Appeals, Nos. 170 to 175, inclusive, Oct. T., 1957, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Docket No. A 78758, in case of Philadelphia-Pittsburgh Carriers, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al. Order affirmed.
R. H. Shertz, with him Paul F. Barnes, and Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, for appellants.
Jerome Solomon, for appellant.
James W. Hagar, with him McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for appellant.
Louis J. Carter, Assistant Counsel, with him Edward Munce, Assistant Counsel, and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.
Samuel P. Delisi, with him Henry M. Wick, Jr., John A. Vuono, and Delisi and Wick, for applicant, intervening appellee.
Carl Helmetag, Jr., with him Paul R. Duke, for railroad, intervening appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 590]
A partnership operating as Pittsburgh Stores Fast Freight applied to Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for authority to operate as a freight forwarder for shipment by railroad, motor vehicle, by water or air, between points in the three counties of Philadelphia, Bucks and Northampton, and all points in 13 other counties in Western Pennsylvania including Allegheny County. (All italics throughout this opinion will be ours). The partnership, at the first hearing on September 4, 1952, amended the application by stipulating: "1. Any certificate of public convenience issued in this proceeding shall be limited to the right and privilege of performing service as a freight forwarder as defined in Section 2(11) of the Public Utility Law [as amended, 66 PS § 1102]. 2. Any such right and privilege shall not authorize applicants to operate any motor vehicle equipment over public highways in performance of the freight forwarder service to be provided. 3. To provide the actual transportation of shipments moving in freight forwarder service in intrastate commerce between points in Pennsylvania, applicants will utilize only the services of carriers authorized
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 591]
by this Commission." Twenty-four carriers, principally trucking companies, had filed protests to the application and their witnesses were heard at four hearings before the Commission. The testimony of these protestants together with that of the applicant at these hearings comprise 320 pages of the present printed record in this appeal. On July 26, 1954, the Commission by order, dismissed the application "for lack of necessity". The Pennsylvania Railroad, subsequently, on its petition in support of the application was allowed to intervene and on motion, the Commission reopened the proceeding. On August 11, 1955, the petitioners again amended their application by further limiting its scope thus: "6. The freight forwarder service which applicant proposes to perform is as follows: The transportation of property as a freight forwarder for shipment by railroad or motor vehicle from points ...