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.

RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (06/15/61)

June 15, 1961

RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 180 and 181, Oct. T., 1960, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 85,236, folders 1 and 2, in case of Railway Express Agency, Incorporated v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

W. Wilson White, with him William H. Marx, of the New York Bar, and White & Williams, for protestant, appellant.

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

Irving R. Segal, with him Bernard G. Segal, Robert L. Kendall, Jr., and Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, for applicant, intervening appellee.

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

Author: Watkins

[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 397]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This appeal is from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission granting the application of United Parcel Service, Inc. (hereinafter called United Parcel), the petitioner and intervening appellee, authority to engage as a class D common carrier by truck in the carriage of small parcel traffic to and from all points in the eighteen eastern counties of Pennsylvania, designated in the application; and admitting United Parcel to do business in Pennsylvania.

The weight and the size of the parcels to be carried were limited by this application to packages or parcels weighing 50 pounds or less and having a combined length and girth of not more than one hundred eight inches, with each parcel constituting a separate shipment. The order also excluded the carrying of commodities of unusual value, dangerous explosives, household goods, commodities in bulk, commodities requiring special equipment and those injurious or contaminating to other products; also excluded was service between retail stores and their branches or warehouses, or between retail stores and their branches and warehouses on the one hand and the premises of customers of such stores.

Subsequently, during the course of the hearings, by amendments, there were also excluded the carriage of moving pictures and apparatus, magazines, newspapers, cut flowers and greens, and shipments to a single consignee, aggregating more than 100 pounds.

Protests against the application were filed by 82 carriers including Railway Express Agency, Inc. (hereinafter called Railway Express), the appellant. A substantial number withdrew their protest and elected not to testify or present any evidence; only eight Protestants presented evidence; and of these three did not submit briefs to the commission. Railway Express

[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 398]

    is the only protestant which has taken exception to the order of the commission.

On April 4, 1960, the commission issued its order in "short form" granting the rights sought and approving the application as amended. After appeal to this Court by Railway Express, United Parcel was granted leave to intervene; and the record was remanded to the commission for further study and consideration and to make specific findings of fact pursuant to the public utility law. The "long form" order of the Commission was filed on August 8, 1960. United Parcel had begun the authorized service on April 20, 1960, and has rendered it continuously since that date. A petition for supersedeas was filed with this Court, which after hearing, was refused per curiam on September 16, 1960.

The record shows that United Parcel is one of a number of operating companies controlled by United Parcel Service of America, Inc., that have had over fifty years experience in small package handling and delivery, and 38 years of continuous experience in performing the same type of common carrier package delivery service as was here authorized and operate in many areas throughout the United States. The service is designed to handle large volumes of small packages in a faster, more efficient manner than United States parcel post service, at a cost competitive with uninsured parcel post service. It is important to note that the operation is so designed that every package picked up at any point in the eighteen counties may easily be delivered the day following pick-up, to any point within that territory. It is intended to cure all the well known deficiencies of parcel post service and in order to ...


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.