authority from the Commission, was not within the scope of the purchase proceeding. Authorization of the purchase was not to be taken as a determination of the issue. Linco Motor Exp. Co., Inc.-Purchase-Voorhees, 793 (794-795). State Certificate as Operating Authority: See CONVENIENCE AND NECES SITY (CERTIFICATES). INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. See CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETA- Determination of Character of Commerce: See SERVICES CONSTITUTING, this heading. Services Constituting: A motor carrier was not engaged in interstate commerce where it was not controlled or managed by any other carrier, had no arrangements for the sale of through tickets, nor for the interchange of passengers with other carriers, had no record of having actually transported passengers who originated at or were destined to points outside of the State, operated into no terminal at the interchange point but stopped busses at side of street, sold no tickets, and operated on a cash basis for the transportation performed. Crescent Stages, Inc.-Purchase-Mount Pinson Transfer Co., Inc., 17 (19–20). Application to purchase operating rights and property of George and Paul Schwerling, dismissed as the partnership does not operate and does not possess or claim any right to operate in interstate or foreign commerce. Dixie Traction Co.-Purchase-Schwerling, 431. INTRASTATE RIGHTS. See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (CERTIFICATES); OPERATING RIGHTS (SEGREGATION); INTRASTATE ROUTES. INTRASTATE ROUTES. See also CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (CERTIFICATES); SAVING CLAUSES. Vendor Young operated under two State certificates, one acquired from Black Hills Transp. Co. and one from Flamming Motor Exp. Co., conducting operations over route that connected the routes of these two companies which were under common control and management. Neither company, both operating in more than one State, was lawfully qualified to conduct operations under the second proviso of sec. 206 (a). The transfer to Young of the rights proposed to be sold to applicant was for the purpose of enabling Black Hills to conduct interstate operations over considered route without applying for a certificate under sec. 207, which necessitated proof of public convenience and necessity. Young filed application for registration under the second proviso of sec. 206 (a) but it followed that at no time had any of the parties been lawfully entitled to engage in interstate or foreign commerce under such proviso and hence Young's alleged rights did not represent motor-carrier properties, the transfer of which could be authorized under sec. 213. Wilson Storage & Transfer Co.-Purchase-Black Hills Transp. Co., 67 (69-71). The theory of the exemption in sec. 206 (a) is based on a recognition by Congress that, so long as operations are confined to a single State, local authorities are best qualified to determine questions of public convenience and necessity for such operations. This theory is further evidenced by the provisions of sec. 205 requiring the creation of joint boards. Potashnick Truck Service, Inc.Merger, 139 (141). Authority to purchase vendor's alleged rights to operate under second proviso of sec. 206 (a) between Alexandria and Shreveport, La., over U. S. Highway 71, denied when proof failed to establish that vendor had exercised such right prior to assumption by applicant of vendor's operations under temporary authority granted under sec. 210a (b). A potential right to conduct motor-carrier operations under such proviso does not represent motor-carrier property which may be the subject matter of acquisition under sec. 213, and any operations conducted over the route by applicant may not be imputed to vendor so as to bring into existence any operating rights on vendor's behalf. T. S. C. Motor Freight Lines, Inc.-Purchase Merchants' Fast Freight Service, Inc., 238 (239–240). Applicant was not lawfully qualified to operate in interstate or foreign commerce under exception granted in second proviso of sec. 206 (a), as operations were not confined to single State. Luper Transp. Co. of Oklahoma-PurchaseGay and Luper, 365 (367–368). Vendor had not operated in intrastate or interstate commerce and was not a motor carrier within meaning of sec. 213. It had only a potential right to operate under sec. 206 (a) and the sale of such rights was not a matter which the Commission may authorize under sec. 213. To hold otherwise would, apart from the jurisdictional aspect, open the door to evasion of the certificate requirements of the act by operators in more than one State not qualified to operate within the exemption of the proviso. Northern Truck Line, Inc.-Purchase-Minot Transp. Co., 421 (426). Operations of the two Canadian carriers within the United States, while constituting only a small fraction of their entire operations, were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the Commission as to all provisions of the act, including requirements respecting accounts, records, and reports. Upon effectuation of proposed unification of the operations within the United States into one Michigan corporation, their dual status as Canadian and United States carriers and present doubts concerning their responsibilities under the act would cease. Direct-Winters Transport-Consolidation, 489 (493). In view of denial of authority to Hoover Truck Co. to acquire control of Pulaski Highway Exp., Inc., by purchase of stock, no opinion was expressed as to lawfulness of operations of Pulaski in interstate or foreign commerce under registration certificate issued under sec. 206 (a), under control of McKelvey, who operated in more than one State. Hoover Motor Exp. Co., Inc.-Purchase-McKelvey, 639 (643). Where no intent to evade or violate the unification provisions of the act was shown, the parties being under the mistaken impression that both could conduct interstate operations under second proviso of sec. 206 (a) after consummation of purchase or transfer of intrastate rights, the reuniting of the intrastate and interstate operations in one operator, by sale of such interstate rights to applicant, was approved as desirable in the public interest. Lancaster Transp. Co.Purchase-Bankes, 741 (744). On date of purchase agreement, applicant assumed control of, and operated, vendor's properties, under belief that prior approval of purchase was not required by provisions of former sec. 213, inasmuch as vendor's operations were conducted solely in Tennessee under exemption of second proviso of sec. 206 (a). Thereafter, applicant divested itself of unlawful control and operation thus effectuated, and relinquished operations to vendor. Findings authorizing proposed purchase were not to be construed as condonation of law violation. Hoover Truck Co.Purchase M. E. C. & N. Freight Line, Inc., 770 (771). JOINT APPLICATION. See CONSOLIDATION AND CONTROL (ACQUISITION of CONTROL THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP OR LEASE). JOINT BOARDS. In General: The theory of utilizing the services of those most familiar with the operations in question is evidenced by the provisions of sec. 205, requiring the creation of joint boards and reference to them of matters concerning operations in not more than three States. Potashnick Truck Service, Inc.-Merger, 139 (141). A joint board composed of one State member, the second State having failed to make nomination, conformed to the requirements of sec. 205 (b) and applicant, a Michigan corporation newly formed to take over operating rights, within the United States, of two Canadian motor-carrier corporations operating in New York and Michigan, was properly referred to the board under provisions of sec. 205 (c). The fact that operations within Michigan were entirely within the city of Detroit and allegedly exempt from regulation under the law of that State did not disqualify the State member. Direct-Winters Transport-Consolidation, 489 (491). Jurisdiction Involved: Section 205 (b) provides that in unification cases the Commission "shall", when operations involve not more than three States, refer the proceedings to a joint board, but when operations involve more than three States, the Commission "may, in its discretion" refer the proceedings to a joint board or to an examiner. Applicant operates in four States and Pacific in three States, and as no claim was made that a full and fair hearing had not been accorded and as no apparent violation of due process would result from disposition of matter without third hearing, protestants' objection to reference of matter to Commission's examiner and request that application be referred to a joint board, was overruled and motion denied. Pacific Motor Trucking Co.-ControlPacific Truck Exp., 353 (359). JOINT CONTROL. See CONSOLIDATION AND CONTROL (ACQUISITION OF CONTROL THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP OR LEASE). JURISDICTION. See particular tribunals or functions by name. LABOR. See AGREEMENTS (PURCHASE AND/OR SALE); EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS. LEASE. See also AGREEMENTS (OPERATING); ConsOLIDATION AND CONTROL (ACQUISITION OF CONTROL THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP OR LEASE); OPERATING RIGHTS (DUPLICATE). Temporary unification and preservation in existence of two operating rights, duplicating each other to a substantial degree, with resumption of separate competitive operations upon termination of the lease, when conditions may have materially changed, would tend to create an unstable situation and would not foster sound economic conditions in the motor-carrier industry. Patz-LeaseHuckabee, 113 (115). Lease for 3-year term of certain operating rights of lessor, for same consideration as was involved in existing lease, authorized on condition that if notice of cancelation is given by either party, applicant shall promptly advise the Commission thereof in advance of such cancelation. Bowen Motor Coaches-LeaseHighway Transp. Co., 253 (254). Applicant leased operating rights of vendors, a partnership, in 1932. Although renewed between the parties under agreement of June 24, 1939, effective date of expiration, August 1, 1939, authority for renewal was not secured under sec. 213, and as the partnership was found not entitled to "grandfather" rights, 21 M. C. C. 633, and as approval of lease was not obtained while "grandfather" application was pending, operations conducted by applicant over considered route since August 1, 1939, were on its own behalf and not as lessee, and in violation of the provisions of sec. 213. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.-Purchase-Carpenter, 293 (298). Application to lease certain operating rights of Minot Transp. Co., dismissed, as the lease had expired and authority was granted to purchase all lawful operating rights of vendor. Northern Truck Line, Inc.-Purchase-Minot Transp. Co., 421 (426-427). Lease of certain motor vehicles of vendor under agreement separate from agreement covering purchase of vendor's operating rights, but of same date, on terms similar to those under so-called "owner-operator" arrangements discussed in 17 M. C. C. 735, was part of purchase transaction and authorized therewith, but findings were not to be construed as approving any feature of proposed plan of operation inconsistent with principles enunciated in case cited. Vance Trucking As operating rights of lessor had been under lease to applicant since prior to the The question of whether vendor or applicant, who has been leasing vendor's Filing of copy of lease required: Consolidated Bus Lines, Inc.-Consolidation, LEGAL RATE. Departure from: See SCHEDULES (DEPARTURE FROM). LEGISLATIVE INTENT. LATIVE INTENT). See CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION (LEGIS- LIABILITY OF CARRIERS. See CHARGES, FIXED. LOCAL JURISDICTION OF JOINT BOARDS. See JOINT BOARDS. LOCAL REGULATIONS OF STATES. See STATES (LOCAL REGULATIONS). MERGER. See CONSOLIDATION AND CONTROL. MONOPOLIES. See also COMPETITION (UNDUE RESTRAINT). The Commission, in passing on proposed acquisition of control, could not give Where authorization of control might result in an undesirable monopolistic bus MOTIONS. Id. Motion to dismiss was properly denied where no claim was made that protes- MUNICIPALITIES. Direct- The fact that operations within Michigan were entirely within city of Detroit NAMES, CORPORATE. See CORPORATIONS (NAME). NONCARRIER APPLICATIONS. See CONSOLIDATION AND CONTROL (NON- NONNEGOTIABLE SECURITIES. See SECURITIES (NOTES). NONOPERATING COMPANY. See AFFILIATED COMPANIES; CONSOLIDATION NONOPERATION, FORFEITURE OF OPERATING RIGHTS BY. See NOTES. See SECURITIES (NOTES). OFFICE HOURS. See TERMINALS (OFFICE Hours). OPERATING AGREEMENTS. See AGREEMENTS (OPERATING) (PURCHASE OPERATING RESULTS OF UNIFICATION. See CONSOLIDATION AND CON- OPERATING RIGHTS. In General: The term "operating rights" as used in the Commission's rules Protestant's contention that the operating companies had no lawful right to Accounting: See ACCOUNTS (IN GENERAL); INTANGIBLE Cost: See PRICES. Creation: See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (IN GENERAL). PROPERTY Duplicate: Temporary unification and preservation in existence of two Vendor's rights, to the extent that they duplicated those of applicant, were Operating rights acquired by purchase are unified with operating rights of the Vendor proposed to sell to applicant its operating rights between St. Joseph |