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.

READING COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (04/13/61)

April 13, 1961

READING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1961, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 86765, in case of Reading Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

Allen Lesley, with him H. Merle Mulloy, for appellant.

Anthony L. Marino, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph I. Lewis, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Ervin

[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 579]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the commission dated October 10, 1960, denying appellant's application to remove the agent at the Penllyn station, which is an agency passenger and freight station. The Penllyn station is adjacent to Blue Bell Pike in Lower Gwynedd Township, Montgomery County, on appellant's Bethlehem Branch, Philadelphia Division, between Ambler to the east, or toward Reading Terminal, and North Wales to the west.

The application was filed in accordance with § 202 of the Public Utility Law, Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1053, 66 PS § 1122, which provides as follows: "Upon approval of the commission, evidenced by its certificate of public convenience first had and obtained, and upon compliance with existing laws, and not otherwise, it shall be lawful: ... (d) For any public utility to dissolve, or to abandon or surrender, in whole or in part, any service, right, power, franchise, or privilege: ..."

Relative to the function of this Court on appeal, § 1107 of the Public Utility Law, as amended, 66 PS § 1437, provides: "The order of the commission shall not be vacated or set aside, either in whole or in part, except for error of law or lack of evidence to support the finding, determination, or order of the commission, or violation of constitutional right."

The factors to be considered and the law applicable to cases of this nature have been fully and recently stated by this Court and will not be repeated here: Rydal-Meadowbrook Assn. v. Pa. P.U.C., 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 380, 98 A.2d 481; Pa. R.R. Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 228, 132 A.2d 887; Reading Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 635, 159 A.2d 61.

The business transacted at the Penllyn station is slight. No Railway Express Agency shipments and

[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 580]

    no Western Union telegrams are handled at Penllyn station. While U.S. Mail is handled at Penllyn station, the agent has nothing to do with it. Only one piece of baggage was forwarded from Penllyn station in a period of two years and ten months. The Penllyn station is the accounting agency for carload freight handled at the Gwynedd Valley non-agency passenger and carload only freight station. The Gwynedd Valley station is 1.2 miles by rail, the next station to the west.

The following statement shows the number of carload and less than carload freight shipments handled at the Penllyn station during a period of two years and ten months:

FREIGHT SHIPMENTS

Carload Less-Than-Carload

In Out Total In Out Total

1957 1 0 1 47 1 48

1958 2 0 2 24 1 25

1959 (10 Mos.) 0 0 0 18 0 18

The one inbound carload freight shipment in 1957 was a car of fertilizer, and the two inbound cars in 1958 were cars of cement.

The following tabulation shows the total ticket sales at Penllyn during the two year and ten month study of the ...


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.