statutory date.-Knapp & Lathrop, 3 restore any right by reason of operation M. C. C. 737. on the statutory date.-Oilfields Trucking Co., 12 M. C. C. 16 (21). Applicant claiming rights as successor in interest should submit terms or substance of the lease, show the predecessor operated as a common carrier over the clause.-Stepnoski, 14 M. C. C. 394. route, interstate, and that applicant by purchase or otherwise, is successor in interest.-Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., 2 M. C. C. 214 (217). Operation within the State acquires no rights under the “grandfather” In absence of showing that trustee passed title to the predecessor company's assets, rights, privileges, to applicant, any claim of applicant thereto cannot be recognized. Therefore it is immaterial whether predecessor was in bona fide operation.-Pioneer Fuel Corp., 13 M. C. C. 42. "Wildcat" operations, cited as predecessor operations, do not afford basis for establishment of rights under the "grandfather" clause.-All American Bus Lines, Inc., 6 M. C. C. 207 (208). Change in control of applicant corporation through stock purchase would not be grounds for denying certificate under the "grandfather" clause.-Nevin Midland Lines, 4 M. C. C. 547. Purchaser and seller were advised that the transaction was subject to sec. 213. Neither made an effort to set the order aside, have it reconsidered, nor filed sec. 213 application. The real party has no standing as applicant nor successor. To grant him certificate would disregard sec. 213. As he discontinued interstate operation, he is not entitled to "grandfather" certificate.Lennerton Motor Transp., Inc., 17 M. C. C. 779. To be entitled to hauling of general commodities there should be a comprehensive showing that a diversified class of commodities was actually being handled consistent with any holding out in that respect on and prior to the statutory date.-Jones, 19 M. C. C. 687 (692). Unwillingness to haul general commodities at prevailing rates, and consequent virtual restriction of operations to hauling livestock and agricultural commodities, indicate there was no bona fide holding out or real desire to provide service as a common carrier of general commodities.-Newton, 4 M. C. C. 227 (229)*. Corporation does not claim transportation of coal with return loads of general merchandise has been continuous since the statutory date, and it instituted movement of beer in 1936, after which it ceased transport of other commodities altogether.-Bona fide operation not made out.-Wilkes-Barre Anthracite Co., 11 M. C. C. 259. Certificate denied as to operations wherein applicants have picked up traffic at several points throughout the general territory, but as to which applicants have shifted operations as between points as sources of southbound traffic; applicants did not physically operate from such points.-Northern Motor Lines, 4 M. C. C. 202 (205). Consistency of movement must be shown as distinguished from merely a sporadic shipment or two at remote intervals.-System Arizona Exp. Service, Inc., 4 M. C. C. 129 (133). The same individuals own the stock and manage the affairs of both corporations, but are engaged in a single business, entitling them to only one certificate. Issuance of authority withheld until the commission is advised which is to receive it.-Bigley Bros., Calls for household goods service beInc., 4 M. C. C. 711 (712). tween the same points are seldom reTransfer of operating rights, sec. peated. Traffic is not regular in any 212 (b), n. 10. Resumption and expansion of service subsequent to total lack of traffic offered for seven months were not effective to See also n. 56, infra. given direction. What may be infrequent but fairly regular business to or from a certain State for a small carrier may be only sporadic business for a Operation of empty equipment prior Operations by others do not entitle to June 1, 1935, does not establish applicant to certificate.-Johnson, 11 M. "grandfather" rights.-Mercury Motor-C. C. 665; Northern Motor Lines, 4 M. C. ways, Inc., 10 M. C. C. 311 (314). The commission is not concerned with routes traversed within municipalities, and streets need not be specified in certificates under the "grandfather" clause except where the routes within municipalities constitute the essence of the operation or are of importance in respect to the carrier's rights.-Nevin Midland Lines, 4 M. C. C. 547 (550); G. R. Wood, Inc., 3 M. C. C. 703; Lincoln Tunnel Applications, 12 M. C. C. 184 (197). Irregular-route operation, n. 54, this paragraph. As the year-round, instead of seasonal service between points named was not commenced until after June 1, 1935, applicant has no year-round "grandfather" rights to certificate authorizing continuance of service between such points.—Boston & Maine Transp. Co., 3 M. C. C. 98 (101). C. 202. Operation by truck line not under applicant's control or management may not be considered that of applicant so that a right may be 'awfully predicated thereon.-Clairmont, 7 M. C. C. 76 (79). A company merely leasing equipment is not a carrier; has no proper claim to permit or certificate under the “grandfather" clause.-B. & E. Transp. Co., Inc., 12 M. C. C. 531 (535). Hiring trucks from others, emergency Until applicant, authorized to operate arrangements, when traffic is heavy, under provisions of sec. 206 (a), has owner furnishing the truck and driver, complied with requirements in the com- applicants paying lump sum per trip mission's order relating to insurance, the without reference to freight charges, authorization does not become the final also carrying cargo insurance for the order of the commission.-Swanson Bus hired equipment, shippers dealing only Lines, Inc., Extension, 8 M. C. C. 527. with applicants, is operation by appliSuch operations as are claimed by ap-ca.ats.- Northern Motor Lines, 4 M. C. C. plicant, through operation of its affiliate corporation, organized to take over oper- Service through an agent during the ations which applicant deemed to be period applicant was not permitted by those of a contract carrier, are not bona the State to serve the Oregon point fide, because of the resort to conceal-established "grandfather" rights in apment and deception.-Gulf States Exp., plicant thereto.-Consolidated Freight Inc., 9 M. C. C. 251 (254). Lines, Inc., 11 M. C. C. 131 (137). 202. Operation by members of an associa No "grandfather" rights are accorded | applied for and for any and all traffic. by the act in respect of operations con- Operations with such leased equipment ducted by a connecting carrier beyond were those of applicant.-Burnside, 14 the terminal of, or interchange points M. C. C. 685. on applicant's route.-System Arizona Exp. Service, Inc., 4 M. C. C. 129 (133); | tion, actually conducted by each indiCater's Motor Freight System, Inc., 2 M. C. C. 223 (227); Dakota Transp., Inc., 3 M. C. C. 621 (628)*; D. L. Wartena, Inc., 4 M. C. C. 619 (627); McCarthy, 17 M. C. C. 763; Riss & Co., Inc., 21 M. C. C. 521 (526). vidual member, in his own interest, was operation by the individuals.-Charleston Motor Exp. Co., Inc., 14 M. C. C. 569 (571). When vehicles of owner-operators, while being used by applicant, were No "grandfather" rights can be as-operated under its direction and concribed to applicant so far as concerns operations of others performed as connecting "delivering carriers."-New England Transp. Co., 12 M. C. C. 461 (473). trol, thus under its responsibility to the public as well as to the shipper, the operations were those of applicant, within "or by a lease or any other arrangement" of sec. 203 (a) (14).Operation by predecessor which was Dixie Ohio Exp. Co., 17 M. C. C. 735 an electric line does not come within the (740); Novick, 12 M. C. C. 213; Rodalimitation of bona fide operation as a baugh, 20 M. C. C. 300; Marsh, 19 common carrier by motor vehicle.-M. C. C. 709; Railway Exp. Agency, Kansas City & L. Transp. Co., 3 M. C. C. 307 (308). Applicant not owning any equipment, Inc., 21 M. C. C. 161; Dixon, 21 M. C. C. 617; Kaplan Trucking Co., 21 M. C. C. 691 (694); Galveston Truck Line Corp., 22 M. C. C. 451 (461); International but renting that of two affiliated corpo- Forwarding Co., 22 M. C. C. 581 (585); rations, operation being by employees of those corporations, loading and unloading by applicant's employees, applicant failed to establish operation required of common carriers.-H. & L. Transp. Corp., 7 M. C. C. 560. Bona fide operation is not shown by operation by brother of the applicant, the latter having little interest in the service, no partnership existing, operations were few in certain States, and furnished too little money for purchase of license plates.-Goss, 14 M. C. C. 331. Although applicant was instrumental in the arrangement, and tariff moved on its billing and under its published tariff, this is not controlling. Operation by another does not establish rights for applicant.-Western Truck Lines, 14 M. C. C. 369 (380). Leased vehicles were employed in emergencies and were operated under applicant's complete direction and control. Only 5 percent of his total tonnage was transported in such vehicles, which were used indiscriminately over routes distinguished, and operations by contract carrier employed not applicant's operations.-Missouri Pac. R. Co., 22 M. C. C. 321 (326). The same rule should be applied in determining the issue as to use of equipment belonging to others relating to past operations of a common carrier and of a contract carrier, because of similarity of the phrase as to operation under lease or other such arrangement under sec. 203 (a) (14) and sec. 203 (a) (15).-Dixie Ohio Exp. Co., 17 M. C. C. 735 (741). During period applicant hauled for motor carriers he in effect abandoned his own operations as a common carrier and assumed the position of an owner-operator. Such operations do not entitle him to certificate.-B-Line Motor Freight, 20 M. C. C. 538. Freight between certain points was controlled by, solicited by, applicant, and moved on its bills of lading, but moved in vehicles of another, as agent of applicant. Certificate granted. Canny Trucking Co., Inc., 17 M. C. C. 559. Requirement under the contract that operations shall be conducted in the name of applicant or shall be shown as for that company, may serve to preserve the trade name of the lessors, is a public acknowledgment of existence of their operating rights, but does not alter the fact of operation.-InterCarolinas Motor Bus Co., 21 M. C. C. 633 (639). Busses used in through service are operated under an agreement between applicant and the parent company providing that control over busses and drivers and responsibility for the operation pass from one company to the other at the boundary. Drivers, as to portions of the through operation which are over applicant's routes, are applicant's employees. Such operations have been those of applicant.-Interstate Transit Lines, Inc., 18 M. C. C. 281. When a carrier claims as his own Under the act the actual operator is entitled to a certificate. Applicant hav-movements conducted in the equipment ing an interest in the operating rights, of another, who likewise is a carrier in which though perhaps not a reversion, his own right, it is not enough for him should be recognized in the certificate. to offer the legal conclusion that a lease Condition included that upon termina- exists.-Beerman, 20 M. C. C. 394. tion of the lease or license agreement, certificate to be transferred to applicant or its nominee.-Id., p. 638. To establish rights, carrier under whose rights interchanged equipment is operated must assume full responsibility for direction, conduct, condition, and operation of such equipment while it is in his possession.-Gerard Motor Exp., Inc., 2 M. C. C. 271 (276)*; Norfolk S. Bus Corp., 19 M. C. C. 45*. Though the contract with connecting carrier purports to make applicant its agent in performance of their own transportation, despite the form of the contract, its substance may be to give permission to applicant to conduct operations in its own behalf over routes of other carriers, which permission cannot lawfully be granted.-Gerard Motor Exp., Inc., 2 M. C. C. 271 (276). As ownership or control of the three corporations is lodged in one individual, and in view of the unity of their management, commission may properly disregard the intricate corporate set-up and fiction of separate identities. One certificate will be issued, to cover terri If equipment owned by others is used in any operation authorized, the operation will have to be under applicant's direction and control and under its responsibility to the general public as well as to shippers.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. Extension, 20 M. C. C. 563 (564). Applicant exercised no direct control or responsibility to the general public on the statutory date. Subsequent assumption of such direct control and responsibility, if accomplished, is not sufficient to bring the operation within the purview of findings in the Dixie Ohio case.-Interstate Truck Service, Inc., 21 M. C. C. 645 (652). mere even 51. Intention or attempt to operate. A mere intention to operate, or a commence, attempt to though bona fide, does not constitute operation within the meaning of that phrase in this section. There can be no interruption of a service which has lin Line, Inc., 1 M. C. C. 97 (100). never in fact existed.-Benjamin Frank A mere holding out, or offer to operate, on the specified dates, is not equivalent to bona fide operation.-Crescent Transp. Co., 2 M. C. C. 313 (315); Fitz tory served by each.-Sterling Exp., gerald's Exp., 6 M. C. C. 499 (501); Inc., 17 M. C. C. 379 (384). The control of each bus remaining in the owner-carrier, the operation is applicant's own.-Norfolk S. Bus Corp., 19 M. C. C. 45*. Lenker, 9 M. C. C. 665 (667); Briggs Mere intentions, plans, preparation, or | must also show that it has so operated attempts to operate, do not constitute since that time except for interruptions operation within the meaning of the over which it had no control. Inter"grandfather" clause.-Cater's Motorruption because the shipper did not reFreight System, Inc., 2 M. C. C. 223 new its contract with applicant was not (228); Lemm Extension, 9 M. C. C. 669. such interruption.-Coast Line Exp., Filing of application on May 14, 1935, Inc., 9 M. C. C. 427 (428). with the Indiana Commission, while evidencing applicant's intention to begin operations, is not the equivalent of operations on or prior to June 1, 1935.-National Transit Corp., 8 M. C. C. 151 (154). Regardless of the fact that applicant prepared to institute operations prior to June 1, 1935, it is not entitled to protection under the "grandfather" clause as it was not actually operating on that date.-Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M. C. C. 190 (201); Connor, 1 M. C. C. 327. Interruption to be fatal must necessarily amount to abandonment of operation. In determining whether there was abandonment, length of time during which service was interrupted, although an important factor, is not in itself controlling.-Black Hills Transp. Co., 2 M. C. C. 391 (396). Applicants' changes in route affected no one adversely, and with the exception of abandonment at one point, there has been no interruption of the service; changes in route not interruption of service, nor institution of new operations.-Central Kentucky Film Service, Inc., 8 M. C. C. 735; Capital Motor Lines, 1 M. C. C. 462 (464). Cessation of operation because of belief operation without commission ident Conversations with shippers did not amount to an undertaking to transport in applicant's own behalf. Hauling arranged for but done by the motor company pending the time when its receiver would have no further need of appli-ification tags would be unlawful is one cant's services, does not make out bona fide operation.-Gordon Bros. Transp. Co., Inc., 3 M. C. C. 577. over which applicant had control.Williams, 14 M. C. C. 747. Doubt created by cessation because of Failure to begin operation on or be- fear of prosecution, on commission fore June 1 was due to the fact the order or advice of its field representapark season did not open until June 15. tives, should be resolved in favor of "Grandfather" rights cannot accrue in applicant.-Barringham, 20 M. C. C. the absence of some actual operation on or prior to June 1, 1935. Mere preparation for future operation is insufficient. Authority granted under sec. 207.-Great Falls Coach Lines Co., 3 M. C. C. 441 (443). While applicant intended to institute regular operation over route used as a temporary privilege granted by the State commission, operations were not conducted thereover except when it was impossible to operate over the southern route. Occasional use of a highway in such circumstance does not establish "grandfather" rights.-English, 11 M. C. C. 293 (296). 606. Cessation of operation after receipt of commission's letter, which did not order cessation, but required filing of tariffs, was not interruption beyond applicant's control.-Miller Trucking Lines, Inc., 10 M. C. C. 485. Order of the commission dismissing application, after which applicant discontinued operation, followed by the commission's order vacating the previous order, upon which applicant resumed operation, was interruption over which applicant had no control.-Flamming, 20 M. C. C. 63. Applicant voluntarily ceased operating because his trucks were in such a state of repair they could not be operated. This was an interruption of |