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.

DARBY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (04/16/59)

April 16, 1959

DARBY, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 266 and 267, April T., 1958, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Complaint Docket Nos. C-16821 and C-16833, in case of C. V. Darby, t/d/b/a Darby Transfer & Storage v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Frederick L. Kiger, with him Jerome Solomon, for appellant.

Paul Ribner, Assistant Counsel, with him Thomas M. Kerrigan, Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

James H. Booser, with him McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for intervening appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (hirt, J., absent).

Author: Watkins

[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 314]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This appeal concerns the scope of the certificate of the appellant, C. V. Darby, trading as and doing business as Darby Transfer and Storage, as construed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, in complaint proceedings instituted by Motor Freight Express, intervening appellee.

The question raised is whether the transportation of automobile body cleaners and Simoniz wax to the Automotive Supply Company, in the City of Altoona, Pennsylvania, the Superior Parts Service Company, in Altoona, Pennsylvania and to several food stores in Altoona and Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, all of which shipments originated in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was permitted by the following certificated rights, which authorized transportation as a Class D carrier of: "Groceries, lubricants and paper from points in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, to points in Pennsylvania within one hundred and twenty (120) miles by the usually traveled highways, of the City-County in said city".

The commission found that automobile body cleaners and Simoniz wax were not authorized by the certificate as groceries. The appellant claims that the word "groceries" was broad enough to cover such commodities and appealed from the order.

This is clearly a case involving the interpretation of one of its own orders and this Court has clearly set forth the governing principle in Weston Hauling, Inc. v. Pa. P.U.C., 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 503, 509, 138 A.2d 286 (1958) that "... Furthermore, the Commission, as an administrative agency, is peculiarly fitted to interpret its own orders, especially where the question raised concerns the extent and limit of transportation rights granted a carrier under a certificate issued by the Commission. In recognition of this principle a

[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 315]

    court will not set aside a construction placed upon its own orders by an administrative agency unless the result is clearly erroneous, ...


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.