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.

W. J. DILLNER TRANSFER CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (07/13/54)

July 13, 1954

W. J. DILLNER TRANSFER CO.
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION



COUNSEL

Ernie Adamson, Pittsburgh, Douglass D. Storey, J. Paul Rupp, Storey, Bailey & Rupp, Harrisburg, for appellant.

W. G. Johnstone, Jr., Windolph & Johnstone, Lancaster, for Lancaster Transp. Co., intervening appellee.

James W. Hagar, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, for Motor Freight Express et al., intervening appellees.

Paul F. Barnes, Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, Philadelphia, for Breman's Transfer et al., intervening appellees.

Thomas M. Kerrigan, Asst. Counsel, Lloyd S. Benjamin, Counsel, Harrisburg, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Ross, Gunther, Wright and Ervin, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 463]

RHODES, President Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission sustaining a complaint and directing that, 'except as authorized by this Commission, W. J. Dillner Transfer Company forthwith cease and desist from the transportation of property from points in Allegheny County to points in Pennsylvania beyond fifty (50) miles from the City of Pittsburgh.'

Appellant, W. J. Dillner Transfer Company,*fn1 admitted transporting the property, a shipment of nails, from Rankin, near Pittsburgh, to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Upon a complaint filed by Lancaster Transportation Company, the issue before the Commission developed into the question whether appellant's certificated authority authorized it to transport general property to points in Pennsylvania beyond fifty miles of the City of Pittsburgh. The Commission held that appellant had no authority to handle the shipment concerning which the complaint was made, and entered the cease and desist order.

In addition to asserting that the Commission erred in interpreting appellant's authority under its certificates, appellant raises certain questions relating to procedural due process. We therefore deem it necessary

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 464]

    to give a brief chronology of the steps taken before the Commission and on appeal. The complaint of Lancaster Transportation Company set forth that appellant, 'on or about March 29, 1950, * * * transported a load of nails from the American Steel and Iron Company at Rankin, Pennsylvania to the Steinman Hardware Company, at Lancaster, Pennsylvania.' The complaint referred specifically to appellant's certificated authority at A. 61744, Folder 3, whereby appellant was authorized to transport shipments weighing 5,000 pounds or more, requiring special handling and the use of special equipment, from points in Pittsburgh and within a radius of fifty miles thereof to other points in Pennsylvania.*fn2 The complaint further alleged generally that the shipment of nails was made without authority from the Commission and in violation of appellant's certificate of public convenience. In its answer appellant admitted transportation of the shipment as alleged but claimed the right to transport such property under its certificates. In its answer appellant expressly set forth rights given it ...


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.