Page images
PDF
EPUB

-Orders governing filing of contracts were designed to protect competing common carriers, and in the Philadelphia area there were common carriers authorized to perform similar service, as well as general-commodity carriers, whose authority included merchandise and who were to some extent competitive; and requirement for filing would not be detrimental to the parties since sec. 220 (a) provides that contracts will not be made public. Id. (696). CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.

See also RoUTES; TRANSPORTATION.

IN GENERAL: Public need is a fact and not property of an applicant. When it has been proven by several applicants for same authority, public interest must control determination as to recipient of operating right. Were all applicants equally qualified and other things equal, authority might be granted the one most prompt in proposing and diligent in proving need for the service, but such priority must yield to public interest if from that standpoint operation by one applicant is more desirable than by another. Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (609).

APPLICATIONS: Denial: Brown Carryall Co. Com Car. Applic., 79; Royal Cadillac Service. Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 247.

Dismissal: John S. Teeter & Sons, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 200.
Grant: Babcock Ext. of Operations-Regular Route, 142.

Partial Grant: Moore Com. Car. Applic., 91.

CERTIFICATES: See also INTERCHANGE; ROUTES. It is not the function of a certificate to enumerate operations which may not be performed, and carriers may not perform an unauthorized service not expressly prohibited. Gay's Exp., Inc., v. Haigis and Nichols, 277 (280).

64

Description in "grandfather" certificate of route 'across the Hudson River" did not authorize carrier later to change its route to make use of a new facility, such as a tunnel, when it became available. The "grandfather" clause contemplates only the authorization of bona fide operations over the routes applied for, and certificate which recited as its basis a finding of past bona fide operation could not be construed to authorize one which could not be conducted on date of issuance. Manhattan Coach Lines, Inc., v. Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc., 477 (482).

Because of inevitable administrative difficulties, no certificate should be jointly held, and issuance of such certificates to commonly controlled carriers as a matter of expediency was ill-advised and contrary to public interest. Lincoln Tunnel Applics., 707 (711);

-After one of affiliated bus lines holding joint certificate acquired by merger operating rights duplicating the joint right for a certain route, but without intermediate-point authority, complaint was filed against its operation over such route as individual successor while serving intermediate points under the joint authority. As similar administrative difficulties might result from other joint certificates. Commission on own motion reopened proceedings in which such certificates had been granted. Id. (708);

-When common stockholders were the real parties in interest and none of their rights or interests would be diminished by substitution of individual certificate, Commission was not precluded from requiring them to elect which legal entity should hold their operating authority. Id. (711);

-But when persons holding majority of stock of one affiliate held no stock in the other, issuance of individual certificate to either company would diminish their portion of the joint operating right, in contravention of sec. 212 (a), unless compensating changes were made in the corporate ownership. However, as joint

581984°-45-vol. 43- -64

certificate would be a source of confusion contrary to their interest, the parties should initiate arrangements for its replacement by a certificate in name of one of the carriers. Id. (712);

-Extension authority would be granted only one of each pair of joint operators. Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike. 599 (612).

EXTENSION OF OPERATION: When applicant's operations for several years had borne small resemblance to those authorized by "grandfather" certificate, extension authority should be coordinated with the "grandfather" rights and the combined authority restated to permit a cohesive, efficient and economic operation. Hicklin Ext.-S. C., 121 (123);

-Authority denied for extension service which did not coordinate with any other operation of applicant. Id. (125).

Finding in 12 M. C. C. 184 that operation by present complainant across Hudson River through Lincoln Tunnel instead of by ferry, involving alteration of route and service to new intermediate points, was extension requiring proof of convenience and necessity, was controlling as to like change by defendant bus line. Although defendant was a long-haul carrier, it transported passengers in short-haul service between N. Y. and N. J. points under its unlimited intermediate authority, and no difference from complainant's mass transportation was shown, to render that decision inapplicable. Manhattan Coach Lines, Inc., . Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc., 477 (481).

Denial: Bianchi Com. Car. Applic., 26; Bogovich Ext.-Household Goods, 745; Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (618, 624).

Grant: Cox Ext.-Okla. and La., 669; Fitterling Transp. Co., Ext.-DetroitElkhart, 581; Illinois Central R. Co. Ext.-Iowa, Minn., and S. Dak., 767; Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (611, 624); Rogers Cartage Co., Ext.-Petroleum Products, 749; Southeastern Motor Lines, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 37.

Partial Grant: Burlington Transp. Co. Ext.-Ill., Iowa, and Mo., 729; Carolina Frt. Carriers Corp. Com. Car. Applic., 221 (238); Greenfield Com. Car. Applic., 555; Herrin Transfer & Whse. Co., Inc., Ext.-Household Goods. 47; Hicklin Ext.-S. C., 121; Interstate Truck Service, Inc., Com. Car. Applic. 375; Liberty Trucking Co. Ext.-North-South Routes, 740; Marcell Ext.-Rutland-Burlington, Vt.. 283; Newton Ext.-Frozen Foods, 787; Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (612); Railway Exp. Agency, Inc., Ext.-JacksonSaginaw, 416; Rock Island Motor Transit Co., Ext.-Trenton, Mo., 470; Somerset Bus Co. Inc., Ext.-Somerville-New York, 543; Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 203 (212).

PROOF: Operations under color of "grandfather" rights are not unlawful and may be considered as evidence of need for their continuance; but weight to be accorded such evidence depends on its relation to other evidence of convenience and necessity and is not controlling. Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 203 (212); Moore Com. Car. Applic., 91 (103, 104); Royal Cadillac Service. Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 247 (249, 253);

-Past operation over alternate route was some evidence of need for applicant's service, but inherent operating economies constituted stronger evidence of convenience and necessity when authority was sought for operating convenience only. Burlington Transp. Co. Ext.-Ill., Iowa, and Mo., 729 (731);

-While need for continuance of rail-auxiliary service between break-bulk points and way stations was established by both past operation and public-witness testimony, past operation alone did not show need for service between important cities. Id. (732);

-Past operations under normal conditions should be given greater consideration when traffic had declined because of wartime conditions. Hicklin Ext.-S. C., 121 (123).

The act requires affirmative showing of convenience and necessity for proposed service, and it may not be presumed from failure of existing motor carriers to oppose application or appear at hearing. Burlington Transp. Co. Ext.-Ill., Iowa, and Mo., 729 (736); Brown Carryall Co. Com. Car. Applic. 79 (81).

REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES: Mere allegation of defendant's abandonment of operation and failure to file and post tariffs, without proof, afforded no basis for issuance of compliance order under sec. 204 (c) or revocation of certificate under sec. 212 (a), notwithstanding defendant's failure to appear at hearing. Joint Northeastern Motor Car. Assn., Inc., v. Rose Transp. Co., 487 (488).

Authority for transportation of household goods between N. J. counties and seaboard States was revoked for discontinuance of operations, when affidavit responsive to compliance order failed to show bona fide resumption; but carrier was permitted to continue local interstate service corresponding to its local intrastate service, a few such shipments having been transported. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. William Schafer & Son, Inc., 657.

CORPORATIONS. See COMMON CARRIERS (Qualifications); CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Certificates).

COST OF SERVICE. See also ASSEMBLING AND DISTRIBUTION RATES; CLASS RATES (Minimum-Rate Restriction); CONTRACT CARRIERS (Minimum Rates or Charges); INCREASED RATES; JOINT RATES AND FARES; SALARIES AND WAGES. APPORTIONMENT: Allocation of collection-and-delivery costs entirely to 1. t. l. shipments was proper if wages of drivers and helpers on line-haul vehicles engaged in pick-up or delivery of volume shipments were excluded. But inclusion of pick-up-and-delivery costs on volume shipments in line-haul costs, and apportionment of line-haul expenses between 1. t. 1. and volume shipments on mileage basis, resulted in overstatement of costs for the former and understatement for the latter. Increased Rates, Hayes Frt. Lines, 173 (177, 183).

ASCERTAINMENT: Estimated cost of transporting small shipments, which did not Include line-haul carrier's platform, general administrative, billing, or other important expenses, was of little evidentiary value in determining a reasonable minimum charge. Minimum Charges in Central Territory, 145 (151).

FACTOR IN REASONABLENESS: Average cost per truck-mile for all traffic is of little value in determining reasonableness of rates on any particular class of traffic Minimum Rate Restrictions to. from, within Southwest, 161 (165); Transamerican Frt. Lines, Classes in Central Territory. 189 (197);

-But it should fairly reflect costs on a commodity constituting 38 percent of carrier's traffic. Leather, Sault Ste. Marie to Chicago and Milwaukee, 131 (134). Evidence of increased operating costs, though not based on detailed records, was entitled to weight when carrier was generally familiar with his expenses. Bentonite from Mont. and Wyo. to S. Dak.. 321 (322).

Although cost information is important and helpful in determining reasonable rates, it is unnecessary when a conclusion can be reached on other pertinent data. Boots, Moccasins, Shoes, and Rubbers between Mass. Points. 681 (683). COURTS. See DAMAGES; LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

DAMAGES. See also LIMITATION OF ACTIONS; REMEDIES; SCHEDULES (Applicability and Interpretation). Commission may make administrative determination of lawfulness of rates charged on past shipments, as basis for a suit for damages. Schaefer, Inc., v. C. A. Conklin Truck Line, Inc., 333 (334);

-Such jurisdiction derives from the general powers expressly conferred in secs. 216 (b), (d), and (e) and 204 (a) (6), (c), and (d), particularly the power under sec. 204 (c) to investigate noncompliance with any provision of part II and require compliance, as well as from powers reasonably implicit in the act as a whole. Bell Potato Chip Co. v. Aberdeen Truck Line, 337 (341);

-While a shipper injured by exaction of an unlawful motor rate must seek redress in the courts, determination of past unlawfulness is not left exclusively to the courts, as such actions, being transitory, are justiciable in many jurisdictions, and if uniformity of motor rates is to be maintained, lawfulness of either past or present rates must be determined by a single tribunal. Id. (342);

-Principle of 204 U. S. 426, that independent determination by courts and juries would cause confusion, and that damages for exaction of an unreasonable rate are not recoverable without prior determination by Commission of the reasonable rate whereby they may be measured, was translated into legislative grant by part II, which, by requiring carriers to maintain reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, confers basic authority to find past unlawfulness, even though procedural authority is withheld. Id. (342);

-As Commission's determination of past unreasonableness, unjust discrimination, or undue prejudice is not self-executing, its jurisdiction in adversary proceedings involving those issues is usually invoked to lay groundwork for a court judgment. Therefore, to prevent filing of frivolous or moot complaints, such proceedings should not be brought prior to institution of a suit for damages, based on allegations of the complaint. Id. (343).

DENSITY. See also BULKY ARTICLES; RATE COMPARISONS.

WEIGHT OF ARTICLES: Requirements of the act as to classifications and rates do not distinguish between light-and-bulky and heavy-and-dense commodities, and charges based on a magnified and artificial constructive weight are unreasonable. Articles of bulk disproportionate to weight can be made to bear their just share of transportation costs through proper classification ratings and charges based on actual weights. Bell Potato Chip Co. v. Aberdeen Truck Line, 337 (346).

Rail classification principle that weight per cubic foot is more important than value per pound applies with greater force to motor transportation in view of smaller capacity of equipment. Id. (347).

Restriction of commodity rates on fiber wallboard not to apply to board over % inch thick, or, alternatively, with density less than 20 pounds a cubic foot, resulting in application of third-class rates, found not justified when shipping density of wallboard does not necessarily decrease with increase in thickness, and carrier's classification formula assigned a rating of fourth class to articles with densities of 15 to 20 pounds. Wallboard to and from New England, 763. DESTINATION. Rule that rates to Detroit would also apply to other points named was a tariff device to avoid listing all grouped points in each rate item, and did not establish the Detroit commercial area as one destination. Each locality referred to was as distinct a destination as if specifically named in rate item, and pool-truckload rate to Detroit did not cover distribution to more than one point in the group. Federal Glass Co. v. Cleveland, C. & C. Highway, Inc., 721 (725). DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS. See EVIDENCE (Abstracts). DIFFERENTIAL RATES. PICK-UP AND DELIVERY: Differentials between pick-up-and-delivery rates and rates including delivery only, on similar articles from common origins, should be uniform. When rates generally include pick-up and delivery, such differential should not exceed carrier's cost of performing pickup service, or a reasonable allowance to shipper. Boots, Shoes, and Paints in New England, 627 (635).

DISCRIMINATION.

DISTANCE.

See INSURANCE; INTRASTATE COMMERCE; USE.
See also GROUPS AND GROUP RATES; INCREASED RATES.
RATE COMPARISONS: Except in special circumstances, rates higher for a shorter
than for a longer haul, or the same for hauls of widely varying lengths, should not
be approved. Boots, Moccasins, Shoes, and Rubbers between Mass. Points, 681
(682).

SHORT-LINE: Transportation over circuitous routes for carriers' own convenience
does not justify rates based on distances other than over most direct routes.
Boots, Shoes, and Paints in New England, 627 (634).

DIVISIONS OF RATES. BASIS: General observance by lines operating
between Ga. and Ala. of a prorate of first-class rates to and from interchange
point as basis for divisions of joint rates from points beyond Atlanta raised a
prima facie presumption of reasonableness that was not rebutted. Defendant's
demand for an additional 10 percent of joint revenue was unreasonable and inequi-
table. Dixie Frt. Lines, Inc., v. George Strange Frt. Lines, Inc., 574 (575).

EVIDENCE: Carrier demanding divisions higher than those generally received
for similar service should be prepared to present substantial evidence in rebuttal
of evidence indicating that they are unlawful. Dixie Frt. Lines, Inc., v. George
Strange Frt. Lines, Inc., 574 (575).

DUAL OPERATION. See also BROKERS (Licenses).

COMMONLY CONTROLLED CARRIERS: Elimination, from certificates of common
carriers commonly controlled with a contract carrier, of duplicative rights between
Toledo and two Mich. counties, would not meet objections to dual operation, as it
would not prevent them from interchanging traffic for those counties at Toledo, or
operating between the common points and other points on their lines. All
authority for the common points should be eliminated from the common carriers'
certificates, or the parent company should divest itself of control of the contract
carrier. Consolidated Cartage & Stor Co. Dual Operations. 700 (704).
DUTY OF CARRIER. See PASSENGERS (Through Routes).

ECONOMY. See BULKY ARTICLES; CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Proof).
ELECTION. See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Certificates).
EMERGENCIES See OPERATION (Temporary); RAIL AND MOTOR.
EQUIPMENT. See also Common CARRIERS (Qualifications); RETURN LOADING;
SAVING CLAUSES (Bona Fide Operation) (Commodities, Scope); and Definition
under BROKERS and CONTRACT CARRIERS.

COMBINATION VEHICLES: Tractor and tank trailer should be considered one
vehicle for purpose of exemption under sec. 203 (b) (6) when trailer was used
exclusively for transporting an agricultural commodity, although tractor was also
used in hauling nonexempt commodities. Derr Contr. Car. Applic., 437 (442).

RESTRICTION: Commission is not precluded by proviso of sec. 208 (a) from re-
stricting motor carriers, except those performing special operations, to certain
types of equipment, in order to describe the service to be rendered. That proviso
does not prohibit specification of types, but only limitations on additions within
types authorized. Campus Travel, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 421 (423).
EVIDENCE. See also BURDEN OF PROOF; CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
(Proof); DIVISIONS OF RATES.
ABSTRACTS: When records of applicant's predecessor had been destroyed by
receiver in bankruptcy under court order, tabulation of shipments filed with
application and based on original shipping papers examined by Commission's
agent before their destruction, and tabulation of subsequent shipments based on
manifests made available at hearing, were considered as evidence of "grandfather"
operations. Shawmut Transp. Co., Com. Car. Applic., 6 (8).

« PreviousContinue »