Appeals, Nos. 95, 96, 101, 107, 108, April T., 1958, Nos. 208, 209, 210, 211, Oct. T., 1958, No. 5, March T., 1959, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Docket No. A66674, Folder 9, in case of Motor Freight Express et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order reversed.
Edward Goldberg, for appellants.
Robert Engel, with him Glick, Berkman & Engel, for John F. Scott Company, appellant.
Aloysius F. Mahler, with him John H. Scott, Jr. and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.
James H. Booser, with him McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for appellant.
Paul F. Barnes, with him Raymond A. Thistle, Jr., and Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, for appellants.
William A. Goichman, Assistant Counsel, with him Paul Ribner, Assistant Counsel, and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.
William S. Yard, Frederick L. Kiger, and Bloom, Bloom & Yard, for intervening appellee, submitted a brief.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 82]
These appeals are by Motor Freight Express, Breman's Transfer, Breman's Express Company, John F. Scott Company, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Philadelphia-Pittsburgh Carriers, Inc., Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc., Highway Express Lines, Inc., and Modern Transfer Company, Inc., from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission which granted to Al Zeffiro Transfer and Storage, Inc. additional authority to transport, as a Class C carrier property from the Borough of Donora, Washington County, and points within 15 miles by the usually travelled highways of the limits of said Borough to points in Pennsylvania. The sufficiency of the evidence as to need
[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 83]
and inadequacy of service to support the order of the commission is questioned by these appeals.
By application filed with the commission on February 2, 1956 and docketed at Application No. 66674, Folder 9, and thereafter amended, the applicant sought additional authority to transport as a Class D carrier property, with certain exceptions, from the Borough of Donora. This application was protested by approximately 38 motor carriers and two rail carriers out of which 18 motor carriers and two rail carriers presented testimony in opposition to the application. Hearings were held at Washington, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia on March 15, May 21 and 22, July 9, September 13 and November 1, 1956. On February 10, 1958, the commission entered an order in "short form" granting the additional right to the applicant as requested but eliminated a number of other rights. Appellants appealed from this order and, upon petition of the commission to remand the record for further study and consideration, we remanded the record on April 25, 1958, directing the commission to make specific findings of fact in sufficient detail so as to enable us on appeal to determine the controverted questions presented. We further ordered that the supersedeas remain in force and effect pending the return of the record to us. On June 16, 1958, the commission issued an order in lieu of the order of February 10, 1958, granting applicant the additional authority to transport as a Class C carrier property from Donora area to points in Pennsylvania and refusing the ...