Appeal No. 282, April T., 1961, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Application Docket No. 86625, in case of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order reversed.
Raymond F. Scannell, for appellant.
S. Maxwell Flitter, 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).
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 383]
This is an appeal from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission denying the application of the appellant, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, to discontinue certain agency service at the railroad company's Coalport freight station located in the Borough of Coalport, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company filed its original application on July 17, 1959, to discontinue agency service at its freight station at Coalport, placing it under
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 384]
the jurisdiction of its Patton station agency, and also to restrict the handling of less-than-carload freight at said station to such less-than-carload freight as could be handled in pick-up and delivery service. A hearing was held and one protestant appeared at the hearing. On April 4, 1960, the application was denied.
A petition for rehearing and reconsideration was filed on April 21, 1960, and at a further hearing, the record of the prior hearing was incorporated in the record and it was shown that the protest of J. H. Homer Lumber Company, a protestant at the first hearing, was withdrawn. The only protestant appearing at this hearing was a representative of the Coalport Chamber of Commerce. On July 10, 1961, the application was denied and this appeal followed.
The function of this Court on appeal, 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 reperated here. Section 202 of the Public Utility Law, Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1053, 66 PS § 1122; Section 1107 3f the Public Utility Law, 66 PS § 1437; Rydal-Meadowbrook Assn. v. Pa. P.U.C., 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 380, 98 A.2d 481 (1953); Pa. Railroad Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 228, 132 A.2d 887 (1957); Reading Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 635, 159 A.2d 61 (1960); N.Y. Central R.R. Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 636, 166 A.2d 55 (1960); Reading Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 577, 169 A.2d 590 (1961); Reading Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 636, 169 A.2d 587 (1961).
No patron appeared to protest the application except a representative of the Chamber of Commerce of Coalport. There was no testimony that would indicate any inconvenience which would result to its members. The protest was largely based on local ...