« PreviousContinue »
Pago Robinson Storage Corp. Common Carrier Application, 11 M. C. C. 797... 159 Rock Island Motor Transit Co. Extension-Trenton, Mo., 33 M. C. C. 506.
470 Rocky Mountain Lines, Inc., Ext.-- Alcoholic Liquors, 27 M. C. C. 57...... 607 Rogers Cartage Co. Ext.-Missouri, Indiana, and Iowa, 27 M. C. C. 276... 750
St. Louis and Iowa, 27 M. C. C. 276. See Rogers Cartage Co. Ex
tension of Operations-Missouri, Indiana, and Iowa. Ross Motor Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 43 M. C. C. 828..... 235 Royal Cadillac Service, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 30 M. C. C. 469; 34 M. C. C. 787-...
248 Rubin and Greenfield Common Carrier Application, 33 M. C. C. 383.
561 Rugs and Matting from East to W. T. L. Territory, 31 M. C. C. 193; 34 M. C. C. 641...
540 Salant v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 177 N. Y. S. 475...
456 Scrip Books, Exchange of Coupons, 28 M. C. C. 363..
52 Service Mutual Liability Ins. Co. o. United States, 18 Fed. Supp. 613.
360 Shawmut Transp. Co., Inc.-Common Carrier Application, 34 M. C. C. 569 6 o. Interstate Commerce Commission, 49 Fed. Supp. 831..
7 Smith Bros. Revocation of Certificate, 22 M. C. C. 524..
785 Smoky Mountain Tours Co. Extension-Gatlinburg, Tenn., 27 M. C. C. 435...
428 Southeastern Motor Lines, Inc.—Com. Car. Application, 41 M. C. C. 671.. 37
Extension of Operations. 41 M. C. C. 671. See Southeastern Motor
Common Carrier Application.
343 Steiner, Inc., 0. - Alton & S. R., 229 I. C. C. 407....
326 Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 229 I. C. C. 143..
326 Sterling Exp., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 17 M. C. C. 379...
409 Stop-off Rule, Central and Southern Territories, 34 M. C. C. 193.
274 To Unload Grain on Missouri Pacific, 241 I. C. C. 291.
331 Substituted Freight Service, 232 I. C. C. 683..
648 Sullivan County Highway Line, Inc., Com. Car. Application, 30 M. C. C. 133.....
253 Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, Inc. - Common Carrier Application, 41 M. C. C. 830...
203 Extension-Bessemer, 41 M. C. C. 830. See Sullivan, Long & Hag
erty, Inc., Common Carrier Application. Texas & Pacific M. Transport Co. Com. Car. Application, 41 M. C. C. 721..
473, 649, 737 Texas & P. Ry. Co.v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426..
342 Thomas Trucking Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 24 M. C. C. 808. 44 Tompkins Co. Common Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 349.
210 Transport Corp. of Virginia Extension- Maryland, 29 M. C. C. 810.... 716 United Parcel Service of Pa., Inc., Contr. Car. Application, 10 M. C. C. 83; 20 M. C. C. 799; 22 M. C. C. 243..
87, 690 United States v.-Carolina Freight Carriers Corp, 315 U. S. 475.
207, 222, 234, 309, 500, 590, 718 Chicago Heights Trucking Co., 310 U. S. 344..
529 United Van Service Common Carriers Application, 3 M. C. C. 589...
675 W. A. Barrows Porcelain Enamel Co. v. Cushman M. Delivery, 11 M. C. C. 365.--.
Wallace-Common Carrier Application, 26 M. C. C. 827; 29 M. C. C. 828
Extension of Operations, Mississippi, 26 M. C. C. 827; 29 M. C.
828. See Wallace Common Carrier Application. Westwood Transp. Co., Lincoln Tunnel Extension, 12 M. C. C. 184. Se
Lincoln Tunnel Applications. Westwood Transp. Lines, Inc., Lincoln Tunnel Extension, 12 M. C. C
184. See Lincoln Tunnel Applications. W. H. Tompkins Co. Common Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 349. Woitishek Common Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 193........ 129, 2 Wolzinger Common Carrier Application, 30 M. C. C. 55. Woodruff and Hadden Self-Insurance, 28 M. C. C. 649.. Wool Rates Investigation, 1923, 91 I. C. C. 235.Worcester Storage Co. Broker Application, 30 M. C. C. 87. Zimmerman Contract Carrier Application, 28 M. C. C. 233.. Zimmerman, Lucy F., Administratrix, Extension of Operation-Michigan,
28 M. C. C. 233. See Zimmerman Contract Carrier Application. Zimmerman Trucking Service, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 826...
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS—MOTOR CARRIER CASES
HENRY J. FRIEDMAN BROKER APPLICATION
Submitted October 12, 1942. Decided November 3, 1943
On further hearing, continuance of operation by applicant as a broker of trans
portation by motor vehicle found not consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. Findings in prior report, 30 M. C. C. 514, denying the application, affirmed. Isadore H. Schwartz for applicant, and other appearances shown in prior report.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FURTHER HEARING DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 5:
Exceptions to the order recommended by the examiner on further hearing were filed by protestant, and applicant replied thereto. Our conclusions differ from those recommended.
By application filed February 6, 1936, as amended, Henry J. Friedman, of Philadelphia, Pa., doing business as 0. Henry & Co., seeks a license authorizing operation as a broker of transportation by motor vehicle of general commodities, except those of unusual value, and except livestock, explosives, commodities in bulk, those requiring special equipment other than refrigeration, and those injurious or contaminating to other lading, in interstate or foreign commerce. Rail carriers in trunk-line territory oppose the application.
In the prior report herein, 30 M. C. C. 514, we found that applicant had failed to show that his operation in the manner described as a broker of transportation would be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy and entered and order denying the application. Thereafter, on petition of applicant, the prior order denying the application was vacated and set aside, and the proceeding reopened for further hearing.
As stated in the prior report, applicant entered the brokerage business in 1931. Since that time he has maintained an office in Philadelphia, and by personal solicitation and advertising has regularly arranged for the transportation of general freight moving between Philadelphia and points within 10 miles thereof, on the one hand, and points in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and the other.
Applicant operates no motor-vehicle equipment and routes traffic only over the lines of duly authorized common carriers. However, he performs a comprehensive service for shippers who patronize him. He advises them with respect to the routes, rates, and packing requirements of the motor carriers which he may select for a given service, and in case of loss or damage, prepares their claim papers. He checks carriers' insurance policies to be sure the shipper is amply protected, watches c. o. d. collections to be sure that they are remitted promptly, and advises when shipments should or should not be consolidated to obtain the lowest rate. In some instances he supplies blank bills of lading to shippers. In some cases carriers are instructed to bill applicant, rather than the shipper, for their freight charges. In such instances applicant checks the rates and presents the shipper with one itemized bill covering a number of shipments, thus simplifying the shippers' handling. For all shippers, applicant apparently undertakes the responsibility of checking carriers' freight bills to ascertain whether the proper charges have been assessed. The consensus of the testimony by representatives of the seven shippers introduced at the original hearing was that the applicant relieved them of detail work incidental to the transportation of their products and was a convenience to their business. None of these shippers, however, pays applicant anything for these benefits.
It is agreed by the parties that applicant's operations, so far as they relate to the services performed for shippers, are accurately described in the prior report. The evidence developed at the initial hearing, however, did not establish that applicant performs any service for motor carriers other than solicitation.
The motor carriers represented at the further hearing were (1) Mike Tose and Louis Tose, doing business as Norristown Motor Freight, who operate 72 pieces of equipment and are authorized to transport general commodities from Bridgeport, Pa., and points within 20 miles thereof to New York, N. Y., and points in New Jersey within 35 miles of New York, (2) Joseph G. Whinney, Jr., doing business as Whinney's Express, operating 53 pieces of equipment, having terminals in Syracuse and Binghamton, N. Y., Philadelphia, Baltimore, Md., and Washington, D. C. (3) Wooleyhan Transport Company, operating about 100 vehicles, and maintaining terminals at Newark, Wilmington, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and (4) Owl's Transportation Company, Inc., operating 16 vehicles, and maintaining service for the transportation of general commodities between Philadelphia and points within 15 miles thereof, and Cape May and Ocean City, N. J., and points within 10 miles thereof, with service on specified commodities from and to certain additional points. These carriers and 2 additional lines, Jones Motor Company and Miller Transport Company, are the carriers with which applicant now has agreements respecting compensation for brokerage service. The services of the several carriers clearly are competitive in certain respects.
In general, the representatives of the carriers indicate that payment of brokerage fees to applicant for business obtained by him is entirely satisfactory. In one instance, the carrier restricts such payments to the traffic of shippers who were not previously customers served by the carrier. Another of the carrier witnesses indicated that the business of his company had “dropped off to nothing and we surely could use this business that Mr. Friedman could get for us.” Another explained that a "one-way operation is not very good, and it was possible for him to give us some loads that we could realize and make a profit on *.” The solicitation performed by applicant resulted in new business for a carrier which does not employ full time solicitors; enabled another carrier to transport more freight where its seles force was not large enough to take care of the amount of business, without some help; and regained an account for one carrier which does not employ solicitors.
With the exception of Norristown Motor Freight and Miller Transport Company, the carriers follow the practice of forwarding their freight bills to applicant for payment of the charges on all shipments procured by him. The two carriers last mentioned bill applicant's customers directly, and the customers make direct payment to the carriers. Other than the two methods of settling the freight charges, the services performed for each of the carriers are identical; a brokerage fee of 10 percent of the freight charges is uniformly assessed. The arrangements are oral in each instance, and have been in effect with one carrier since 1934 and with four of the others since 1939 or prior thereto.
Applicant urges that the development of new business and the furnishing of solicitation services in connection with traffic of his present accounts result in economic benefits to the carriers. It is also contended that the various services to shippers are not separate and distinct functions or duties, unrelated and apart from the services he performs for and on behalf of the carriers by whom he is compensated. Services rendered in the settlement of freight charges for