OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, FOR AUTHORITY TO OPERATE CLASS "B" FREIGHT, INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE, PRIVATE CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE.

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 1. An appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission may be brought to this court only by a party affected or a person aggrieved thereby, as authorized by art. IX, sec. 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
2. The question of jurisdiction is primary and fundamental in every case, and must be inquired into and answered by this court both as to its own jurisdiction as well as to the jurisdiction of the court from which the appeal is taken, whether raised by any party or not.

Appeal from the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma. Proceeding in the nature of an appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission dismissing, upon motion of applicant, an application of Central Oklahoma Milk Producers Association for a Class "B" permit for a motor carrier, from which order, the protestant, Oklahoma Milk Haulers Association, has appealed. Appeal dismissed.

M.W. Cooper, Montford Johnson, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Stuart H. Russell, and Albert D. Lynn, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

¶1 This is a proceeding in the nature of an appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission dismissing, on motion of applicant, an application for a permit authorizing the operation of a Class "B" motor carrier. The applicant was Central Oklahoma Milk Producers Association and the protestant was Oklahoma Milk Haulers Association who perfected this appeal. The parties will be referred to as applicant and protestant as they appeared before the Commission.

¶2 In harmony with the provisions of

"Now, on this 27 day of March, 1956, this matter comes on for consideration, the undersigned Members being present and participating. "Upon consideration of all things and matters herein involved.

"It is ordered that this Cause, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed."

¶3 Evaluating the situation here presented, the only conclusion that can be reached is that this proceeding is for the sole purpose of securing from this court, an advisory or declaratory opinion upon a moot question of law. At the time of the order appealed from, applicant had moved for a dismissal of the application and protestant was objecting to the issuance of a permit to applicant. The order granted to both parties the relief sought and neither was, thereby, prejudiced. The statute dealing with the issuance of permits for class "A" carriers (

¶4 In the case of Wharton v. Miller, 33 Okl. 771, 127 P. 1063, this court construed the above constitutional provision to authorize an appeal by only those parties who are interested in, or affected by, the subject of the Commissioner's order. Herein, the subject of the order was the dismissal of the application. The appellant, having obtained the result sought (the non-issuance of a permit) was not so affected that it could appeal therefrom.

¶5 Also, there is considerable doubt that the order here involved was of such nature that an appeal lay therefrom but, due to our conclusion hereinabove stated, it is unnecessary to discuss this latter phase of the case.

¶6 Although the protestant had no authority to invoke the jurisdiction of this court to review the order of the Commission, neither party has raised the jurisdictional question. However, "That it is the duty of this court to inquire into its own jurisdiction, as well as the jurisdiction of the court from which the appeal is taken, * * * is too thoroughly settled to require any extensive discussion or citation of authorities." Harber v. McKeown, 195 Okl. 290, 157 P.2d 753, 754.

¶7 The appeal is dismissed.