Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FOLLMER TRUCKING CO. ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ET AL. (07/17/52)

July 17, 1952

FOLLMER TRUCKING CO. ET AL.
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ET AL.



COUNSEL

McNees, Wallace & Nurick, James H. Booser, Harrisburg, for Follmer Trucking Co. and Motor Freight Express.

Mark E. Garber, Carlisle, for Hall's Motor Transit Co.

Jack F. Aschinger, Assistant Counsel, William J. Grove, Assistant Counsel, Lloyd S. Benjamin, Acting Counsel, Harrisburg, for appellees.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Ross

[ 171 Pa. Super. Page 77]

ROSS, Judge.

On July 18, 1939, Highway Express Lines, Inc., then known as Horlacher Delivery Service, Inc., filed an application with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission requesting authority to transport property as a Class A carrier. The application was given limited approval on November 28, 1939, in an order which granted applicant the right to transport property as a Class A carrier from the Philadelphia area and points to Delaware, Chester, Montgomery and Bucks Counties to all points 'North of the Village of Trappe through Reading, Sunbury and Williamsport to Lock Haven', including spur routes. The order placed in applicant's certificate the following condition: 'Third: That no right, power or privilege is granted to transport property from or to the City of Sunbury, or the Borough of Milton, Northumberland County.', and denied applicant authority to serve the spur routes from Reading to Lebanon, Lewisburg to Mifflinburg, and Northumberland to Nanticoke.

The instant proceedings were instituted to secure rights to serve Sunbury and Milton, and the spur on Route 11 between Northumberland and West Nanticoke. A number of protests were filed, including those

[ 171 Pa. Super. Page 78]

    of Follmer Trucking Company, Hall's Motor Transit Company and Motor Freight Express. The Commission, having before it a record of testimony adduced at ten hearings held over a period of years and consisting of 1098 printed pages, made an order which amended the order of November 28, 1939, by eliminating therefrom the condition with respect to the right to transport property from or to Sunbury and Milton. The application was denied as to all other requests for rights. From this order the protestants named above have appealed to this Court.

The appellants attack the order of the Commission on the ground that it does not meet the standard set up in section 1005 of the Public Utility Law of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1053, 66 P.S. § 1395, which provides inter alia: 'After the conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall make and file its findings and order with its opinion, if any. Its findings shall be in sufficient detail to enable the court on appeal, to determine the controverted question presented by the proceeding, and whether proper weight was given to the evidence.' Here, the Commission, after discussing the evidence, stated: 'We recognize the convenience that would result to the shipping public if the applicant is authorized to render service from and to Sunbury and Milton. The applicant's trucks pass through these points regularly in connection with its Class A operation between Philadelphia area and Lock Haven and the removal of the restriction in its certificate which prohibits service by applicant from and to Sunbury and Milton would tend to improve the service from and to said points. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that to permit the applicant to serve Sunbury and Milton would tend to improve the existing service. Upon careful consideration of all the evidence, we conclude and find that the elimination of the condition which prohibits the transportation of property from

[ 171 Pa. Super. Page 79163]

Pa. Super. 335, 61 A.2d 362. The issue is whether there is a public need for the service which the applicant proposes to render. Ferrari v. Pennsylvania P. U. C., 163 Pa. Super. 24, 60 A.2d 602. Section 203 of the Public Utility Law as amended, 66 P.S. § 1123, provides inter alia: 'A certificate of public convenience shall be granted by order of the commission, only if and when the commission shall find or determine that the granting of such certificate is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public; * * *.' Section 1107, 66 P.S. § 1437, directs that 'The order of the commission shall not be vacated or set aside, either ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.