foreign commerce, although applicant did not offer a through service and his
rates applied only on the intrastate portion of transportation performed by him.
Graham Contract Carrier Application, 575 (576).
Applicant's operation within the State of Washington was interstate commerce
when shipments were received at Seattle from other States and were consigned to
carrier for forwarding to Spokane or originated at Seattle and were destined to
Idaho or Montana, being forwarded on applicant's shipping papers to Spokane
and reshipped from that point on bills of lading showing applicant as shipper, or
were transported from Spokane to Seattle and reshipped by applicant as shipper
to ultimate destination. United Truck Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application,
591 (597).
Distribution over intrastate routes from railheads by applicant of shipments
which originated at the initial origin in common-carrier services, at common-
carrier rates named in the tariffs of forwarding companies in which applicant was
named as a participating carrier, but under contract with the carloading or for-
warding companies, was found to be an essential part of a through common-
carrier movement in interstate commerce. As shipments were marked and
tagged at the origins and consigned to final destinations, there was an intention
on the shipper's part that the movement would be continuous regardless of the
character of transportation services in which such shipments moved. The mere
incident of billing and the manner of handling such shipments could not change
the essential character of the traffic. Brady Transfer & Storage Co. Common
Carrier Application, 767 (770-771).
CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE. See CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT; PICK-UP AND
DELIVERY.
CONTRACT CARRIERS. See also FORWARDERS and particular duties or
functions by name.
Applications: See SAVING CLAUSES (APPLICATIONS, CONTRACT CARRIER) and
Permits under this heading.
Conditions and Terms of Permits: See PERMITS under this heading.
Continuance of Operation under Grandfather Clause: See SAVING CLAUSES.
Definition: The difference between common and contract carriage is inherent
in the service rendered and accounts for the different standards of regulation set
up in the act for those types of carriers, including the requirement of a showing of
public convenience and necessity for common-carrier authority and of consistence
with public interest and the policy of sec. 202 (a) for contract-carrier authority.
The act as a whole leaves no room for rendition of common-carrier service in the
guise of contract carriage: otherwise there could be no effective control of national
transportation facilities with a view to maintenance of an adequate and non-
discriminatory system, and no effective regulation of rates and charges.
Extension of Operations, 691 (695).
Dual Operation: See DUAL OPERATION.
EXTENSION OF OPERATION:
In General: See also SERVICE (ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION).
Finding in 18 M. C. C. 257, denying extension of contract-carrier service to
additional shippers and territory when no special or unusual service was offered
which could not be adequately supplied by existing transportation facilities, was
correct in principle and neither constituted a finding that the proposed service
was common carriage nor departed from the express authorization of multiple
contracts in sec. 209 (b). To permit applicant to invade the territory of estab-
lished common carriers, in the capacity of a contract carrier serving only shippers
of his choosing, would deprive them of the cream of the traffic, to their disadvan-
tage and that of the general public. Pregler Extension of Operations, 691 (693).
Grant: In the following cases, extension of operations as contract carriers
was granted:
Lattavo Extension of Operations-Pennsylvania Points, 346; J. Schulman
& Co., Inc., Extension of Operations, 605; Strawn Extension of Operations—
Ohio, 281.
Partial Denial and Grant: In the following cases, the application for exten-
sion of operations as contract carrier was denied in part and granted in part:
Fullerton Contract Carrier Application, 293; Keenan Bros., Inc., Extension-
Ohio County, W. Va., 501; Lengle Extension of Operations-Michigan, 399;
Miller Extension of Operation-Iowa and Illinois, 131; Motor Transit Corp.
Contract Carrier Application, 473; Naylor and Baker Extension-Iowa and
Wisconsin, 492; Semke Extension of Operations--Augusta, Kans., 659.
Operation Without Authority: See OPERATION (WITHOUT AUTHORITY).
PERMITS:
In General: See also SERVICe (Adequate TransportatiON).
The Commission is empowered by the act to limit contract-carrier authority to
certain classes of shippers. Decision to that effect in 19 M. C. C. 475 was con-
trolling on grant of permit to carrier transporting a wide range of commodities
for a mail-order concern and for a manufacturer of chemicals, paints, and kindred
products, and any "grandfather" authority should be restricted in the manner
prescribed in that case, with respect to both classes of shippers to be served and
commodities to be transported. New York & New Brunswick Auto Exp. Co.,
Inc., Common Carrier Application, 663 (670–671).
Denial: In the following cases, a permit to operate as a contract carrier by
motor vehicle was denied:
Brady Transfer & Storage Co. Common Carrier Application, 767; Holt
Contract Carrier Application, 323; Joe D. Hughes, Inc., Contract Carrier
Application, 563; Langer Transport Corp. Common Carrier Application, 302;
Little Contract Carrier Application, 555; M. Moran Transp. Lines, Inc.,
Common Carrier Application, 139; Russell Contract Carrier Application, 743;
Scariano Contract Carrier Application, 328; Terre Haute Union Transfer &
Storage Co. Contract Carrier Application, 653; Winfree Contract Carrier Appli-
cation, 349 (352).
Grant: In the following cases, a permit to operate as contract carrier by motor
vehicle was granted:
Baker Contract Carrier Application, 552; Clifford Common Carrier Applica-
tion, 505; Cowan Contract Carrier Application, 325; Dale Contract Carrier
Application, 736; Frank W. Edmands, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 545;
Kelley Contract Carrier Application, 463; Lattavo Extension of Operations-
Pennsylvania Points, 346; Marshall Contract Carrier Application, 319; Ogg
Contract Carrier Application, 581; R-B Freight Lines, Inc., Common Carrier
Application, 719 (723-725); Schlickman Contract Carrier Application, 90;
J. Schulman & Co., Inc., Extension of Operations, 605; Strawn Extension of
Operations-Ohio, 281; Wilgis Common Carrier Application, 87.
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:
Fullerton Contract Carrier Application, 293; Keenan Bros., Inc., Extension-
Ohio County, W. Va., 501; Kloppstein Contract Carrier Application, 289;
Lengle Extension of Operations-Michigan, 399; Miller Extension of Opera-
tion-Iowa and Illinois, 131; Motor Transit Corp. Contract Carrier Application
473; Naylor and Baker Extension-Iowa and Wisconsin, 492; Phillips Transport
Co., Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 640; Semke Extension of Operations-
Augusta, Kans., 659; Shipman Bros. Transfer Co. Contract Carrier Application,
355; Silberman and Kahn Contract Carrier Application, 56; Yunker Contract
Carrier Application, 547.
Proof: See also SAVING CLAUSES (APPLICATIONS, FILING).
Applicant seeking permit had the burden of showing that existing carriers did
not render the type or character of service which satisfies the public need, and that
the proposed service would tend to correct or substantially improve that con-
dition. Little Contract Carrier Application, 555 (556).
Private Combined with Contract Carriage: Permit authorizing contract
carriage of petroleum products from Oklahoma points to Missouri points, by
applicant engaged also as a private carrier of farm implements, was subject to
condition that the contract-carrier operation be conducted separately from appli-
cant's other activities; that a separate accounting system therefor be maintained;
and that applicant shall not transport property both public and private at the
same time in the same vehicle. Baker Contract Carrier Application, 552 (553).
Qualifications: For bona fide operation under the "grandfather" clause:
See SAVING CLAUSES (BONA FIDE OPERATION).
For list of applicants found "fit, willing, and able": See PERMITS under this
heading.
State Permits: See ROUTES (SCOPE OF OPERATION).
Tests to Determine Status: See DEFINITION under this heading.
CONTRACTS.
In General: Contracts or agreements of carriage within contract-carrier defini-
tion in sec. 203 (a) (15) must be "special and individual." Those words go to the
subject matter of the contract, and mean a special and individual service required
by the peculiar needs of a particular shipper. Otherwise they are mere sur-
plusage. Pregler Extension of Operations, 691 (695).
A common carrier may by contract, if not otherwise barred by statute, limit
or extend and enlarge the liability to which it is subject under its ordinary con-
tracts of carriage. Such special contracts must, however, be invested with all the
requirements of validity attaching to other forms of contracts. Mutual assent
and a valuable consideration must exist to support the assumption of more than
common-carrier risks, or to support a restriction or limitation of those risks.
Insurance on Alcoholic Liquors in Southern Territory, 749 (752).
Independent Contractors: "Contract carriers" who were procured by ap-
plicant to continue the physical operations after applicant's trucks were repos-
sessed, were found to be independent contractors in the absence of showing that
such operations were conducted under applicant's direction and control and
under its responsibility to the general public. White Star Freight Line, Inc.,
Common Carrier Application, 407 (408).
Pick-up and Delivery: See Pick-up and DelIVERY.
Interruption of Service: See SAVING CLAUSES (INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE).
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.
Abandonment of Rail Line and Substitution of Motor Operation: See
SERVICE (SUBSTITUTION OF MOTOR FOR RAIL).
APPLICATIONS: See also SAVING CLAUSES and Certificates under this heading.
Denial: In the following cases, the application for a certificate of convenience
and necessity was denied:
Black Hills Transp. Co. Extension of Operations-Omaha, 105; Brown Com-
mon Carrier Application, 125; Cashon Extension of Operations-Chattanooga,
Tenn., 619; Citizens Coach Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 465;
Clifford Common Carrier Application, 505; Construction Service Corp.
Common Carrier Application, 432; Crooks Common Carrier Application, 509;
Day Broker Application, 715; Georgia Caravan Camps, Inc., Contract Carrier
Application, 477; Gugler Common Carrier Application, 263; Knopp Broker
Application, 727; Kuhnhausen Extension of Operations-Glenwood, Wash.,
195; Lewis Motor Transp. Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 197;
Murphy Extension of Operations-Wool Oil Softener, 309; Mutual Transit
Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 657; Nellor Common Carrier Application,
483; O'Malley Common Carrier Application, 276; Smith Extension of Opera-
tions-Iowa and Illinois, 128; Sunrise Trail, Inc., Extension-Spokane, Wash.,
267; Taylor Common Carrier Application, 189; Terre Haute Union Transfer
& Storage Co. Contract Carrier Application, 653; Vermont Transit Co., Inc.,
Extension-Baldwin, N. Y., 759; Welsh Common Carrier Application, 404;
White Star Freight Line, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 407; Wienberger
Common Carrier Application, 587; Williams Common Carrier Application,
46; Wright Extension of Operations, 53.
Dismissal: In the following case, the application for a certificate of convenience
and necessity was dismissed: U-Drive-It Co. of Pennsylvania, Inc., Common
Carrier Application, 799.
Grant: In the following cases, the application for a certificate of convenience
and necessity was granted:
Anderson Common Carrier Application, 252; Barnes Extension of Opera-
tions-Kansas, 179; Braungart Common Carrier Application, 185; Brown
Common Carrier Application, 135; Crouthamel Common Carrier Application,
255; Fowler Common Carrier Application, 532; Graham Contract Carrier
Application, 575; Gulf Transport Co. Extension-Laurel, Miss., 114; Hanten
and Wheaton Extension-Granite Falls, Minn., 191; Houchen Common Car-
rier Application, 540; Kloppstein Contract Carrier Application, 289; Merriman
Common Carrier Application, 49; Mid-Continent Freight Lines, Inc., Ex-
tension-Champaign-Chicago, 358; Motor Freight Corp. Extension-Indiana-
polis-Terre Haute, 412; Osborne and Klein Extension-Illinois-Ohio, 63;
Peters Common Carrier Application, 611; Pregler Extension of Operations,
691; Queen City Coach Co. Extension-Goldsboro, N. C., 537; Rawding Lines,
Inc., Common Carrier Application, 447; Roberdeau Van & Storage Co.
Common Carrier Application, 397; Ross Common Carrier Application, 584;
St. Clair Bus Line Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 73; St. Johns
Motor Exp. Co. Common Carrier Application, 272; Sante Fe Transp. Co.
Common Carrier Application, 799; Schwerling Common Carrier Application,
459; Solomon Common Carrier Application, 285; Sorensen Common Carrier
Application, 111; Stone and Retland Common Carrier Application, 409;
United Truck Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 591; Wilgis Common
Carrier Application, 87; Wilson Extension of Operations, 261; Winfree Con-
tract Carrier Application, 349 (352-353); Woodlief Common Carrier Appli-
cation, 645.
Partial Denial and Grant: In the following cases, the application for a
certificate of convenience and necessity was denied in part and granted in part:
Berkseth Common Carrier Application, 343; Brady Transfer & Storage Co.
Common Carrier Application, 767; C. A. B. Y. Transp. Co. Common Carrier
Application, 495; Cross Contract Carrier Application, 517; Denver-Seattle
Truck Lines Common Carrier Application, 793; Harris Forwarding Co., Inc.,
Extension-Joliet and Chicago Heights, Ill., 67; Highway Merchandise Car-
riers, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 557; Highway Motor Freight Lines,
Inc., Common Carrier Application, 621; Jones Extension of Operation, 257;
Kensinger Common Carrier Application, 543; Langer Transport Corp. Common
Carrier Application, 302; J. J. Lawson & Sons, Inc., Extension-Steel and
Malt Beverages, 441; Longueil Common Carrier Application, 176; Victor
Lynn Transp. Co. Common Carrier Application, 762; Markley Extensions-
Wyoming-Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho, 606; Martin Motor Lines,
Inc., Common Carrier Application, 313; J. Miller Co. Common Carrier Appli-
cation, 421; M. Moran Transp. Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 139;
Motor Truck Transfer, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 709; Myers Com-
mon Carrier Application, 451; New Jersey-New York Bus Applications, 219
(250); O. K. Transfer & Storage Co. Common Carrier Application, 60; Phila-
delphia-Detroit Lines, Inc., Extension-Detroit, 211; Rabouin Extension of
Operations, 100; R-B Freight Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 719;
Richards Common Carrier Application, 487; Roy Extension of Operations—
Citrus Fruits, 515; Seibert Common Carrier Application, 136; Silver Fleet of
Memphis, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 331; Howard Sober, Inc., Exten-
sion-Allentown, Pa., 80; Star Cartage Co. Common Carrier Application, 202;
Taubert Common Carrier Application, 568; Toms Extension of Operations—
Americus-Fort Gaines, Ga., 119; Van Cleave Common Carrier Application,
340; Weaver Common Carrier Application, 788; Weinstock Common Carrier
Application, 444; Youngstown Cartage Co. Common Carrier Application, 393.
Burden of Proof: See BURDEN OF PROOF and Proof under this heading.
Certificates: See also PASSENGERS; SAVING CLAUSES (COMMODITIES, SCOPE).
A limitation in a certificate which restricts the operation to service for farmers
is inconsistent with the duties of a common carrier. Howitt Common Carrier
Application, 271.
When applicant sold its "grandfather" rights to routes between Indianapolis,
Ind., and St. Louis, Mo., and between Terre Haute, Ind., and Henderson, Ky.,
to other carriers, it was not entitled to continue operations between Terre Haute
and Indianapolis by virtue of registration of State certificate authorizing intra-
state operation over that route, inter alia. Motor Freight Corp. Extension-
Indianapolis-Terre Haute, 412 (413).
When individual applicant was president of, and through stock ownership
controlled, applicant corporation and was the principal witness in support of the
latter's "grandfather" application as well as his own; both had the same
office address and originally sought the same authority; and documentary evi-
dence showed that both had transported the same commodities between the
same points, with no separation or distinction in services actually offered the
public, both were found to be engaged in integral parts of the same operation,
and their combined services to constitute a single transportation business for
which only one certificate should be granted. Authority was therefore withheld
pending receipt of advice on behalf of both applicants, as to which should receive
the certificate. Cross Contract Carrier Application, 517 (529-530, 531).
Proposed restriction of certificate for chartered passenger operation to the use
of 6-passenger sedans, with which applicant's operations were originally conducted,
would be inconsistent with proviso of sec. 208 (a) and could not lawfully be
imposed. Peters Common Carrier Application, 611 (617).
Amendment of application to change route between Cleveland, Ohio, and
Chicago, Ill., permitted to the extent that the routes sought came within the
authorization shown in State certificates. Highway Motor Freight Lines, Inc.,
Common Carrier Application, 621 (622-623).
|