LOSS AND DAMAGE. See ASSEMBLING and DistribuTION RATES; REASON
MANAGERIAL DISCRETION. See INITIATION OF RATES.
See INTRASTATE COMMERCE; LESS THAN TRUCKLOAD. MINIMUM RATES. See also CLASS RAtes; Contract Carriers.
IN GENERAL: When rates are assailed as lower than a reasonable minimum, predominant question is whether they are reasonably compensatory. Minn.-N. Dak. Motor Carrier Rates, 289 (304).
Rates of certain common and contract carriers on groceries from Twin Cities to Fargo and Grand Forks, N. Dak., found unreasonably low, and reasonable minimum rates determined for minimum weight of 20,000 pounds without predjuice to a higher minimum weight, capable of loading in a single vehicle, for a rate yielding not less than 14 cents a truck-mile for round-trip distance. In view of limited scope of such findings, and general finding of undue prejudice, no order was entered, but carriers should establish approved basis within 60 days. Id. (305).
MINIMUM WEIGHTS. See also MINIMUM RATES.
INABILITY TO LOAD MINIMUM: Class-rate minimum of 20,000 pounds on glassware was unreasonable when complainant could not always load that amount on defendant's largest vehicle. Reasonable minimum was 18,000 pounds prescribed for commodity rates, on shipments prior to prescribed reduction to 15,000 pounds, and latter minimum thereafter. Federal Glass Co. v. Cleveland, C. & C. Highway, Inc., 721 (722. 723, 725).
RATE FACTORS WITH DIFFERENT MINIMA: Rule that when different minimum weights were provided by east and west ratings governing two-factor class rates between Ill. and w. t. 1. territories, the higher would apply to the through rate, approved, as it would not result in unreasonable charges since amounts tendered usually met that minimum. Minimum Rate Restrictions to, from, within Southwest, 161 (166).
See COMMODITIES (Description).
MOOT CASES. See DAMAGES; INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION.
MUNICIPALITIES. See also TERMINAL AREAS. Motor carriers may law-
fully maintain different rates to different zones or areas in the same municipality.
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Advance Transp. Co. of Wis., 186 (188).
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD. See SALARIES AND WAGES.
OFFICE OF DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION.
See RAIL AND MOTOR.
OFF-ROUTE POINTS. See TRANSPORTATION (Adequate Service).
OIL-FIELD EQUIPMENT. See SPECIAL SERVICES.
OPERATING RATIOS. See INCREASED RATES.
OPERATING RIGHTS. See Also BROKERS; BURDEN OF PROOF; COMMON CARRIERS (Qualifications); CONTRACT CARRIERS (Permits); CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; HEARING; OPERATION; PASSENGERS; PURCHASE; ROUTES (Radial vs. Nonradial); SAVING CLAUSES.
MULTIPLE AUTHORITY PRohibited:
Applicants engaged in ostensibly separate operations, but having common owners and actually conducting only one business are entitled to but one operating authority. Bekins Van & Stor. Co. Com. Car. Applic., 401 (408, 413). STATE: While possession of intrastate authority over a proposed route does not alone justify grant of interstate authority, it is an element to be considered, particularly when no other carrier provides similar interstate service in the affected territory. Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (610, 623).
OPERATION. See also COMMODITIES; CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; Dual
OPERATION; ROUTES; SAVING CLAUSES; and particular kinds of service or
carriers.
BONA FIDE: It is fundamental that carrier status requires not only a holding
out with ability and willingness to transport, but also some actual transportation
consistent therewith. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. William Schafer & Son.
Inc., 657 (659);
-And a bona fide local operation should be marked by greater consistency of
movement than a long-haul service. Id. (659);
-To publish rates and hold out to the public as a carrier to the extent possible
with available equipment does not constitute compliance with certificate, in
absence of actual operation amounting to bona fide continuous and adequate
service. R. D. Fowler Motor Lines. Inc., v. Colonial Motor Frt. Lines, Inc.,
781 (784).
Compliance affidavit failed to establish bona fide resumption of operations when
assertion that interstate authority from destination States had been arranged for
was offset by failure to show that carrier's one truck had been licensed in any such
State or that licensing was unnecessary; reference to "my truck" negatived avail-
ability for long-haul service of any equipment not fully engaged locally; and
affiant's assertion as to solicitation was offset by failure to show any advertisement
such as would be expected in a bona fide attempt to perform service of scope
authorized. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. William Schafer & Son, Inc., 657
(659);
-That nature of household-goods traffic might make it difficult for carrier to
develop any substantial volume, or even traffic to all authorized States. in 2
months after service of recommended report and compliance order. did not ex-
plain failure to show any long-haul service; and transportation of only three
local shipments in 1 week and none in the following 6 raised doubt as to bona
fide resumption of any operations. Id. (659).
JOINT: When separate legal entities conducting a joint operation had identical
stockholders whose percentage of interest in each company was about the same
Commission was warranted in looking through the corporate structures to
determine that the persons back of them, and the beneficiaries of their single
operating right, were the real parties in interest. Lincoln Tunnel Applics., 707
(711).
TEMPORARY: See also BURDEN OF Proof. When no need for permanent
extension of authority as a household-goods carrier was shown, but abnormal
demands for service between eastern Wash and adjacent States resulted from
Government construction projects and establishment of war facilities. Commis-
sion, on own motion considered issuance of temporary authority for that territory
Bogovich Ext.-Household Goods. 745 (746, 748).
Holder of temporary wartime permit need not defer application for permanent
authority until termination of the war appears imminent, as application may be
filed at any time. Major Contr. Car. Applic., 795 (799).
UNAUTHORIZED: See also RAIL AND MOTOR; ROUTES (Radial vs. Nonradial)
(Substitution or Change); THROUGH ROUTES. Operation under color of a claimed
"grandfather" right was not unlawful although showing of past service was in-
sufficient to prove that right. Carolina Frt. Carriers Corp. Com. Car. Applic..
221 (236).
ORDERS. See TARIFF CIRCULARS.
OVERCHARGES.
See SCHEDULES (Applicability and Interpretation).
PARCEL SERVICE. See Common Carriers (Definition, etc.); SERVICE.
PARTIES. See also BURDEN OF PROOF; INTERVENTIONS; PURCHASE.
APPLICANTS: When each of competing applicants would be able to render
needed through bus service in connection with a proposed route, but traffic
would support only one operation, authority was granted that one which already
furnished intrastate service over the route, had aided in development of the terri-
tory, and could perform interstate service at virtually no additional cost.
Public Service Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (609, 622);
-Successfu' applicant for alternate route had been the first to file application;
its showing of public need, while weaker than that of the others, was sufficient;
and its service required only rerouting of busses from alternate operating route,
whereas the others would probably have to curtail service on existing routes. Id.
(610);
-Diversion of traffic from other extension applicant would not be serious and
would be outweighed by benefit to the public, whereas grant to that one, by divert-
ing intrastate traffic from the one already operating, would jeopardize latter's
operation. Id. (622).
DEFENDANTS: Carrier was a proper defendant although assailed rules were
restricted not to apply over its local routes, when they applied on shipments
transported by it under a through-route arrangement. Carriers participating
in tariffs containing the rules were also proper defendants although they had not
demanded charges under the rules. Bell Potato Chip Co. v. Aberdeen Truck
Line, 337 (338).
PASSENGERS.
See also CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Extension of Opera-
tion); ROUTES; SERVICE; TRANSPORTATION.
CHARTERED OR SPECIAL OPERATION OR PARTIES: Although "grandfather"
authority for charter operation had been limited to origin area outside applicant's
regular-route territory, on ground that rights from latter territory were protected
by sec. 208 (c), the regular-route authority was seasonal only, and under rule VI
of charter-party regulations incidental authority flowing from sec. 208 (c) was
likewise limited. As applicant's charter operations were not limited to a season,
specific nonseasonal authority was granted for all territories to which it proved
"grandfather" rights. Campus Travel, Inc.. Com. Car. Applic., 421 (425).
Charter operation to Del. and W. Va. authorized, although past service had
been infrequent, since they were in same general territory as States to which fairly
consistent service had been rendered, but denied to Ill. when no service had been
performed during a 2-year period subsequent to the "grandfather" date and it
was two States removed from the rest of the destination territory. Id. (426).
Door-to-door service, operated on schedule only when passengers are available,
is a special operation within sec. 207 (a), and is particularly desirable for family
groups including small children or aged or infirm persons. Greenfield Com. Car.
Applic., 555 (558, 561).
COMMON CARRIAGE: Extension authority under which applicant could render
through bus service from nearby N. J. points to New York City, granted when
long-haul bus lines operating through affected communities made no attempt to
render local service. While volume of traffic was problematical, in view of com-
petition of direct rail commuter service and motor-rail service with interchange
at Newark, those communities were entitled also to through motor service.
Somerset Bus Co., Inc., Ext.-Somerville-New York, 543 (545, 549).
Denial: Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (618, 624);
Royal Cadillac Service, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 247.
Grant: Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (611, 624);
Somerset Bus Co., Inc., Ext.-Somerville-New York, 543.
Partial Grant: Campus Travel, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 421; Greenfield Com.
Car. Applic., 555; Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599
(612)
THROUGH ROUTES: Passenger carriers have no duty under sec. 216 (a) to estab-
lish through routes merely to enable a connecting line to share in transportation
which they can perform, and provisions of sec. 216 (e) as to prescription of through
routes require more than mere showing that additional routes would be created.
Wolzinger v. Burlington Transp. Co., 51 (54);
-Prescription of through routes and joint fares between points on complainant's
circuitous route from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City and points beyond on lines
of defendants having more direct single or join routes from Los Angeles was not
warranted when defendants' facilities and service were adequate and additional
route would deprive them of some traffic, whereas lack of through routes had not
affected complainant's raffic. That complainant's lower fares to Salt Lake City
resulted in combinations lower than defendants joint fares and procured it some
through traffic did not establish need for prescription of through routes. Id. (53).
VOLUME OF TRAFFIC: Authority for year-round sedan service to vacation
resort was justified by overcrowding of trains and busses on week ends and holi-
days, and by absence of other suitable service for family groups or infirm persons.
Greenfield Com. Car. Applic., 555 (561);
-But authority for bus service to a resort area was denied when established
carriers were able to handle normal traffic. Wartime congestion and shortage
of equipment on week ends and holidays tended at most to show merely a tem-
porary need for additional service. Royal Cadillac Service, Inc., Com. Car.
Applic., 247 (259).
PERMITS. See CONTRACT CARRIERS; OPERATION (Temporary).
PICK-UP AND DELIVERY. See COST OF SERVICE (Apportionment); DiFFER-
ENTIAL RATES; TERMINAL AREAS.
POLICY. See INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION.
POOL TRUCK SHIPMENTS. See DESTINATION.
PRACTICE OF LAW. See APPEARANCES; WITNESSES.
PRACTICES. See BROKERS (Fees): COMPETITION: TRANSIT.
PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE. See ASSEMBLING AND DISTRIBUTION
RATES; BULKY Articles; Groups and GROUP RATES; USE.
PRESUMPTIONS. See BURDEN OF PROOF; CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
(Proof); DIVISIONS OF RATES; RATE COMPARISONS; TRANSIT.
PRICES. Rationing and ceiling prices on shoes did not warrant their exclusion
from general rate increase. While not all other commodities were rationed,
nearly all were subject to price ceilings. and their manufacturers were faced with
same conditions. Increased Com. Car. Truck Rates in New England, 13 (20).
PRIVATE CARRIERS. DEFINITION AND TESTS OF STATUS: Although private-
carrier definition in sec. 203 (a) follows the definitions of common and contract
carriers, which it specifically excludes from the private-carrier class. and which
therefore must be considered first, no conclusion as to their application need be
reached before the private-carrier definition can even be considered. Kline Contr.
Car. Applic., 451 (455).
All issues of for-hire versus private carriage should be determined on basis of
the operator's primary business and receipt of compensation identifiable as for
transportation is not controlling. Id. (456);
-Applicant primarily engaged in supplying a paper mill with pulpwood was
a private carrier in transporting it from point of purchase to the mill. Marcellus
Contr. Car. Applic., 128 (129);
-Applicant which had curtailed its own quarry operations during the war and
purchased stone for resale, under an agency arrangement, was a private carrier
in making deliveries to its customers, as such arrangement was temporary and
not an abandonment of its primary business. Moreover, 90 percent of its inter-
state business involved no transportation, and such as it performed was incidental
to its stone business and not for profit. John S. Teeter & Sons, Inc., Com. Car.
Applic., 200;
-Transportation of dress materials from jobbers' premises in N. Y. to appli-
cant's plant in N. J., and of finished dresses to the jobbers, was private carriage
incidental to his primary business as a dress manufacturer. He received no
compensation identifiable as for transportation, since cost of operating his truck
was included in his price quotations as nonproductive expense, regardless of
whether any transportation was performed. Klien Contr. Car. Applic., 451 (456).
PROCEDURE. See DAMAGES; INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION.
PROFIT FACTOR IN REASONABLENESS: The general rate level should be
adjusted to permit profitable operations in the future, and not to reimburse
carriers for past losses. Increased Com. Car. Truck Rates in New England, 13
(22).
A carrier operating at a loss cannot do so indefinitely without impairing or
destroying its ability to render an essential common-carrier service, and should
be permitted to increase its rates. Increased Rates. Hayes Frt. Lines, 173 (182).
PROTEST. See BROKERS (Proof, etc.); CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Proof).
PUBLIC INTEREST. See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (In General);
INSURANCE.
PURCHASE. See also COMMON CARRIERS (Qualifications); HEARING; RAIL AND
MOTOR. Sale of "grandfather" claims and substitution of vendee as applicant
is approved without passing on rights which may ultimately be confirmed. and
without determining whether operation over claimed routes has been continuous
since the "grandfather" date. Southeastern Motor Lines. Inc., Com. Car.
Applic.. 37 (39).
When petition for reopening of purchase proceeding indicated intent of parties
to embrace in the transaction all "grandfather" rights which might be confirmed
in vendor, and not merely those previously confirmed and authorized to be sold
to vendee. purchase of additional rights confirmed in reopened "grandfather"
proceeding was approved. Wallace Com. Car. Applic., 307 (308. 313).
QUESTIONNAIRES. See EVIDENCE (Hearsay).
RADIAL AND NONRADIAL OPERATIONS.
RAIL AND MOTOR. COORDINATION: Specification of key points on connect-
ing authorized routes, beyond termini of proposed route, in restricting extension
authority to prevent all-motor operation between points on the combined routes,
did not go beyond scope of extension application and would not diminish appli-
cant's rights over combined routes. Rock Island Motor Transit Co., Ext.-
Trenton, Mo.. 470 (474).
Although removal of restrictions against operation of all-motor service by
railroad subsidiary over its combined routes was not warranted, key-point condi-
tion was substituted for rail-haul condition when the latter prevented elimination
of way-freight train service. Id. (474, 475).
When approval of purchases of operating rights by railroad subsidiary reserved
right to impose future restrictions to confine service to rail-auxiliary, operation of
independent motor service over routes so acquired was unauthorized and should
be discontinued. Campbell Sixty-Six Exp., Inc., v. Frisco Transp. Co., 641 (647.
-Failure to impose precise restrictions on operation under the purchased
rights was unimportant to lawfulness of the independent motor service, in view
of that reservation and reference in the certificates to orders in the purchase
proceedings. Id. (653);
|