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 under the evidence to be 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. 17, March T., 1935, by plaintiffs from report and order of Public Service Commission, Application Docket A-25120, 1932, in the case of Motor Freight Express and Spannuth Motor Express Co., intervening appellant, 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 appellants.
Samuel Graff Miller, with him Paul H. Rhoads, E. Everett Mather, Jr. and John Fox Weiss, for appellee.
Argued October, 19, 1934.
The only factual distinctions between this appeal and that of Motor Freight Express and Hall's Motor Transit Co. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Com., 117 Pa. Super. 174, 177 A. 493, are that the subordinate motor carrier here is Spannuth Motor Express Co., operating between Harrisburg and Lebanon, and such diversities of fact as appear from the evidence upon the respective records. Appellants applied to the commission for its approval of their existing practice of interchanging freight at Harrisburg.
In refusing their joint application, the commission said: Spannuth Motor Express Co. "is authorized to transport property by truck between Harrisburg and Lebanon, and to maintain joint service with Hall's Motor Transit Company for transfer of certain classes of property. It has been receiving about 15 tons of freight per month at Harrisburg from Motor Freight Express, principally shipments originating at York and Hanover. There has been little freight moving in the opposite direction. There is adequate trucking service as well as rail service available between these points. The evidence fails to establish that approval of this additional transportation is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation or convenience of the public, and the application will be refused."
When the principles of law referred to in the opinion at No. 16 March Term, 1935, are applied to the facts developed by the evidence in this case, we cannot say that the order appealed from is either unreasonable or not in conformity with law.
Appeal dismissed.