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 evidence
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 witheld pending receipt of advice
on behalf of both applicants, as to which should receive the certificate. Cross
Contract Carrier Application, 517 (529-530, 531).
The Commission would not ignore the connection between two applicants
because of their existence as separate corporations which were chartered at the
same hour on the same day, were controlled by members of a single family,
occupied the same terminals and offices, and used the same business telephone,
when the arrangement clearly resulted in unfair and destructive practices and
otherwise contravened the policy declared in sec. 202 (a) of the act.
Truck Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 591 (603).
The Commission and the courts have consistently held that corporate entities
may be disregarded where necessary to proper exercise of statutory regulatory
power. Applicant corporations were therefore considered one "person" within
definition in sec. 203 (a) (1) in determining whether grant of common-carrier
certificate to one and contract-carrier permit to the other, under the "grandfather"
clauses, would violate sec. 210 when, although each was formed in good faith for
a specific purpose, they were owned and officered by the same individuals, their
headquarters were in the same premises, and their operations were largely co-
extensive as to commodities and territory. Otherwise, the clear intent of sec.
210, in the light of the policy of sec. 202 (a), might be defeated. New York &
New Brunswick Auto Exp. Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 663 (671-672).
When common carrier and contract carrier operated under common manage-
ment and control each established "grandfather" rights to transportation of the
same commodities over the same routes, but continuance of both operations,
because of their close coordination, would violate sec. 210, applicants were per-
mitted to elect which should receive the authority sought; or, as a further alterna-
tive to avoid extinguishment of the "grandfather" rights of either, if the common
owners should completely divest themselves of control of one of the operations,
certificate and permit would be granted to the parties then entitled to receive
them, subject to Commission's approval of any transfer of "grandfather" rights.
Id. (676-677).
Substitution: Although applicant partners had incorporated subsequent to
filing of "grandfather" application and the corporation had been substituted as
applicant therein, it was not formally substituted as applicant in extension and
contract-carrier applications, since there were no transferable rights pending
determination of the "grandfather" application. However, as the partnership
was no longer in existence and the parties had indicated intent to transfer, the
other applications were considered amended to substitute the corporation as
applicant. R-B Freight Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 719 (721).
PARTNERSHIPS. See PARTIES (SUBSTITUTION).
Chartered or Special Operation: Common carriage of passengers and their
baggage, in charter service, including Girl Scouts and their supervisors, during
summer vacation season, from Camp Bonnie Brae (East Otis) and Springfield,
Mass., to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecti-
cut, and New York, and return, authorized. Longueil Common Carrier Appli-
cation, 176.
All-expense, round-trip sightseeing or pleasure tours over irregular routes,
beginning and ending at Boston, Mass., and extending to points in several eastern
States, found to be special operations as defined in sec. 207 (a). These operations
differ materially from the usual operations of the ordinary common carrier of
passengers over regular routes as they are designed to meet needs of sightseers
but not of persons desiring fast transportation between points. Rawding Lines,
Inc., Common Carrier Application, 447 (449).
The act does not require prescription of regular routes for special passenger
operations. As omission of such prescription would make operations flexible and
enable their adaptation to varying demands for service, certificate for seasonal,
round-trip sightseeing or pleasure tours, beginning and ending at Boston, Mass.,
and extending to points in certain eastern States, District of Columbia, and on
international boundary line, authorized over irregular routes. Id. (449).
Certificate for common carriage of special or chartered parties, including school
and lodge groups, from Alton, Ill., to Missouri points, denied. Although pro-
posed services would be convenient to Alton institutions whose members traveled
in special or chartered parties, substantial public convenience and necessity
therefor was not shown. Facilities and services of other carriers between Alton
and St. Louis were adequate, and grant of certificate to applicant would diminish
revenues of other motor carriers who had performed similar services for years.
Citizens Coach Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 465 (468).
Applicant seeking authority to conduct caravan tours of children was dis-
qualified for either permit or certificate when he had no assets, but liabilities of
thousands of dollars; he had not completed any past tour successfully and had had
to appeal to the children's parents for funds to bring them home; letters and
literature circulated to prospective patrons contained deliberate misrepresenta-
tions; and he had obtained permission to transport passengers through various
States under the guise of share-expense educational tours, by misrepresenting
the actual character of the operation. Georgia Caravan Camps, Inc., Contract
Carrier Application, 477.
Although charter of applicant corporation represented its purpose as educa-
tional and not for pecuniary gain, its caravan tours were not conducted on a
share-expense basis, but were financed by "tuition" collected in advance, and the
sole stock owner received all the profits, if any, from the tours. Such operations
were those of a motor carrier subject to the act. Id. (478-479).
Applicant was not exempt from regulation as a taxicab operator when, although
he was engaged in a bona fide taxicab service and, until his purchase of a 14-
passenger bus, did not own or operate any vehicle carrying more than six passen-
gers, he had used the same vehicles for interstate transportation of chartered
parties on a group basis. Applicant was therefore a common carrier of passengers
in chartered service, subject to the act. Peters Common Carrier Application,
611 (614).
COMMON CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS (with or without baggage):
In General: See also SERVICE (SUBSTITUTION OF MOTOR FOR RAIL).
Extension of common carriage of passengers, their baggage, and of express,
mail, and newspapers between Laurel, Miss., and Mobile, Ala., and between
certain points in Mississippi, by a subsidiary of Gulf, M. & N. R. Co., authorized.
Proposed through route between Mobile and Walnut, Miss., would parallel rails
of parent railroad, and traverse highways not served by any carrier. Although
every point of any size involved was served by a convenient bus line operating
east and west, north-bound and south-bound service was over circuitous routes
which required purchasing of new tickets, rechecking of baggage, change of
busses, or lay-overs. Gulf Transport Co. Extension-Laurel, Miss., 114 (117).
When two or more passenger carriers seek operating authority for the same
route in territory already served by other carriers, and the volume of interstate
traffic will not support all the proposed services, Commission, in determining
which shall be authorized, must consider not only the desires of the traveling
public for better bus service but also the probable effect of any new operation on
those of existing carriers. Toms Extension of Operation-Americus-Fort
Gaines, Ga., 119 (121–122).
Considering the expedition with which railroad suburban lines and ferries and
Hudson & Manhattan R. daily moved the mass of passenger traffic between
lower Manhattan and adjacent New Jersey counties, the importance of their
trans-Hudson service should not be minimized in passing on applications of bus
lines for authority to establish competitive services; and so long as the rail
carriers were responsive to the reasonable needs and convenience of their patrons,
their right to be protected from unnecessary competition should not be over-
looked. New Jersey-New York Bus Applications, 219 (230).
Extension authority for passenger operation between Nungesser, N. J., and
lower Manhattan, N. Y., via Holland tunnel, denied, in view of services afforded
by existing carriers, difficulties of operation in lower Manhattan, relatively high
load factor required to meet operating expenses, and diminished public need,
due to inauguration of applicant's route to and from central Manhattan via
Lincoln tunnel. Id. (237).
Applicant operating passenger service between central Manhattan and Ridge-
wood, N. J., via George Washington Bridge was denied authority for alternative
route via Lincoln tunnel. The proposed route traversed territory served by
established carriers under "grandfather" rights, and applicant's extension could
be maintained only by diversion of traffic from those carriers as well as from
its own route over the bridge. When prospective passengers already enjoyed
expeditious service to central Manhattan, authority to operate through the
Lincoln tunnel was not warranted merely because other carriers had the right
to do so. Id. (244–245).
Extension authority granted for bus operation between the southern portion
of Jersey City, N. J., and midtown Manhattan, N. Y., via Lincoln tunnel. Pro-
posed route would serve areas in Jersey City and Union City, N. J., which had
no other direct transportation service to central Manhattan, thus eliminating
interchanges and promoting the convenience of passengers. It would compete
with existing through bus lines in only a minor degree, and while it would be
more competitive with local services in New Jersey, similar competition existed
in other New Jersey suburban areas from which competitive through service had
been authorized. Id. (245-250).
"Grandfather" right for common carriage of passengers between Chicago, Ill.
and New York, N. Y., was not established when applicant disposed of his operat-
ing rights within Ohio prior to the "grandfather" date, having only a license to
operate east of Cleveland, Ohio. Crooks Common Carrier Application, 509 (511).
Denial: In the following cases, authority to transport passengers in interstate
commerce was denied:
Citizens Coach Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 465; Crooks Com-
mon Carrier Application, 509; Georgia Caravan Camps, Inc., Contract Carrier
Application, 477; Vermont Transit Co., Inc., Extension-Baldwin, N. Y., 759.
Dismissal: In the following case, application for authority to transport pas-
sengers in interstate commerce was dismissed: U-Drive-It Co. of Pennsylvanis,
Inc., Common Carrier Application, 799.
Grant: In the following cases, authority to transport passengers in interstate
commerce was granted:
Gulf Transport Co. Extension-Laurel, Miss., 114; Peters Common Carrier
Application, 611; Queen City Coach Co. Extension-Goldsboro, N. C., 537;
Rawding Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 447 (449); St. Clair Bus
Line Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 73; Schwerling Common Carrier
Application, 459; Woodlief Common Carrier Application, 645.
Partial Denial and Grant: In the following cases, authority to transport
passengers in interstate commerce was denied in part and granted in part:
Longueil Common Carrier Application, 176; New Jersey-New York Bus
Applications, 219 (250); Toms Extension of Operations-Americus-Fort
Gaines, Ga., 119.
Fares and Charges: Whether the charges of common carriers of passengers
are so high that they prevent the free flow of traffic between certain points may
not be determined in a proceeding on application for common-carrier certificate.
Citizens Coach Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 465 (468).
Mail in Same Vehicle with Passengers: See MAIL.
Private Carriage of: See TRANSPORTATION (CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIP
ROCAL).
Safety Regulations: See SAFETY (REGULATIONS TO INSURE).
Schedules: When applicant entered into "leases" with owner-drivers for use
of their passenger automobiles for an agreed number of days and engaged owners
to drive particular automobiles on specified trips, it was not intended that appli-
cant should have possession of equipment and he was not obliged to furnish any
particular trips. Car remained in owner's possession and was used in transpor-
tation of passengers procured by applicant only when a trip was acceptable to
driver. Applicant received 20 percent of total compensation from passengers.
In these operations applicant was not a carrier by motor vehicle, and his tariff
filed with Commission should be canceled. Day Broker Application, 715 (717).
School Children: See CHARtered or SpecIAL OPERATION under this heading.
Special Operation: See CHARTERED OR SPECIAL OPERATION under this
heading.
Transportation with Baggage, Express, Mail, and Newspapers: See Coм-
MON CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS under this heading.
Volume of Traffic; When available trans-Hudson services by rail, bus, and
ferry daily handled an enormous volume of passenger traffic with expedition and
apparent ease, possible increased convenience to a limited number of patrons
from proposed bus operation between Jersey City, N. J., and lower Manhattan,
N. Y., via Holland tunnel, did not warrant finding that there was a lack or serious
inconvenience in the use of existing facilities, or any considerable demand for the
proposed service from actual passengers. New Jersey-New York Bus Applica-
tions, 219 (230, 232).
A downward trend in volume of applicant's passenger traffic would not justify
invasion of territory served by other interstate bus lines unless there was a need
in that territory for additional service which the existing lines were unable or
unwilling to supply. Id. (242).
PERMITS. See CONTRACT CARRIERS (PERMITS).
PICK-UP AND DELIVERY.
Proposed reduction in prescribed minimum rate on rayon fabric between
Mechanicsville, Conn., and lower Manhattan, N. Y., to the basis of rail rates
was not justified. Motor rates included pick-up and delivery service while rail
rates did not, and no reduction was necessary to meet rail competition. New
England Motor Carrier Rates, 361 (383).
The pick-up and delivery expenses in connection with truckloads are not
comparable to those on less-than-truckload traffic. Groceries Between Phila-
delphia, Pa., and New York, N. Y., 697 (700).
Operations embracing pick-up and delivery services for rail carriers within a
terminal district were exempt from regulation under part II of the act, and author-
ity therefor was not necessary. Any operations in performance of pick-up and
delivery services for line-haul motor carriers are those of a common carrier by
motor vehicle, and authority for continuance thereof is necessary. Brady Trans-
fer & Storage Co. Common Carrier Application, 767 (771–772).
Applicant who, since prior to the "grandfather" date, had solicited, billed, and
collected interstate shipments at Denver, Colo., and turned them over to another
carrier for line haul, receiving a portion of the charges collected on such traffic,
plus full reimbursement for expense of the pick-up service, but who exercised no
control over, and assumed no part of the cost of, the line-haul operation, and no
responsibility for shipments after transfer to the line-haul truck, was not a line-
haul carrier, notwithstanding an agreement purporting to be a lease to him of the
line-haul operator's equipment. Regardless of the validity or scope of the lease,
the actual manner of operation was controlling, and applicant was not entitled
to "grandfather" authority for line-haul operation, but only for the pick-up
service. Denver-Seattle Truck Lines Common Carrier Application, 793 (796–797).
Pick-up and delivery service performed by motor carriers as agent of a railroad
or under contract with rail carriers was not subject to the Motor Carrier Act,
1935: A. J. Hamilton, Inc., Broker Application, 183; O. K. Transfer & Storage
Co. Common Carrier Application, 60 (61); Santa Fe Transp. Co. Common Carrier
Application, 746 (747); Star Cartage Co. Common Carrier Application, 202 (204).
PIPE LINES.
Stringing pipe and placing machinery along private rights-of-way of pipe-line
companies are "services" and "transportation" as defined in sec. 203 (a) (19),
which did not limit services and transportation to those upon highways. Joe D.
Hughes, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 563 (564-565).
POSTMASTER GENERAL. See MAIL.
PRACTICES. See COMPETITION ("DESTRUCTIVE OR UNFAIR").
PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE.
Dual Operation: See DUAL OPERATION.
Preferences Creating Prejudices: See DISCRIMINATION (SHIPPERS).
PRESCRIPTION OF RATES, WEIGHT, ETC., BY COMMISSION. See
MINIMUM RATES (PRESCRIPTION BY COMMISSION).
PRESUMPTIONS.
In General: Statistics, tables, and figures contained in the annual or other
reports of carriers made to the Commission as required under the Interstate
Commerce Act must be received in evidence, by virtue of the provisions of sec. 16
(13) of part I and sec. 204 (f) of part II, as prima facie evidence of what they
purport to be. Lindley Truck Co., Commodities in Midwestern States, 705 (707).
PRIVATE CARRIERS.
In General: See also TRANSPORTATION (CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIP
ROCAL).
The Commission's only authority over private carriers of property is that
granted by sec. 204 (a) (3), which is limited to prescription of regulations to
promote safety of operation. Such carriers are therefore subject to secs. 204,
205, 220, 221, 222, and 224 only to the extent necessary to the exercise of that
authority, and Commission has no right under sec. 220 to require reports from
such carriers or examine their records other than those pertaining to safety.
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations-Private Carriers, 1 (36).
|