tions as the rights resulting from the separate authorizations were the sum of those confirmed, without duplications. Hankison-Purchase-Commercial Freight Lines, Inc., 385 (387).

The Commission refused to recognize the existence in one carrier of two separate operating rights over a common highway although the route involved was included in each of two orders granting the rights and was entered in separate proceedings, one under the "grandfather" clause and the other after proof of public convenience and necessity. See 25 M. C. C. 551. Southwestern Transp. Co.-Purchase-Johnson, 437 (441).

The mechanical repetition of routes in two orders of Commission, approving two separate purchases of operating authority by vendor, did not result in creation of two operating rights in vendor over the routes and between the points so repeated. Id. (441).

The view that operating rights may be indefinitely removed from active use and preserved in existence for subsequent transfer and vitalization in an additional motor carrier when, perhaps, competitive conditions or the traffic potentialities of a given territory have materially changed, would be inconsistent with the public interest, would not foster sound economic conditions in the industry and would be incompatible with the policy declared in sec. 202 (a) of the act. Such view was rejected in 25 M. C. C. 428, with respect to unification by lease, and is equally applicable to unification by purchase. Id. (442).

Denial of existence of two separate duplicate rights in vendor does not result in revocation of an operating right in a manner other than as provided in sec. 213 (a). Authority granted under sec. 213 is permissive only and the rights of parties in unification transactions under that section are not revoked but merged along with other properties and such merger is accomplished automatically by reason of the voluntary act of the parties in consummating the transaction and not by any "requirement" of Commission. Id. (443).

While operations of Mallie Bolton over the considered route duplicated those of Birmingham-Columbus Freight Lines, of which he owns 49 of the 100 outstanding shares, the record indicated that two separate and distinct operations were maintained and that applicant has neither exercised control nor had the power to control the operations of Freight Lines. Berman-Control-Birmingham-Columbus Freight Lines, Inc., 449 (450, 452).

Brown Exp. had confirmed rights under the "grandfather" clause over the 5-mile segment of considered route between Venus and Midlothian, acquired by purchase authorized in 25 M. C. C. 473, and as result of proposed purchase from Brown Motor Freight Lines, Inc., will hold identical authority under the exemption of the second proviso of sec. 206 (a) as to this segment. To eliminate all duplication in operating authority upon effectuation of unification, the certificate of registration to be issued, covering rights now authorized to be purchased, will describe only portion of route which is nonduplicating, from Midlothian to Fort Worth, with the right to serve all intermediate points. Latimer-Control-Brown Exp., 453 (457-458).

It is the policy of the Commission to encourage corporate simplification and to discourage uneconomical transportation inherent in duplicate operations by commonly controlled carriers. Doubtless certain economies would result from common control and management under proposed plan whereby applicant, in control of Automobile Shippers, Inc., sought authority to acquire majority stock control of Crown Motor Service, Inc. and Square Deal Cartage Co. Such authorization, however, would sanction preservation of duplicate operating authority under separate corporate existence, with attendant duplicate operating expense, and opportunity for discriminatory rates and other unfair competitive practices.

Unification of the properties of the three companies would eliminate wasteful transportation inherent in duplicate operations of commonly controlled carriers. Casaroll-Control-Crown Motor Service, Inc., 471 (475–476).

If applicant were authorized to acquire control of Automobile Convoy Co., by purchase of its capital stock, Convoy and Associated Transports, Inc., controlled by applicant through beneficial ownership of its capital stock, would be authorized to engage in duplicate operations in certain respects. The Commission has consistently refused to sanction the creation of multiple corporations, and has condemned as uneconomical the maintenance of such companies, commonly controlled through stock ownership and rendering substantially the same service. Florman-Control-Automobile Convoy Co., 521 (523-524).

In addition to questions of efficiency and economy, maintenance under common control of separate entities, authorized to engage in substantially duplicate operations, affords opportunity for unfair competition and for unjust discriminations and preferences between shippers and consignees as to rates and practices, contrary to the public interest and the declared policy of the act. The evils inherent in such a situation differ only in degree from those which would be present if a single carrier were authorized to conduct competitive operations as a common and contract carrier. Such a situation is inconsistent with the public interest. (524).

Id.

Repetition in the mechanical description of rights granted a single motor-carrier entity cannot be taken to mean that the Commission intended to grant such carrier more than one operating right over route so repeated. Washington Motor Coach Co., Inc.-Purchase-Auto Interurban Co., 627 (631–632).

Intrastate: See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (CERTIFICATES); INTRASTATE ROUTES; OPERATING RIGHTS (DUPLICATE).

Lease: See CONSOLIDATION AND Control (ACQUISITION OF CONTROL THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP OR LEASE); LEASE.

Loss: See ROUTES (ABANDONMENT).

Preservation: See DUPLICATE, this heading.

Purchase: See PURCHASE (PROPERTY AND/OR OPERATING RIGHTS).

Segregation: The separation of intrastate operations from interstate operations by use of separate entities commonly controlled, serving the same territory, is not usually desirable in the public interest. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co.-Merger, 683 (685).

Attempted segregation of intrastate and interstate rights prevented operations from being conducted at a profit and resulted in the public's failing to receive the complete service formerly rendered by vendor to which it was entitled. Lancaster Transp. Co.-Purchase-Bankes, 741 (743).

Split: Vendor proposed to sell to applicant its operating rights between St. Joseph and Chicago, via Kansas City, Kingdom City, and Springfield, and, at the same time, proposed to continue to operate over the same highways between St. Joseph and Kingdom City, about 200 miles, in connection with its retained St. Joseph-St. Louis operation, acquired by purchase authorized in 5 M. C. C. 439. Based on decision in 25 M. C. C. 551 (555, 557), such rights were not divisible although acquired by separate grants and services rendered thereunder conducted as separate operations, as the rights resulting from the separate authorizations were the sum of those confirmed, without duplications. HankisonPurchase-Commercial Freight Lines, Inc., 385 (387).

Proposed purchase of certain operating rights and property of vendor authorized with exception of that portion from intersection of U. S. Highway 241 and Alabama Highway 32 to Huntsville, over U. S. Highway 241, as, pending determination of application under sec. 212 (b) for transfer of such rights to a prior purchaser, it was impossible to ascertain whether vendor had any rights which could be the

subject matter of purchase, and with the further exception of certain rights covering transportation of cotton piece goods between Chattanooga and Chickamauga, including the off-route point of Flintstone, which rights upon grant became merged with similar rights in vendor over duplicate route. The sale and retention of rights as proposed would involve a split of vendor's rights that would not be permissible within the meaning of principles enunciated in 25 M. C. C. 558. Malone Purchase-Crates, 549 (551, 553-554).

Vendor, Mason & Reedy Trucking Co., possessed two rights, over alternate routes, to operate between Jackson and New Buffalo, Mich., one over U. S. Highway 12 and the other over Michigan Highway 60. The proposed sale to applicant of rights over latter route, with retention of rights and continued operation over U. S. Highway 12, would not result in split of rights. Century System, Inc.-Purchase-Hall's Exp., Inc., 613 (617).

The factual situation presented by original proposal involving vendor's right to continue to operate over duplicate segment after consummation of proposed purchase, based on claim that vendor owns two separate State authorizations over common stretch of highway and that the Commission recognized two such rights in order confirming same, is not distinguishable from similar claims in cases cited wherein it was held that the repetition in the mechanical description of rights granted a single motor-carrier entity cannot be taken to mean that the Commission intended to grant such carrier more than one operating right over route so repeated. Washington Motor Coach Co., Inc.-Purchase--Auto Interurban Co., 627 (631-632).

The right of Blue Way Trailways, Inc., to retain operating authority over same stretch of highway between Springfield and Northampton, Mass., as was included in rights it proposed to transfer to vendor, was similar in principle to "split" of rights denied in 25 M. M. C. 558, and could not be lawfully authorized in absence of proof of public convenience and necessity for an additional operator, or that such split would be consistent with the public interest. Consummation of purchase transaction as proposed was authorized under clause in agreement excluding this route. Blue Way Trailways, Inc.-Purchase-Boston, W. & N. Y. St. Ry. Co., 763 (765, 767-768).

Transfer: See TRANSFER (OPERATING RIGHTS). OPERATION.

Abandonment: See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (REVOCATION OF CERTIFIcate); Saving CLAUSES.

Pending Determination of Application: See SAVING CLAUSES; TRANSFER (OPERATING RIGHTS).

Scope: See also COMMODITIES (SCOPE OF OPERATION); ROUTES (RESTRICTION) (SCOPE OF OPERATION).

Applicant was authorized to render through service to all points to which service was authorized on physically connecting routes purchased. However, as vendor Mason did not possess right to originate, deliver, or interchange, at New Buffalo, Mich., traffic moving east thereof, findings were conditioned to exclude right to serve New Buffalo as a point of origin or destination but the right to interchange traffic at this point was not restricted as applicant would acquire such right from Hall upon consummation of that purchase. Under such circumstances, and because applicant would acquire from Mason a disconnected route unless the Hall purchase was consummated, the findings were further conditioned to require prior or concurrent exercise of Hall's authority as prerequisite to exercise of authority to purchase Mason rights. Century System, Inc.-Purchase-Hall's Exp., Inc., 613 (617).

Without Authority: See VIOLATION OF Act.

ORDERS.

Construction: Contention that vendor possessed two separable rights over considered routes, because operations were conducted under separate State certificates and were acquired as result of separate purchases of operating rights confirmed under separate "grandfather" orders of the Commission, was based in part on administrative mechanics of the Commission. Such administrative handling was purely ministerial and did not change the essential nature of the unification accomplished under sec. 213. The words "with duplications eliminated" were omitted in the second purchase authorization, an early case. However, this phrase was not included in the early cases but, when it became apparent that some carriers were viewing duplicate rights purchased as separate rights which might later be sold, division 5 included the phrase and division 4 has continue the use. The purpose of using the phrase is merely to describe what actually transpired, whether or not such language was included, namely, unification of the properties involved. Southwestern Transp. Co.-PurchaseJohnson, 437 (441).

Retroactive Effect: See also SECURITIES (ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY).

Supplemental authority granted cannot be made retroactive to date of original authority and any assumption of obligation by applicant not in conformity with original grant of authority was void, and the statute provides no method for validating same. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.—Obligation, 273 (274).

PARTIES.

Applicants: See also APPLICATIONS (DISMISSAL).

Where proposed transaction involved, in effect, acquisition by applicant, Roadway Exp., Inc., of total outstanding stock of Walser Transp., Inc., from McCombs, sole stockholder and president and director of Walser, under contract with McCombs whereby latter agreed to transfer all stock and cause Walser to transfer all operating rights and properties, together with assets and liabilities, to be followed by termination of Walser's corporate existence, the transaction was treated as a merger of which the control aspect was a part, and the technical omission from the application of Walser as a party applicant was considered immaterial. Roadway Exp., Inc-Merger, 463.

Substitution: Prior report, 25 M. C. C. 586, modified to authorize the corporation, Huber & Huber Motor Exp., Inc., successor in interest to the operating rights of N. F., William C., and Louis E. Huber, doing business as Huber & Huber Motor Exp., a partnership, to purchase certain operating rights of Central Motor Freight Lines, Inc., in lieu of the partnership, subject to condition. HuberPurchase-Central Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 5.

The substitution of the principal, Speedway Transp. Co., in lieu of the nominee, Michael J. Boyle, in whose name operating rights and property were acquired, and the transfer to applicant, Boyle Bros., Inc., of 98 shares of Speedway stock, held by its nominee, Michael J. Boyle, were in reality one transaction, involving acquisition of control of a motor carrier by applicant, and subject to the jurisdiction of Commission under sec. 213. Boyle Bros., Inc.-Control-Speedway Transp. Co., Inc., 45 (46-47).

Application to purchase operating rights of vendor, dismissed when authority was granted heretofore, in substitution proceedings, to transfer vendor's operating rights to applicant. Motor Freight Corp.-Purchase-Southern Freight Lines, Inc., 219.

To consummate the proposed purchase, applicant, which was neither a motor carrier nor a person controlling or controlled by a motor carrier, should seek to be substituted in lieu of vendor in latter's "grandfather" application by filing appropriate application under sec. 212 (b): C. O. Bonner, Inc.-PurchaseBonner, 329; Transohio Motor Freight, Inc.-Purchase-Zuhars, 749 (750).

PAYMENT OF CHARGES.

Applicants agreed to assume portion of vendor's contract to perform transportation services to satisfy certain outstanding obligations for material and supplies. In view of questionable legality of such transportation under provisions of sec. 217, as to which no opinion was expressed, this agreement was not approved. Zabarsky-Purchase-Smith, 259 (261).

PETITIONS. See HEARING.

PICK-UP AND DELIVERY.

The question whether a local cartage business, retained by vendor, to which applicant, under purchase agreement, contracted to refer such local pick-up and delivery business as may be feasible, included transportation of commodities under arrangement for continuous carriage to or from points outside of Syracuse, in interstate or foreign commerce, thereby requiring 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).

PIPE LINES. See AFFILIATED COMPANIES.
PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE.

Maintenance under common control of separate entities authorized to engage in substantially duplicate operations affords opportunity for preference between shippers and consignees as to rates and practices, contrary to the public interest and the declared policy of the act. Florman-Control-Automobile Convoy Co., 521 (524).

PRICES. See also INTANGIBLE PROPERTY (ACCOUNTING).

Vendor's rights, to the extent that they duplicated those of applicant, were held to have an insurance value to applicant in the event the latter's "grandfather" rights were not confirmed in full, thus assuring continuance of service, which value was given consideration in findings that purchase price was not unreasonably high. Horlacher Delivery Service, Inc.-Purchase-Parker, 149 (152).

Manner of determining purchase price of applicant's properties under reorganization plan was objectionable. Motor Transport Co.-Purchase-F & H Truck Lines, Inc., 163 (171).

Provision in purchase-sale contract that profits or losses from operations, during pendency of application for authority to purchase vendor's operating rights, would accrue to, or be borne by applicant, the profits, if any, to be applied on the purchase price, disapproved. Penn Ohio New York Exp. Corp.-PurchaseTri-Service Motor Lines, Inc., 305 (307).

As applicant was authorized to purchase less operating authority than was originally contemplated, the parties were authorized to adjust the purchase price downward without further authority from Commission. Northern Truck Line, Inc.-Purchase-Minot Transp. Co., 421 (427).

Acquisition of joint control of Brown Exp. by Oswell E. Latimer through purchase of 50 shares of capital stock from its president, sole owner of its 100 outstanding shares, authorized. Considering the asset position of Express and its outstanding obligations, the price to be paid was high notwithstanding its past satisfactory earning record. The terms and conditions were unusual also in that they provided for completion of purchase to extend over long and indefinite future time, Latimer's obligations thereunder being dependent upon declaration of dividends by Express except for interest charges. However, these considerations were primarily matters of contract between the parties and the arrangement was found to be of possible benefit to the public, without apparently causing harm to the motor-carrier operations of Express in the public interest. LatimerControl-Brown Exp., 453 (454-455, 456).