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.

PROTECTIVE MOTOR SERVICE COMPANY v. P.U.C. AND EDWARD J. RING DETECTIVE AGENCY (01/05/72)

decided: January 5, 1972.

PROTECTIVE MOTOR SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL.
v.
P.U.C. AND EDWARD J. RING DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC., INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of In Re: Application of Edward J. Ring Detective Agency, Inc., for approval of the right and privilege of operating motor vehicles as a contract carrier for the transportation of property, Application Docket A 95297.

COUNSEL

James W. Patterson, with him Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for appellant.

Larry Gesoff, Assistant Counsel, with him Edward Munce, Acting Counsel, for appellee.

Joseph M. Gindhart, with him Eugene R. Lippman and Krusen, Evans and Byrne, for intervenor.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 76]

This is an appeal by Protective Motor Service Company (Protective) and Brink's, Inc. (Brink's), from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission), dated August 24, 1970, dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, an application of Edward J.

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 77]

Ring Detective Agency, Inc. (Ring). On April 29, 1969, Ring filed an application with the Commission for the "right to begin to transport, as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, money, from shipping offices or banks in the City and County of Philadelphia, to vessels moored or anchored at the Port of Philadelphia which is located in the Counties of Bucks and Delaware and the City and County of Philadelphia."

Protests to the application were filed by Protective and Brink's.*fn1 The Commission held a hearing which required three days to be completed. Following the Commission's order, Protective and Brink's filed this appeal and Ring was granted leave to intervene. The Commission and Ring have filed motions to quash the appeal but these motions are hereby denied.

An examination of the record discloses that Ring was formed in 1923 to provide guard and escort services on the waterfront for vessels using the Port of Philadelphia. Ring personnel are used for gangway guards, cargo watchmen, escort services, accompanying ships' personnel from vessels to hospitals or detention centers, and delivering money to captains on board ships. Ring engages in a check processing service in addition to its guard and escort service. Usually, Ring's service in this aspect is requested by a ship's agent upon notification by the ship's owner or captain that money will be needed when the ship arrives at the Port of Philadelphia. The captain usually desires money to be delivered so that he may pay members of his crew that are about to leave the ship and so that he may purchase necessary supplies. Various factors such as weather and river conditions make it difficult to predict the ship's arrival time. Either the owner or the agent issues a check

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 78]

    which is picked up by Ring at the agent's office. Thereafter, Ring takes it to a bank and converts it to cash and transfers the same to the ship. When the ship does not arrive as scheduled or when its arrival is during nonbanking hours, it is necessary for Ring to take the money to its office and retain it until the ship's arrival. Ring makes these money transfers in its unmarked and ...


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.