CONSOLIDATION AND CONTROL.
Acquisition of Control: Approval of the Commission is necessary before
the operator of more than 20 motor vehicles may merge his operations with those
of another carrier and acquire operating rights of another carrier.
Carrier Application, 755 (756).
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION.
Interstate Commerce Act: See INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.
Motor Carrier Act, 1935: See MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935.
State Statutes: See STATES (STATUTES).
See HEARING (CONTINUANCE) (RECESS).
CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT. See also INTRASTATE COMMERCE (SERV-
ICES CONSTITUTING).
When applicant transported aluminum pigs from Massena, N. Y., to docks at
Ogdensburg, N. Y., for ultimate transportation to destination in shipper's boats,
and returned to Massena with coal and coke, the commodities in all instances
moved under a joint arrangement for continuous transportation in interstate or
foreign commerce. McConville Contract Carrier Application, 22 (23).
Transportation from McCamey, Tex., to Texas destinations of oil-field equip-
ment moved into McCamey by rail was interstate commerce subject to the act
when shipments were hauled direct from the railroad yards to destinations, since
the movement within Texas was part of a continuous movement from the inter-
state origin, and separate billing for the movement beyond McCamey did not
alter its interstate character. But when shipments were first hauled from cars to
warehouses and pipe yards in McCamey, the movement to the oil fields was not in
interstate commerce, since no joint rates, storage-in-transit provisions, or other
arrangement for continuous carriage were involved, and the mere intent of the
local distributors to forward the commodities upon future demand did not establish
essential continuity between the original rail movement and the subsequent truck
movements. Hughes Common Carrier Application, 69 (70–71).
Distribution of pooled interstate shipments within a State, when bills of lading
were consigned to carrier with memoranda from shipper with instructions for
delivery of individual shipments beyond distribution point, and it was shipper's
intention when shipping pool cars that individual shipments move beyond distri-
bution point, was a participation in the through transportation of commodities
moving in interstate commerce. Applicant's delivery to destination points out-
side the State where distribution point was located was also an operation in inter-
state commerce. Brock Common Carrier Application, 153 (154–155).
Common carriage within Texas, of oil-field equipment ordered from a point
outside that State for and in the name of a consignee located at an oil field beyond
the railhead or steamship dock, was operation in interstate or foreign commerce.
In such a case the ultimate destination of such shipment is known from the incep-
tion of the transaction; there is no break in the continuity of movement, except for
interchange, from the shipping points outside the State to the final destination;
and a continuous movement is intended by the parties to the transaction. Wil-
liams Common Carrier Application, 175 (176).
Where there is an original and continuing intention to ship goods from a point
in one State to a point in another State, the commerce is interstate, and its char-
acter as such is not changed by transfer of lading between carriers, or incidents of
billing. Id. (176).
Contract-carrier transportation between points in New York was found to be
interstate or foreign commerce when the shipments originated in other States and
were not stored for future delivery but were transported as part of a continuous
through movement to final destination. Bituminous Distributing Service, Inc.,
Extension-New York, 477 (478).
Transportation between Los Angeles and Los Angeles Harbor, Calif., of inter-
state traffic interchanged with connecting lines, under a common arrangement for
continuous carriage, was interstate. Stanley Common Carrier Application, 482
(483-484).
Transportation of cotton, grain, and wool from points in Fresno County, Calif.,
to Stockton and San Francisco, Calif., water terminals was in the course of a
continuous movement to points outside the State and moved in interstate or
foreign commerce. Semper Common Carrier Application, 489 (490).
That through movement in interstate commerce beyond location of compress
in Fresno County, Calif., of cotton compressed at that point was contemplated
when cotton moved from gin in same county, was indicated by fact that cotton
destined for State mills was not compressed, as compression saved space on cars
and vessels when shipments were destined to interstate or foreign points but did
not reduce transportation charges. Id. (491).
Dried beans, canned fruit and vegetables, paint and pigments, chemicals, and
fertilizer transported by truck between certain points in California and San Fran-
cisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, Calif., moved to or from water terminals and
were in the course of a continuous movement from or to points in other States or
foreign countries. May and Gregoris Common Carrier Application, 494 (495).
Transportation of panels, veneer, furniture, lumber, and lumber products
from piers at Los Angeles Harbor to factories in Los Angeles, Calif., constituted
interstate or foreign commerce, since there was an intention to move commodities
to factories when they were unloaded from the ships, and there was no break in the
continuity of the movement. Vener Contract Carrier Application, 506 (507).
Movement of wine between points within 5 miles of Tulare, Calif., and such
points and Los Angeles and Los Angeles Harbor points was part of a continuous
movement to points outside of the State and was interstate or foreign commerce.
Grady Common Carrier Application, 511 (513).
Applicants as successors in interest were not entitled to continue common
carriage of general commodities between interstate points under the "grandfather"
clause when their operation was conducted only between points within the New
York commercial zone and it was not shown that operations by predecessors, on
and subsequent to the "grandfather" date, included transportation within the
zone under joint arrangement for through carriage to or from points beyond that
zone. Thomar Transp. Common Carrier Application, 657 (658).
Movements of goods wholly within a State which are merely incidental to the
distribution of goods previously transported in interstate or foreign commerce,
are separate, distinct, and independent operations and are not to be deemed a
continuation of the original movements. Davidson Contract Carrier Application,
682 (683).
Although evidence was inconclusive as to whether shipments of oil-field sup-
plies by rail to Hobbs, N. Mex., were moved by motor carrier in interstate com-
merce directly from cars to oil fields in New Mexico pursuant to an original and
continuing intent of the shipper that such shipments be transported from Hobbs
to any particular oil well or oil field or at any particular time, there was no reason
to conclude that such operations, if and when they occur, would be inconsistent
with the public interest. Permit granted. Id. (684).
CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE. See COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR
ARRANGEMENT; CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT.
Applications: See APPLICATIONS; SAVING CLAUSES; and Permits under this
Classification: See CLASSIFICATION (CARRIERS OF PROPERTY).
Continuance of Operation under Grandfather Clause: See SAVING CLAUSES.
Definition: When applicant transported automobiles, trucks, and trailers by
caravan method under oral contracts with manufacturer of one particular make
of cars and distributors thereof from factory to factory branches, cars being
consigned to the manufacturer, and also to independent dealers handling this
particular car, who paid transportation charges, although manufacturer arranged
for transportation, and did not hold itself out to serve the general public, its
operations were those of a contract carrier. Caravans, Inc., Contract Carrier
Application, 659 (661).
Dual Operation: See DUAL OPERATION.
EXTENSION OF OPERATION:
In General: As a general rule carriers may serve points named as termini but
when an extension of operation as contract carrier of meats and packing-house
and dairy products from Canyon, Tex., to Hobbs, N. Mex., was restricted to
traffic originating at Oklahoma City, Okla., the origin point in the original per-
mits, Canyon was not one of the termini, and it was necessary to authorize
service to that point. J. & J. Refrigerator Service Extension-Hobbs, 97 (98).
Extension of operation as contract carrier of dairy products, prepared foods,
and other commodities requiring refrigeration, over irregular routes, from and to
points in Indiana and Michigan, authorized when refrigeration service of railroads
included only shipments in carload lots to larger points and motor carriers did
not afford proper refrigeration protection at most of the considered points or at
transfer points, causing deterioration of perishable commodities. Pomprowitz
Extension-Indiana-Michigan, 301 (303).
Extension of contract carriage of petroleum products in containers, and of
filling-station equipment from Charleston, S. C., to points in certain sections of
Georgia and North Carolina, not included in the operation granted under the
"grandfather" permit, authorized when contract-shipper required regular service
to North Carolina distribution outlets and occasional service of an emergency
nature to Georgia points. S. & S. Truck Line Extension-North Carolina-
Georgia, 364 (365–366).
Denial: In the following cases, the application for authority to extend opera-
tions, as contract carriers of commodities generally, was denied:
Garford Trucking, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 672 (674); Werner
Extension-Argentine, Kans.-Lawrence, Nebr., 267.
Grant: In the following cases, extension of operations as contract carriers was
granted:
Beckler Extension-Ogallala, Nebr., 578; Bituminous Distributing Service,
Inc., Extension-New York, 477; Columbia Terminals Co. Extension-Roxana,
Ill.-St. Louis, Mo., 727; Denman Extension—Indiana, 55; Gaudette Extension
of Operations, 431; Growers Cold Storage Co., Inc., Extension of Operations,
563; Highway Exp. Co. Extension-Wilmington, N. C.-Savannah, Ga., 695;
J. & J. Refrigerator Service Extension-Hobbs, 97; Kishbaugh Extension of
Operations, 72; Olive Transfer Co. Extension of Operations, 333; Petroleum
Carrier Corp. Extension-Florida-Georgia, 232; Robertson Extension of
Operations, 617; S. & S. Truck Line Extension-North Carolina-Georgia, 364;
Sheriff Motor Co. Extension of Operations-New York-Pennsylvania, 573;
Sprout & Davis, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 677 (679–680); Stewart
& Sinclair, Inc., Extension-Delaware-Virginia, 347; Vrable Extension-
Salisbury, 53.
Partial Denial and Grant: In the following case, the application for extension
of operations as contract carrier was denied in part and granted in part: Pompro-
witz Extension-Indiana-Michigan, 301.
Operation Without Authority: See OPERATION (WITHOUT AUTHORITY).
Permit Not Required: See INTRASTATE COMMERCE and specific commodities
and operations exempted.
PERMITS: See also PUBLIC INTEREST; SAVING CLAUSES; SERVICE (ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION).
In General: Following 6 M. C. C. 124, permit was denied applicant corporation
which was formed for the sole purpose of hauling petroleum for its parent corpora-
tion in order to avoid State taxes. Miller Term. & Transp. Co. Contract Carrier
Application, 217.
The desire of a shipper to engage the services of a contract carrier, standing
alone, is not sufficient grounds for granting carrier authority to operate. Con-
solidated Freight Lines, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 305 (308).
Mere desire of an applicant to promote his private business is not sufficient
reason for granting a permit. Moore Common Carrier Application, 339.
Although applicant operating a cold-storage warehouse and freezing plant was
not engaged primarily in transportation of property, transportation was a neces-
sary incident of its business of selling, freezing, warehousing, and distributing
fresh and frozen food products. Permit for contract carriage of such products
was therefore granted upon showing that the special handling required could not
be efficiently provided by existing facilities. Growers Cold Storage Co., Inc.,
Extension of Operations, 563.
That applicant leased his transport equipment to other operators, and later
used it for his own purposes and to serve the lessees in unauthorized territory,
was not a violation of the act of such a willful character as to bar the authority
sought, considering that the operations were conducted during a period when
many operators were generally unfamiliar with the provisions of the act; author-
itative information was not easily accessible to applicant; and his demeanor and
testimony indicated a possibility that the violations were committed through
ignorance rather than willfully. Permit granted. Beckler Extension-Ogallala,
Nebr., 578 (581).
State permit issued to applicant authorizing interstate transportation of prop-
erty in Rhode Island was contingent upon receipt of permit from the Commission.
Bonoveto Common Carrier Application, 692.
The existence of contracts under which applicant has operated in the past
indicated a need for applicant's service: Baum Contract Carrier Application,
471 (472); Stauring Contract Carrier Application, 9 (10); Strock Contract Carrier
Application, 4 (5).
Denial: In the following cases, a permit to operate as a contract carrier by
motor vehicle was denied:
Alice Contract Carrier Application, 105; Capitol Motor Lines, Inc., Common
Carrier Application, 86 (88); Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc., Contract
Carrier Application, 305; De Brine Common Carrier Application, 51; Duppel
Contract Carrier Application, 595; Fanuele Contract Carrier Application, 545;
Garford Trucking, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 672 (674); Gentry
Contract Carrier Application, 638; Maitland Extension-Richmond, Va.-
North Carolina Points, 442; Miller Term. & Transp. Co. Contract Carrier
Application, 217; Norton Contract Carrier Application, 125; Oilfields Trucking
Co. Contract Carrier Application, 235; Rice Contract Carrier Application,
705; Stegall Contract Carrier Application, 475; Stone Common Carrier Appli-
cation, 169; Timmons Motor Co. Contract Carrier Application, 515; Welling
Contract Carrier Application, 203; Werner Extension-Argentine, Kans.-
Lawrence, Nebr., 267.
Dismissal: In the following cases, the application for a permit to operate as
a contract carrier by motor vehicle was dismissed:
McConville Contract Carrier Application, 22; Piccininin Contract Carrier
Application, 597.
Grant: In the following cases, a permit to operate as contract carrier by
motor vehicle was granted:
Alboum Alternate Route-Olean-Erie, 103; Arbaugh Contract Carrier
Application, 299; Badger Basin Distributors Contract Carrier Application,
181; Badman Contract Carrier Application, 342; Baum Contract Carrier
Application, 471; Beckler Extension-Ogallala, Nebr., 578; Bituminous Dis-
tributing Service, Inc., Extension-New York, 477; Bonded Freightways, Inc.,
Contract Carrier Application, 58; C. & R. Trucking Co. Contract Carrier
Application, 265; Columbia Terminals Co. Extension-Roxana, Ill.-St. Louis,
Mo., 727; Denman Extension-Indiana, 55; Gaudette Extension of Operations,
431; Gordon Contract Carrier Application, 519; Growers Cold Storage Co.,
Inc., Extension of Operations, 563; Harris Common Carrier Application, 48;
Hicks Contract Carrier Application, 752; Highway Exp. Co. Extension-Wil-
mington, N. C.-Savannah, Ga., 695; W. A. Hodgins Transfer Co. Contract
Carrier Application, 113; Holmes Contract Carrier Application, 135; J. & J.
Refrigerator Service Extension-Hobbs, 97; Kishbaugh Extension of Operations,
72; Knowlton Contract Carrier Application, 371; Harry B. Korman, Inc.,
Contract Carrier Application, 775; Lawlines, Inc., Contract Carrier Applica-
tion, 655; Lee Contract Carrier Application, 65; Mairs Contract Carrier
Application, 61; Martin Contract Carrier Application, 542; Mastroberte Com-
mon Carrier Application, 256; McConville Contract Carrier Application, 22;
McIntosh Contract Carrier Application, 123; Olive Transfer Co. Extension of
Operations, 333; Parker Common Carrier Application, 454 (455); Parsons
Contract Carrier Application, 335; Petroleum Carrier Corp. Extension-
Florida-Georgia, 232; Powell Contract Carrier Application, 7; Reliable Van &
Warehouse Co. Common Carrier Application, 141; Robertson Extension of
Operations, 617; Ryan Contract Carrier Application, 537; S. & S. Truck Line
Extension-North Carolina-Georgia, 364; Sheriff Motor Co. Extension of
Operations-New York-Pennsylvania, 573; Spingola Contract Carrier Appli-
cation, 381; Stauring Contract Carrier Application, 9; Stewart & Sinclair, Inc.,
Extension-Delaware-Virginia, 347; Strock Contract Carrier Application, 4;
Tate and Roy Contract Carrier Application, 603; Vener Contract Carrier
Application, 506; Vrable Extension-Salisbury, 53; Wallace Common Carrier
Application, 451; Wilkes-Barre Anthracite Corp. Contract Carrier Applica-
tion, 94; Wyatt Contract Carrier Application, 178.
Partial Denial and Grant: In the following cases, the application for a
permit to operate as a contract carrier by motor vehicle was denied in part and
granted in part:
Beckler Contract Carrier Application, 394 Caravans, Inc., Contract Carrier
Application, 659; Davidson Contract Carrier Application, 682; Huffman
Contract Carrier Application, 646; Kuske Contract Carrier Application, 586;
Munyan's Motor Freight, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 749; Ohmes
Contract Carrier Application, 641; Pomprowitz Extension-Indiana-Michigan,
301; Rickerd Contract Carrier Application, 145; Santolucito Contract Carrier
Application, 242; Sprout & Davis, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 677.
|