in Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota, on the other, over undescribed regular and irregular routes. By applications Nos. MC-19693 and MC-24697, each of which was filed February 12, 1936, applicant seeks authority which is embraced in whole or in part within the other two applications heretofore mentioned, and therefore need not be specifically described.

By application No. MC-80532, filed February 12, 1936, applicant seeks a license authorizing operation as a broker for the purpose of arranging transportation of general commodities by motor vehicle, by rail, water, rail and water, and by rail and motor vehicle.

By application, No. MC-17481 (Sub-No. 1), filed October 27, 1939, the same applicant seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, between Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., and certain adjacent or contiguous points, over irregular routes.

By application, No. MC-17481 (Sub-No. 2), filed May 24, 1941, the same applicant seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general and special commodities, between the points set forth in appendix A hereto, over irregular routes. This application was filed as a precautionary measure to give Moore an additional opportunity to obtain any authority sought and denied under the "grandfather" clause applications. It seeks substantially the same authority as that sought in the "grandfather" applications and in No. MC-17481 (Sub-No. 1).

Numerous motor and rail carriers, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and the Iowa State Commerce Commission oppose all these applications.

In Moore Common Carrier Application, 28 M. C. C. 187, by an order of March 13, 1941, we denied all the above-described applications, except Nos. MC-17481 (Sub-No. 1) and No. MC-17481 (Sub-No. 2) which were not embraced in that report. Moore thereupon filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Third Division, to set aside and permanently enjoin the enforcement of our order. The court dismissed the bill, Moore v. United States, 41 Fed. Supp. 786, and the decree was affirmed on April 13, 1942, Moore v. United States, 316 U. S. 642. Thereafter, Moore filed a petition with the Commission for reopening, rehearing, and reconsideration. By order of May 11, 1942, the Commission denied the petition, but on its own motion vacated the order of March 13, 1941, and reopened the proceedings for further hearing. Such further hearing has been held.

The facts established at the first hearing are set forth in the report of March 13, 1941, and need not be repeated here. The evidence adduced at the further hearing was mainly directed toward establishing (1) Moore's direction and control over the motor vehicles owned by others and used to transport freight obtained by him, (2) his responsibility both to the shipper and to the general public in connection with such operations, and (3) that he was operating as a bona fide motor common carrier. In general, it is of the same tenor as that previously adduced and indicates no material error in our former findings of fact. However, some inconsistencies in detail between the facts found in the prior report and those stated herein, as disclosed by the more complete record now before us have been noted. In such instances the findings of facts in the prior report should be considered as amended accordingly. Supplementing his "grandfather" clause applications applicant filed two extension applications which will be separately discussed later herein.

"Grandfather" clause applications.-Moore has been engaged in local cartage, trucking, and other activities in connection with the movement of freight by motor vehicle for 36 years prior to the further hearing. During the latter half of this period, he has maintained in the same building in Minneapolis an office and a large garage. For 4 years prior to the further hearing he also had, across the street from his office and garage, a parking lot where equipment which he owned or used might be stored. Since prior to June 1, 1935, the windows of applicant's office have borne the name "Moore Motor Freight Lines" and continuously during this period applicant has by personal contact, letters, telephone, and telegraph, solicited freight at points throughout the States or portions thereof in which he claims in his applications to have operated. Freight received for transportation moved either on bills of lading supplied by applicant or by the shippers themselves, the latter with applicant's name inserted. Freight bills were issued in applicant's name. However, except for an interest in one truck which he had from January 1935 to the early part of 1936, as hereinafter explained, he did not own any motor equipment during the years 1935, 1936, and 1937. Instead, the freight which he received for transportation was moved in the equipment of others, generally owner-operators.

In view of this fact, the primary question of our consideration in this proceeding is whether applicant had on June 1, 1935, and continuously since has had, the status of a bona fide carrier by motor vehicle. Some of the owners of equipment which he used testified at the further hearing. The relationship with each will be separately discussed, but first we shall consider applicant's interest in the one piece of equipment which he claims to have owned on June 1, 1935. At the

time of the further hearing, applicant owned two trucks which he had acquired in November 1940 and January 1941.

On January 2, 1935, applicant and one Arlo Davis, a truck owner employed by him, jointly purchased a tractor and trailer. Moore paid the initial payment and all subsequent installments thereon. Davis had no financial interest in this equipment, but the license for it was issued in his name. He appeared as one of the joint purchasers because Moore was having family difficulties and preferred not to disclose his interest therein. Except as hereafter noted. this equipment was operated by Moore in Minnesota. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois until the latter part of 1935 or the early part of 1936, when he sold it back to the firm from which it had been purchased." Davis received no part of the repurchase money. While in operation the name "Moore Motor Freight Lines" was painted on the trailer and Davis' name was painted on the tractor. Moore at all times had complete direction and control over the jointly purchased equipment, and Davis was employed as the driver thereof by Moore at a fixed sum per month. Moore has held a permit to operate in Minnesota since 1927 and claims to have held permits to operate in Iowa since 1931, but the only documentary evidence he produced in support thereof were receipts evidencing payment by him of certain permit and license fees to the State of Iowa on and after August 30, 1937. In 1935, Davis held permits to operate in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, but the Wisconsin permit was limited. Prior to June 1, 1935, no permit was required to operate in Illinois. The jointly purchased equipment above-described was operated in Minnesota and Iowa, on Davis' permits, and without a permit in Illinois. Moore first secured authority on March 15, 1936, to operate in Wisconsin. Previously he had operated in that State without authority. On January 27, 1936, a driver of a truck hauling for him was arrested at Rhinelander, Wis.

In 1934 and 1935, Davis owned another truck independently of Moore which was at all times operated in his own name by a driver whom he employed. Subsequent to June 1934, this truck was used principally to transport freight for Moore but it did not have the name "Moore Motor Freight Lines" on it. It was also used by Davis, on and after May 1, 1935, to perform contract hauling for the Twin Cities Wholesale Grocery, Swift & Company, and K. Aslesen. These contracts were between Davis and each of the named firms, and although Davis asserts that he personally negotiated them, Moore claims to have arranged similar contracts for truck owners generally, and he implies some participation in the Davis contracts. On the

In the light of the evidence on rehearing the statement in the prior report that this equipment was "Operated until January 1937" appears to have been incorrect.

whole, the record does not permit a definite finding as to whether or not applicant negotiated the contracts with the above-named shippers in Davis' name. One reason Moore might have so negotiated these contracts is that, in 1935, Davis was denied authority to haul for Moore to or from points in Wisconsin by the Public Service Commission of that State.

The Davis truck and the jointly purchased truck were used, except as hereinafter stated, to transport this contract traffic, and both of them were operated over practically the same routes. After denial of his right to haul for Moore in Wisconsin, Davis did not take any equipment into that State with the name "Moore Motor Freight Lines" on it. Prior to or about that time, Wisconsin required that permits to operate in that State be in the name of the truck owner and further forbade truck owners to haul under contracts with more than three firms. Subsequently, the law was amended to allow a truck owner to haul under contracts with more than three firms by paying a fee of $15 for each additional firm. These requirements no longer existed on March 15, 1936, when Moore first obtained authority to operate in that State. Because of the above limitation and denial, Moore claims to have had contracts, with shippers obtained by him in excess of three, drawn in the name of any one of the truck owners who were hauling for him. There is no evidence that Moore at any time held any contracts covering operations in Wisconsin in his own name. Although Davis by his testimony endeavored to convey the idea that Moore also had complete direction and control over the truck owned by him (Davis) during the periods prior to and after June 1, 1935, and that it was used to haul freight for Moore, the facts remain that he was free to use this truck to haul freight in his own name and that he filed a "grandfather" clause application in his own name based on the operation of that truck. That application was later dismissed upon his request. It also appears that, somewhat inconsistently, he sold whatever such rights he might have had to one Schernowski in January 1936, for $150.

Gard Gibson was a partner with one Reynolds in the operation of a truck until June 25, 1935, when the partnership was dissolved. Thereafter he continued operations in his own name. The partnership owned a truck in 1934, 1935, and 1936, and hauled under contract for Armour & Company between South St. Paul, Minn., and Chicago, Ill. The name of the partnership, "Reynolds and Gibson" was painted on the truck. Both the partnership and Gibson held permits to operate through Wisconsin and Iowa, but the Wisconsin permit did not give them authority to haul for Moore. The vehicle was licensed in the partnership name prior to June 25, 1935, and in Gibson's name thereafter. Moore testified generally that he "took care of" all license fees, mileage taxes, and permit fees, but the record as a whole clearly indi

cates that the cost thereof was charged back to the equipment owner in every case. Most of the traffic of Armour & Company moved from South St. Paul to Chicago, and when that company had no return load for them, they hauled for Moore, during 1934, 1935, and 1936, from Chicago to the Twin Cities. The traffic of Armour & Company was transported through Wisconsin and the traffic of Moore through Iowa. Moore had no control over this vehicle, nor did he have anything to do with employing the drivers thereof. The partnership and Gibson also hauled return loads from Chicago for any other person or firm that might employ them. They maintained the truck in operating condition, purchased and paid for gasoline, oil, tires, and supplies, and they themselves carried public-liability, property-damage, and workmen's compensation insurance. Moore is said to have "carried" the cargo insurance on traffic they transported for him. Beyond this the record with respect to cargo insurance is not entirely clear. Read as a whole, however, it suggests that Moore carried such insurance in his own name in every instance apparently holding a blanket policy, but that he considered it as an advance or payment on behalf of the truck owners, and that he charged back to each of them either an agreed amount or a percentage of the gross earnings of his truck as payment for the cargo insurance supplied by Moore. In this connection, it may be observed that Moore's 10 or 12 percent of the gross revenue is a smaller "cut" than was taken at that time by many other users of owner-operators who have come to our attention, and appears from the record as a whole to have been net to Moore, all costs of operating the equipment and advances to or on behalf of the equipment-owners having been deducted from their share of the gross revenue. Gibson specifically denies that his equipment was leased to Moore.

Anton Fred Rechtzigel owned two trucks in 1934. He started to haul for Moore in June of that year, and continued to do so until sometime in 1936. He also hauled for others. He acquired a third truck in June or July 1935. It was used almost exclusively in hauling for Moore and was the only unit of his equipment which carried the name "Moore Motor Freight Lines." Such name was on it when Rechtzigel acquired it from one Anderson, who had formerly hauled for Moore. These trucks were operated in Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, and were kept in Moore's garage most of the time in 1935. Both Moore and Rechtzigel at times employed and paid the drivers. Neither of them had authority to operate in Wisconsin in 1935, but Rechtzigel nevertheless transported freight for Moore to and from points in that State and on numerous occasions was arrested and paid fines for his failure to comply with the laws of that State. Moore did not assume or pay any part of these fines. Moore looked after all of Rechtzigel's equipment when