Opinion
October 19, 1934.
March 13, 1935.
Public service commission — Jurisdiction — Motor carriers — Interchange of freight by connecting carriers — Evidence.
1. Order of commission refusing application of connecting motor carriers, operating under their respective separate certificates, for right to interchange freight, held reasonable and in conformity with law.
2. Motor Freight Express and Hall's Motor Transit Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 117 Pa. Super. 174, followed.
Appeal No. 19, March T., 1935, by plaintiff from report and order of Public Service Commission, Application Docket A-25123, 1932, in the case of Motor Freight Express and Amos Harshman, trading as Harshman's Express, v. Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Before KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD and PARKER, JJ. Appeal dismissed.
Application to public service commission by connecting motor carriers for right to interchange freight.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Report and order filed by commission, dismissing application. Carriers appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were findings of commission.
E. Mode Vale, for appellant.
Samuel Graff Miller, with him Paul H. Rhoads, E. Everett Mather, Jr. and John Fox Weiss, for appellee.
Argued October 19, 1934.
This is another case in which the commission refused to approve the interchange of freight between the appellants at Harrisburg, for the reasons thus stated in its report:
Amos Harshman, trading as Harshman's Express, "is authorized to transport freight between Harrisburg and Waynesboro, with certain restrictions concerning local service. He has been transferring about two tons of freight per month to Motor Freight Express and receiving about the same amount from it. He agreed to a restriction that all freight would be received or delivered at Waynesboro and that no property would be received at Waynesboro for delivery to points on the truck lines of Alko Express Lines. This would prevent deliveries to York and Lancaster. All transfer shipments in the past have been to and from Philadelphia. The evidence does not indicate a public need for such service and the application will be refused."
The legal principles under which this appeal should be considered and disposed of are stated in our opinion in the appeal of Motor Freight Express and Hall's Motor Transit Co. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Com., 117 Pa. Super. 174, 177 A. 493. With these principles in mind, we have examined the record in this case and have concluded that the order appealed from is reasonable and in conformity with law.
Appeal dismissed.