Page images
PDF
EPUB

service. The witness further testified that the ordinary truck would load between 550 and 700 cases of beer, and that the average box car would load between 900 and 950 cases. The distributor of the brewing company's products in Baltimore has a rail siding, but there is none at the other destinations referred to.

The supervisor for the Pennsylvania Railroad at Pittsburgh stated that a freight car loaded with beer at Jeanette at 5 p. m. on a Monday should reach Baltimore for delivery at 7 a. m. on Wednesday of the same week. The car would be handled by three trains before it reached Baltimore. He further stated that delivery from origin to Cumberland, Hagerstown, and Frederick should be effected on the second morning. Owing to switching movement and interchange at Baltimore, delivery at Annapolis should be accomplished on the third day. The same time would be required in respect of delivery at Frostburg by the Western Maryland Railroad. Rail carriers furnish refrigerator cars, but in the event they are iced or heated, the consignor or consignee would bear an additional expense. The testimony of the witness for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was similar to the above. On cross-examination the witness for the Pennsylvania Railroad admitted that he had not checked any particular movement of beer transported for the brewing company over that road.

The evidence is convincing that there is a demand for applicant's services in respect of the transportation of malted beverages from Jeanette to the specified destinations in Maryland, and the return movement of empty containers, and that, in view of the expedited service to be accomplished by motor-carrier operation, applicant's services would be a great convenience to the brewing company for which he would transport.

The joint board finds that applicant is fit, willing, and able to perform the services described and to conform to the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, and the requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder; and that the present and future public convenience and necessity require the issuance of a certificate to applicant authorizing operation over the route herein specified, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of malt and brewed beverages, from Jeanette to Cumberland, Frostburg, Oakland, Hagerstown, Frederick, Baltimore, Annapolis, and Texas, Md., and of empty containers in the reverse direction over the same route.

It is recommended that the appended order be entered.

No. MC_86491
MOE HARRIS COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION

Decided July 11, 1938

1. Applicant's operation found to be that of a contract carrier. 2. Operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of raw milk

from St. Joseph and Quaker Lake, Pa., to Binghamton, N. Y., and of powdered milk and condensed milk between Binghamton and points in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey within a radius of 150 miles from Binghamton, found consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. Per

mit granted. Application denied in all other respects. Howard Franke and Samuel V. Giannini for applicant. W.J. Larrabee for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, CASKIE, AND ROGERS
BY DIVISION 5:

On June 11, 1938, the following recommended report and a recommended order appended thereto, filed with us by joint board No. 67, were served on the parties. No exceptions to the order were filed, but on July 1, 1938, we postponed to July 11, 1938, the date on which the said order should become the order of the Commission and become effective. Not having been stayed or further postponed by us, it has become effective as our order. REPORT AND ORDER RECOMMENDED BY JOINT 30ARD NO. 67, COMPOSED OF

THOMAS L. HANSON OF NEW JERSEY AND RICHARD J. BEAMISH OF PENNSYLVANIA

By application filed December 18, 1936, Moe Harris, of Endicott, N. Y., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, in interstate or foreign commerce, in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, between Binghamton, N. Y., and St. Joseph, Pa., over a specified route.

In accordance with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, the application was duly heard and referred to joint board No. 67 for the recommendation of an appropriate order thereon. The rail carriers operating in this territory opposed the granting of the application. Protestants later withdrew their opposition provided

applicant confined his operation within a 150-mile radius of Binghamton.

At the hearing it developed that applicant is a contract carrier and that application should have been made as such. His operations are confined to the hauling of raw milk from points in Pennsylvania to the Crowley Milk Company in Binghamton and to the hauling of manufactured powdered milk and condensed milk to points within a 150-mile radius of Binghamton. He has been engaged in this business for the past eight years.

When applicant started in business eight years ago he had two trucks; since that time his equipment has been increased to seven trucks. These trucks are of special construction, with refrigerator bodies for the hauling of milk. During the peak of the season applicant employs 10 men, and at other times of the year the minimum is 5 men. Applicant does not hold himself out to serve the general public. His equipment is of such construction that it could not be adapted to haul general commodities.

Applicant has been transporting milk and milk products for Crowley Milk Company during the past eight years, and his service has always been satisfactory. The business has increased 40 percent during the past two years, and the company is opening an additional distributing branch in Allentown, Pa., which will require additional trucking facilities. If the milk company cannot have this service performed by applicant it will be necessary to operate its own equipment, because there is no other similar carrier service available.

In his application, applicant specifies regular routes between St. Joseph and Binghamton, and between Quaker Lake, Pa., and Binghamton. It appears, however, that he transports raw milk from St. Joseph and Quaker Lake to Binghamton and transports the manufactured products of milk from Binghamton to distributing points in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey within 150 miles of Binghamton. Such points include Albany and Monticello, N. Y., Elizabeth, Atlantic City, Paterson, and Woodbridge, N. J., and Hazleton, Scranton, and Easton, Pa. The prescription of regular routes does not appear to be necessary or practicable. The transportation between Binghamton and other points in New York apparently is in intrastate commerce, except when routes through Pennsylvania or New Jersey are employed, and the authority granted herein applies to transportation to or from points in New York only when performed over interstate routes.

The joint board finds that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service of a contract carrier by motor vehicle and to conform to the provisions of the act and the lawful requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder; that

operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of raw milk from St. Joseph and Quaker Lake to Binghamton, and of powdered and condensed milk between Binghamton and points in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania within 150 miles of Binghamton, over irregular routes, will be consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the act; and that upon compliance by applicant with the requirements established in Contracts of Contract Carriers, 1 M. C. C. 628 an appropriate permit should be granted. In all other respects the application should be denied. It is recommended that the appended order be entered.

9 M.C.C.

No. MC-86505 ADRIAN DE BRINE COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION

Decided July 11, 1938

Operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of malt beverages

and malt-beverage containers, over a specified route, between Rochester,
N. Y., and Wilkes-Barre, Pa., not shown to be consistent with the public
interest and the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act,
1935. Application denied.
Howard W. Franke for applicant.
J. F. Hays and J. P. Canny for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, CASKIE, AND ROGERS
BY DIVISION 5:

On May 13, 1938, the following recommended report and a recommended order appended thereto, filed with us by the examiner, were served on the parties. No exceptions to the order were filed, but on July 1, 1938, we postponed to July 11, 1938, the date on which the said order should become the order of the Commission and become effective. Not having been stayed or further postponed by us, it has become effective as our order.

REPORT AND ORDER RECOMMENDED BY THE EXAMINER By application filed December 29, 1936, Adrian De Brine, doing business as East Rochester Delivery, East Rochester, N. Y., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, between Rochester, N. Y., and Wilkes-Barre, Pa., over New York Highway 15 to Geneva, N. Y., thence over New York Highway 15A to Ovid, N. Y., thence over New York Highway 15 to Owego, N. Y., thence over New York Highway 17C to Binghamton, N. Y., thence over U. S. Highway 11 to Scranton, Pa., and thence over Pennsylvania Highway 309 to Wilkes-Barre, and return over the same route, serving Scranton as an intermediate point.

In accordance with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, the application was referred to the examiner for hearing and the

« PreviousContinue »