CONTRACT CARRIERS. See also COMMON CARRIERS; PRIVATE CARRIERS;
SAVING CLAUSES.

DEFINITION AND TESTS OF STATUS: See also EQUIPMENT (Lease). Applicant
which, prior to the "grandfather" date, converted its operation from specialized
carriage of automobiles to other commodities, and thereafter performed service
for five shippers under contracts contemplating a continuing carrier-shipper
relation, was found to be a contract carrier. That number of shippers was not
too great for such authority, notwithstanding lack of specialization. Overland
Frt. Lines, Inc., Contr. Car. Applic., 261 (264, 270).

Transportation for subsidiaries was contract carriage and not an incident of
applicant's primary noncarrier business, when the subsidiaries were separate
business entities and it was compensated by reduction in cost of handling its own
shipments through transporting them in same trucks with those of the subsidiaries
on a prorated cost basis. Lukens Steel Co. Contr. Car. Applic., 672 (674).

MINIMUM RATES OR CHARGES: See also INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION
(In General); MINIMUM WEIGHTS; SCHEDULES (Conflicting Rates). Minimum
rates on sugar from Baltimore to Rosslyn, Va., and Washington found unreason-
able to extent they were lower than bases indicated for minimum weights of 20,000
and 10,000 pounds. Middle Atlantic States M. C. Conference, Inc., v. Gallagher,
373.

Minimum common-carrier rates prescribed on same traffic are not necessarily
reasonable minima for contract carriers. Controlling weight should be given to
latter's lower operating costs. Id. (379).

PERMITS: Requirement that permits shall state carrier's business and its scope
connotes exact character of service to be rendered and confers power to incorpo-
rate any specification necessary to describe it in terms of localities, commodities,
equipment, or class of shippers, except that in "grandfather" permits such terms
must be consistent with past operations. McAteer Contr. Car. Applic., 35 (42);
-Restriction to persons operating retail food stores was consistent with "grand-
father" service for chain-grocery corporation, in which applicant hauled for its
subsidiaries and suppliers, when all service was performed under its contract
with the grocery concern, whose principal business was selling food. Id. (43);
-Such restriction would not impair applicant's right to add contracts within
scope of the permit, since he was free to serve any such shipper. Id. (44).
Grant: Lukens Steel Co. Contr. Car. Applic., 672.
CONTRACTS. See EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS; EQUIPMENT (Lease).
CONTROL. See COMMON CONTROL, ETC.; EQUIPMENT (Lease).
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. See also INTERMEDIATE POINTS; PASSEN-
GERS; RAIL AND MOTOR; ROUTES; TRANSPORTATION (Adequate Service).
APPLICATIONS: Denial: Tower Trucking Co., Inc., Contr. Car. Applic., 399.
Dismissal: Woitishek Com. Car. Applic., 193.

Grant: Fisher Com. Car. Applic.-New Operation, 695; United Van Lines,
Inc., Extension, 451.

CERTIFICATES: See also COMMON CONTROL, ETC. Restriction of passenger
operation between New York and Washington, to prevent local service between
New York and Newark, was a limitation on scope of authority and did not con-
travene sec. 208 (a) by restricting quantity of service. Eastern Trails, Inc.,
Com. Car. Applic., 21 (25).

Cessation of operations due to financial difficulties and resulting bankruptcy
constituted "willful failure" to comply with condition in certificate that it would
remain in force so long as carrier performed service authorized. Blackhawk Line
Inc., Revocation of Certificate, 58 (60).

"Grandfather" certificate, having been issued and become effective without
exception by interested persons, is conclusive, in absence of fraud, misrepresenta-
tion, or mechanical error, against belated claims of competitors that too much
was granted. Any other rule would result in intolerable uncertainty as to final-
ity of any right granted. Manhattan Coach Lines, Inc., v. Adirondack Transit
Lines, 123 (126).

Common-carrier authority may not be restricted to service for particular ship-
pers, as a carrier so restricted would not be a common carrier, and Commission
has no power so to limit operations of carriers as to change their status. Globe
Cartage Co., Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 547 (550).

EXTENSION OF OPERATIONS: See also COMMODITIES (Scope of Operation).
Desire of one shipper for applicant's refrigerated service because he feared that
use of existing services would result in disclosure of his customers' accounts to
competitors did not justify extension authority. McCann Com. Car. Applic.,
61 (71).

Extension authority for more direct route between East St. Louis, Ill., and
Birmingham, Ala., was unrestricted as to service south of Jackson, Tenn., since
need for direct service was shown, and operation would effect economies without
materially affecting competition; but authority for service between Jackson and
points north was denied, since existing carriers rendered satisfactory service and
applicants' traffic over its circuitous route had been unsubstantial. Hoover
Motor Exp. Co., Inc., Ext.-Intermediate Points, 315 (328).

Although extension route between points already served by applicant would
reduce circuity between Chicago and the East, that it would be an additional
service adverse to existing competition clearly required proof of public conven-
ience and necessity. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., Ext.-Ind., Ohio, and
Pa., 759 (775).

Grant: Frisco Transp. Co. Ext.-Mo.-Ark., 219; Kansas City S. Ry. Co. Ext.,
74; Lake Shore Cartage Co., Inc., Ext.-Elyria, Ohio, 684; Nelson Bros., Ext.-
Texas-Colorado, 290 (295); Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., Ext.-Pa. Points,
733; Van Sant Com. Car. Applic., 495; Warren Trucking Co., Inc., Com. Car.
Applic., 143 (149); Willett Co. of Ind., Inc., Ext.-Fort Wayne-Mackinaw City,
721.

Partial Grant: Bell Motor Frt., Inc., Ext.-Ohio, 140; Hillier Stor. Co. Com.
Car. Applic., 185; Hoover Motor Exp. Co., Inc., Ext.-Intermediate Points, 315;
Lynch Transfer & Stor. Co. Com. Car. Applic., 411; Maner Com. Car. Applic.,
778; McCann Com. Car. Applic., 61; McDougald Com. Car. Applic., 531; Penn-
sylvania Truck Lines, Inc., Ext.-Ind., Ohio, and Pa., 759; Ramsey Contr. Car.
Applic., 463.

PROOF: Although character of household-goods moving makes it difficult for
an applicant to obtain testimony of shippers as to their needs or inadequacy of
existing service, evidence of past widespread operation and of numerous requests
from shippers at time of hearing established a public demand for service through-
out United States. United Van Lines, Inc., Extension, 451 (460–461).

Past unauthorized operations conducted openly and under color of claimed
“grandfather” rights are entitled to consideration as proof of convenience and
necessity. Fisher Com. Car. Applic.-New Operation, 695 (697);

-Proof of operation under purchased "grandfather" claim, on advice of counsel
and in misapprehension rather than defiance of the law, was admissible evidence.
Hoover Motor Exp. Co., Inc., Ext.-Intermediate points, 315 (332);

-Proof of past nonradial service, performed in belief that predecessor's
"grandfather" application sought such authority, was accepted, although the
predecessor had actually conducted radial operations, when applicant had not
knowingly exceeded his acquired rights. Van Sant Com. Car. Applic., 495 (502,
503);

—But proof of such operations is not controlling. Tower Trucking Co., Inc.,
Contr. Car. Applic., 399 (405); Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., Ext.-Ind., Ohio,
and Pa., 759 (763).

REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES:

Revocation of bankrupt carrier's certificate
for failure to comply with condition requiring continuance of operations would
be futile when its operating rights had been sold under authority from Commission
and operations complying with certificate had been resumed by vendee. Black-
hawk Line, Inc., Revocation of Certificate, 58 (60).

Principle that a certificate, once effective, may be terminated only in accordance
with sec. 212 (a) is controlling as to a partial revocation. Manhattan Coach
Lines, Inc., v. Adirondack Transit Lines, 123 (126).

Revocation of certificate for irregular-route territory, on ground of abandon-
ment of operations, was not warranted when evidence of discontinuance was
confined to two points. Christianson and Green Revocation of Certificate, 238
(240).

CORPORATIONS. See COMMON CONTROL, ETC.; CONTRACT CARRIERS (De-
finition, etc.).

CORPSES. See TRANSPORTATION (Casual, etc.).

COST OF SERVICE. See also CONTRACT CARRIERS (Minimum Rates, etc.);
Delay; DelivERY; ECONOMY; LESS THAN TRUCKLOAD (Rates); MINIMUM
WEIGHTS (Factor in Rates); REPORTS.

ASCERTAINMENT: The best measure of a change in cost of any item of trans-
portation expense is the change per ton-mile. Where ton-mile costs were not
available, the next best measure of effect of increased wage rates was cost per
vehicle-mile. Increased Com. Car. Truck Rates in the East, 633 (644).

EMPTY MOVEMENT: Rates yielding slightly more than carrier's average truck-
mile cost were not justified when total mileage exceeded loaded mileage by 17.27
percent and proposed rates would yield less or only slightly more than cost per
loaded truck-mile. Barbour Transp. Co., Inc.-Commodities, 361 (366).

Rates on petroleum in tank trucks were not unreasonable when truck-mile
earnings for round trips with empty return movement exceeded cost of operation.
Petroleum and Products, Idaho, Mont., N. Dak., and Wyo., 391.

FACTOR IN REASONABLENESS: See also COMPETITION (Destructive or Unfair).
When carrier's transportation of road oils was segregated from his petroleum-
hauling operations, and costs on such traffic apparently exceeded cost of his other
operations, but he failed to show costs on road oils with reasonable certainty,
proposed increased rates were found not justified. Liquid Bituminous Products
in New England, 729 (732).

Carrier's average cost for transporting all traffic is not the most reliable measure
of compensatory character of t. 1. rates on a particular commodity. Iron and
Steel by Roadway Transit Co., Mich. to Ill., 747 (752).

COURTS. Although the Commission exercises certain quasi-judicial functions,
it is an administrative body and not a court within meaning of Soldiers' and
Sailors' Civil Relief Act. Definition of court in that act excludes such bodies.
Twigg Com. Car. Applic., 272 (274).

Following findings of United States District Court that denial of "grandfather"
authority for general-commodity operation in one direction and for certain inter-
mediate points was contrary to the evidence, proceeding was reopened and author-
ity broadened accordingly. Jones Contr. Car. Applic., 739.

CROSS-EXAMINATION. See AFFIDAVITS; WITNESSES.

DAMAGES. The Commission has no authority to award reparation for motor
carriers' failure or refusal to perform common-carrier service.

& Co., Inc., v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 212 (213).
DEFENSES. See EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS.

Montgomery Ward

DEFINITIONS. See WORDS AND PHRASES and specific subjects,
DELAY. See also TRANSPORTATION (Duty of Carrier). Proposed increased
charge for delay in unloading road oil from tank trucks at highway points of con-
struction was not justified by increased cost of carrier's operations, when costs of
transporting road oils were not segregated. Liquid Bituminous Products in New
England, 729.

The remedy for increased terminal expense due to delays in loading and un-
loading is establishment of a separate charge which will penalize shipments on
which unreasonable delays occur, rather than an increase in line-haul rates, which
furnishes no incentive to avoid delays. Joiner Work from Waynesboro, Va., to
Eastern Points, 742 (745).
DELIVERY.

SPLIT: Proposed t. 1. rate covering deliveries to as many as eight
consignees in six contiguous municipalities, and only 5 cents higher than reduced
rate approved for single shipments, was not justified when respondent failed to
show that the 5-cent spread would cover cost of the additional deliveries. Metals,
Chemicals, St. Louis to Cincinnati and Louisville, 55 (57).

DENSITY. See CLASSIFICATION (PROPERTY (Reasonableness)); LESS THAN
TRUCKLOAD (Minimum Charge, etc.); MINIMUM WEIGHTS (Truck Capacity).
DIFFERENTIAL RATES. See WATER and Motor (Rates).
DIRECTION. See SAVING CLAUSES (Routes, Scope).

DISCRIMINATION. See BROKERS (Qualifications); LESS THAN TRUCKLOAD
(Minimum Charge, etc.); PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE.
DISTANCE SCALES. See ALTERNATIVE RATES.
DISTURBANCE OF ADJUSTMENT.

Motor).

See RATE COMPARISONS (Rail with

DIVISIONS OF RATES. EVIDENCE: Proof of a few instances in which com-
plainant received a relatively small division of revenues did not support a finding
that all divisions received from the many carriers named as defendants were un-
just. Highway Motor Frt. Lines, Inc., v. A. C. E. Transp. Co., Inc., 513 (526).
FACTORS IN DETERMINATION: Omission from sec. 216 (f) of specific direction as
to considerations in prescribing divisions is immaterial to determination of whether
the burden of showing that assailed divisions are unjust, unreasonable, and in-
equitable has been met. Highway Motor Frt. Lines, Inc., v. A. C. E. Transp.
Co., Inc., 513 (525).

RETROACTIVE ADJUSTMENT: Although Commission's power to prescribe ret-
roactive adjustment of divisions of rail rates is limited to joint rates established
under a finding or order, sec. 216 (f) authorizes prescription of divisions of any
joint motor rates from date of filing of complaint, and such power does not con-
flict with authority in that paragraph to prescribe divisions of voluntary rates on
a finding that they "are or will be" unjust, as complaints against divisions neces-
sarily allege unjustness as of date of filling. Highway Motor Frt. Lines, Inc., v.
A. C. E. Transp. Co., Inc., 513 (515).

WATER AND MOTOR: Ton-mile earnings of 10.5 mills accruing to water carrier
for haul of 302 miles and truck-mile earnings of 27.6 cents accruing to motor carrier
for 87-mile haul, based on minimum motor division of 15 cents, under lowest of
proposed joint water-motor rates, appeared reasonably compensatory.
Motor Rates Between New Orleans and Houston, 171 (180).
DUTY OF CARRIER. See STRIKES; TRANSPORTATION.

Water-

EARNINGS. FACTOR IN REASONABLENESS: See also CLASSIFICATION (PROPERTY
(Reasonableness)); COMPENSATORY RATES; COST OF SERVICE (Empty Move-
ment); DIVISIONS of Rates (Water and Motor); ECONOMY; MINIMUM WEIGHTS
(Factor in Rates); QUANTITY RATES. Rates on lumber yielding 3 to 5.7 cents
a ton-mile would not be reasonably compensatory for any-quantity traffic moving
short distances, but same rates on 23,000-pound minimum would be reasonable
when they would yield 34 to 88 cents a truck-mile. Lumber, Philadelphia to
Eastern Pa. Points, 395 (397).

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. See INCREASED RATES (Justification).
ECONOMY. See also ROUTES (Alternate). Proposed t. 1. rates on cotton
piece goods found reasonable when shipment in volume would effect substantial
economies as compared with expense of collecting and consolidating 1. t. 1. ship-
ments at any-quantity rates. Although 20,000-pound loads could not be trans-
ported over short-line routes because of State laws, truck-mile earnings would
average 20.7 cents over usable routes, as compared with average operating cost
of 20.6 cents. Cotton Piece Goods, N. C. and S. C. to Chicago, Ill., 542 (544,
545).

EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACTS. See also INVESTIGATION AND
SUSPENSION (Burden of Proof). The Price Control and Stabilization Acts did
not modify or amend the Interstate Commerce Act, as their provisions are
complementary and not in conflict. Bicycles from Westfield, Mass., to New Eng-
land and East, 442 (445).

See also EQUIPMENT (Lease); STRIKES.

De-

EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS.
fendants which pleaded, as affirmative defense of alleged failure of service, that
they were precluded by agreements made under Federal statutes and regulations
from discharging union employees who refused to pass a picket line at complain-
ant's plant, should have been permitted to introduce evidence as to their obliga-
tion under National Labor Relations Act. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., s.
Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 225 (230).

Legality of a closed-shop agreement involved labor relations between carriers
and their employees and was not within Commission's jurisdiction. Id. (235).
Furnishing shippers with qualified drivers to operate their equipment under
their direction and control was not subject to the act. McKeown Transp. Co.,
Inc., Contr. Car. Applic., 792 (796).

EQUALIZATION. See WAter and Motor (Rates).
EQUIPMENT. See also SAVING CLAUSES (Bona Fide Operation; Commodities,
Scope).

CHARACTER OF SERVICE: Operation of "rover" service in transporting house-
hold goods, in which vehicles were not returned to base points after delivery of
shipments, but were used to haul successive shipments originating near the deliv-
ery points, established irregular-route operation throughout United States.
United Van Lines, Inc., Extension, 451 (455, 460).

LEASE: Ultimate finding as to direction, control, and responsibility for
operation with leased equipment depends on consideration of all facts relating to
methods of operation and relation between applicant, lessor, and the shipping
public. No single fact is controlling, and burden of establishing such exercise of
domination as to constitute a bona fide "grandfather" operation is on applicant.
Interstate Van Lines, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 663 (664, 669);

-Relation between applicant and owner-operators must be determined from
all pertinent facts, including all terms of contracts and conduct of the parties
thereunder, and not solely by isolated passages in the contracts. Shayler Com.
Car. Applic., 337 (340);