Hollingsworth v. Skaggs Transfer, Inc.

I respectfully dissent because I feel that appellant’s business, after twenty-eight years of unquestioned, continuous service to Glasgow, should not now be seriously disturbed by an interpretation of a certificate which is so ambiguously drawn. The certificate under which appellant operated during that period .was issued June 14, 1937. No serious question was ever raised concerning its meaning until the present controversy. While I am not advocating certificate by prescriptive right, I do think that the doctrine of contemporaneous construction would require an acceptance of an interpretation…