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.

CHEMICAL TANK LINES v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (11/16/60)

November 16, 1960

CHEMICAL TANK LINES, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 193, 194, 195, and 196, Oct. T., 1960, and No. 179, April T., 1960, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Docket No. 74103, Fs. 3, 4, 5; Docket No. 86242, Fs. 1 and 2; Docket No. 67250, Fs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; Docket No. 34468, F. 23, and Docket No. 75766, F. 1, Am-C, in case of Chemical Tank Lines, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order reversed; reargument refused December 22, 1960.

COUNSEL

Paul F. Barnes and Robert H. Shertz, with them Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, for applicants, appellants.

Frederick L. Kiger, for applicant, appellant.

Miles Warner, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph I. Lewis, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Robert J. Stewart, Harry H. Frank, and Christian V. Graf, with them Richard H. Rea, and Anderson & Stewart, and McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for protestant motor carriers, intervening appellees.

Carl Helmetag, Jr., with him Richard E. Costello, Lockwood W. Fogg, Jr., Malcolm R. Warnock, James N. Mullen, and Harris J. Latta, for railroads, intervening appellees.

Robert R. Wertz, for cement producer, interested party, under Rule 46.

J. H. Ward Hinkson, for cement producer, interested party, under Rule 46.

George G. Chandler, with him John F. Headly, and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, for cement producer, interested party, under Rule 46.

Bernard Eskin, and Wolf, Block, Schorr and SolisCohen, for cement producer, interested party, submitted a brief, under Rule 46.

Thomas E. Weaver, and Weaver & Weaver, for cement producer, interested party, submitted a brief, under Rule 46.

George F. Coffin, for cement producer, interested party, submitted a brief, under Rule 46.

Walter J. Symons, for cement producer, interested party, submitted a brief, under Rule 46.

Louis M. Stamberg, and Morris Gerber, for cement producer, interested party, submitted a brief, under Rule 46.

Ernest Scott, and Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, for cement producer, interested party, submitted a brief, under Rule 46.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 611]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

These appeals are from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission dated April 4, 1960, refusing and dismissing the applications of four common carriers, Chemical Tank Lines, Inc., Top Transport, Inc., E. Brooke Matlack, Inc., and Modern Transfer Co., Inc., inter alia, and one contract carrier, Schwerman Company of Pennsylvania, Inc. Seeking authority to transport cement in bulk and in bags by motor truck from cement plants in eastern Pennsylvania to intrastate points in Pennsylvania. The end result of this order of the commission is to limit the cement industry in eastern Pennsylvania to intrastate shipment of their products wholly by rail except for existing rights given to three motor truck carriers, to wit, Harold C. Gabler, Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., and Seaboard Tank Lines, Inc. The rights granted to Gabler, Coastal, and Seaboard were limited to transportation by truck of cement in bulk, and included only offrail delivery points, that is, places where no rail siding existed. The services of the three common carriers authorized to render bulk transportation to off-rail points in eastern Pennsylvania are not utilized by the industry.

The commission refused the applications on the grounds that the need for the proposed service and the inadequacy of existing rail and motor carrier service were not shown, especially since the existing motor

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 612]

    carrier service has not been utilized. The applicant motor carriers who have appealed, and the cement producers who supported the applications and participate in these appeals question the commission's action, contending that the need for the proposed service and the inadequacy of the existing service are clear.

As the commission's order of April 4, 1960, observes, this case presents "issues of great economic importance to the cement industry in Pennsylvania, to the carriers by whom their product has been or is sought to be transported, and to the public at large."

In the proceedings before the commission a greater number of applicants requested authority to serve the cement industry and its customers than are involved in the present appeals. There were thirteen applicants to the commission who filed twenty-seven separate applications seeking authority as motor carriers, common or contract, to transport dry bulk cement in tank or hopper-type vehicles and dry cement in bags or containers.

The applications fell into three groups. The first group, of which most are presently transporters of other commodities by motor vehicle in bulk, sought authority to transport cement both in bulk and in packages to all points in Pennsylvania from twenty specifically designated plants and plant sites of cement manufacturers located in eastern Pennsylvania. This first group includes appellants Chemical Tank Lines, Inc., Top Transport, Inc., E. Brooke Matlack, Inc., and Modern Transfer Co., Inc., who sought the authority as common carriers. Also in the first group were appellant Schwerman Company of Pennsylvania, Inc., and Cement Express, Inc., who ...


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.