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.

MODERN TRANSFER CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (10/03/56)

October 3, 1956

MODERN TRANSFER CO., INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 205 and 210, Oct. T., 1956, from order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in re application of Carl R. Bieber, Application Docket No. 34907, F. 1, Am-A, in case of Modern Transfer Co., Inc., and Reading Transportation Company, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Paul F. Barnes, with him Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, for appellant.

Harry W. Speidel, with him Snyder, Balmer & Kershner, for appellant.

Paul Ribner, Assistant Counsel, with him Edward Munce, Assistant Counsel, and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for Public Utility Commission, appellee.

William J. Wilcox, for applicant, intervening appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.

Author: Gunther

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 111]

OPINION BY GUNTHER, J.

These appeals are from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission authorizing Carl R. Bieber, applicant, to transport, as a Class D carrier,

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 112]

    property of the Caloric Appliance Corporation located in Topton, Pa. Carl A. Bieber filed an application to amend his common carrier certificate so as to authorize him to transport, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, property of the Caloric Applicance Corporation between its plant located in the Borough of Topton, Berks County, to other points and places in Pennsylvania and return.

Protests to the granting of the application were filed by appellants, Modern Transfer Co., Inc., and Reading Transportation Company, Inc. A hearing on the application was held on December 1, 1955, at which the applicant and two witnesses from Caloric Applicance Corporation testified in support of the application and the appellants testified against it. Thereafter, on March 27, 1956, the commission entered a short-form order modifying and extending the applicant's then existing rights. From this order, appellants filed their appeals and petitions for supersedeas. However, while these appeals were pending, the commission sought permission from us to remit the record so that it may have the opportunity to make specific findings of fact in sufficient detail to enable us to determine the controverted questions. The record was remitted on May 10, 1956, and thereafter findings of fact were made. Additionally, on May 28, 1956, the commission issued a long-form order, limiting the authority granted "to the furnishing of tractors for the transportation of property of the Caloric Appliance Corporation in trailers owned by Caloric Appliance Corporation."

Appellants challenge the order of the commission because the order, allegedly, is based upon insufficient findings of fact and that such findings of fact are not supported by ...


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.