Imágenes de páginas


Section 207. [Sec. 307 (a) U. S. Code.] Issuance of certificate(a) Issuance authorized to qualified applicants for regular routes and between fixed termini.-Subject to section 210, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operations covered by the application, if it is found that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of this chapter and the requirements, rules, and regulations of the commission thereunder, and that the proposed service, to the extent to be authorized by the certificate, is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied: Provided, however, That no such certificate shall be issued to any common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle for operations over other than a regular route or routes, and between fixed termini, except as such carriers may be authorized to engage in special or charter operations. (Part II, sec. 207, Aug. 9, 1935, c. 498, sec. 1, 49 Stat. 551.)

Notes of Decisions

5. Construction and interpretation.

6. Restriction of operations.

7. Competition.

public convenience and necessity when applicant himself only seeks the favor

8. Financial ability to conduct operations. of the "grandfather clause" and makes

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

5. Construction and interpretation.Evidence, sec. 206 (b), n. 22. Abandonment of operation, sec. 212 (a), n. 20.

Provision of sec. 206 (a) "otherwise the application for such certificate shall be decided in accordance with the procedure provided in sec. 207 (a) of this part and such certificate shall be issued or denied accordingly" does not lay a compulsion upon the commission to canvass all the questions of public and private interest that are implicit in an application for a certificate based on

no claim to have the commission act outside the "grandfather clause".-United States v. Maher, 307 U. S. 148*.

There is no violation of the equal protection, or due process clause, in State law requiring transport of liquor by common carrier. A licensed common carrier is under stricter control than an ordinary contract carrier and may be entrusted with privileges forbidden to the latter.-Ziffrin, Inc., v. Reeves, 308 U. S. 132*.

The Federal Motor Carrier Act does not provide that every person who shall receive a certificate shall be entitled to use of the various highways of the State, but it does prohibit any one engaging in interstate commerce until he receives such certification from the Interstate Commerce Commission.— Thompson v. McDonald, 95 Fed. (2d) 937 (943)*.

Under the "grandfather" application a continuance of operations is granted until the application is decided and a continuance of operations is an incident

1 "part" as enacted; changed to "chapter" by Code, Sup. I to 1934 edition.

of that application.

Section 207 (a) Action on an application involves exconfers no such right. Under it opera-ercise of a broad discretion, with con

[blocks in formation]

The best interpretation of the purpose underlying "public convenience and necessity" is the purpose of sec. 1 (18) (22), part I, to prevent interstate carriers weakening themselves by constructing or operating superfluous lines. and protect them from being weakened by another carrier's operating interstate a competing line not required in the public interest. — Pan-American Bus Lines, 1 M. C. C. 190 (203); Minneapolis Van & Warehouse Co., 6 M. C. C. 477 (480); Missouri Pac. Transp. Co., 9 M. C. C. 712*; Kansas City S. Transport Co., Inc., 10 M. C. C. 221 (234); Illinois Central R. Co., 12 M. C. C. 485. The words "convenience" and "necessity" are used conjunctively, but must be given a separate and distinct meaning. The word "necessity" must be somewhat liberally construed, for comparatively few things can be regarded as an absolute "necessity", and it was not the intent of Congress to use the words in so strict and narrow a sense.Clark, 1 M. C. C. 445; Pan-American Bus Line Operation, 1 M. C. C. 190 (202); Minneapolis Van & Warehouse Co., 6 M. C. C. 477 (480).

sideration not only to local convenience and necessity but also to welfare of the traveling public and the transportation industry generally.-Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., Extension, 1 M. C. C. 681 (689).

Although "route" is not defined in the act, in its certificates the commission describes routes in terms of particular highways. The act contemplates that where specified points are to be served, the "routes over which" the service is to be rendered shall also be named, meaning highways.-Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc., 11 M. C. C. 131 (133).

"Between" as used in authorizations connotes operation for compensation in both directions, between named terminals and intermediate points.-Lee Extension, 20 M. C. C. 649.

In issuance of a certificate it is necessary to find public convenience and necessity require the proposed service; in issuance of a permit it is necessary to find only that the proposed service is consistent with the public interest.Bassetti & Lawson, 1 M. C. C. 187 (189).

Disadvantages of common carrier operation as against contract, n. 7, this paragraph.

When operation proposed is common carrier, the statute requires considera"Convenience and necessity" implies tion of the extent to which the territory more than mere adequacy or avail- is at present served, need for additional ability of agencies by which a traveler common-carrier service therein, facilcan be conveyed from one point to an-ities applicant can provide; less is deother, without regard to special and manded in case of a contract carrier.— distinguishing characteristics of the Id., p. 189. service afforded, just as it implies something less than an absolute and acute need. All American Bus Lines, Inc., 18 M. C. C. 755 (776).

The commission has not hesitated to grant certificates when advantages to those of the public using the proposed service outweigh the disadvantages, real or potential, to existing services that may result.-Id., p. 777.

Common carrier defined, sec. 203 (a) (14), n. 1.

This section requires proof that service authorized is or will be required by present or future public convenience and necessity. The word "present" cannot be construed as relating to a time prior to the date of the application.— Pan-American Bus Line Operation, 1 M. C. C. 190 (202).

While the act contains no inhibition of the transportation by a motor carrier of property of which it is the owner, the service to the public must be paramount and should not be subordinated to private-carrier interests.—Bartel, 7 M. C. C. 755.

Operation in connection with other business, or for applicant's convenience, n. 25, this paragraph.

As section 216 specifically authorizes rail and motor carriers to establish through routes and joint rates, it was not intended that carriers should be required to obtain certificates of convenience and necessity when proposed through service would be over lines or routes of the respective participating carriers which are in lawful operation. Motor-Rail-Motor Traffic in East and Midwest, 219 I. C. C. 245 (273).

Commission has power under sec. 207 to issue a certificate authorizing a carrier to engage exclusively in either special or charter operations, or both, for transportation of passengers and their baggage over irregular routes. Country Day School Assn. of Wichita, 13 M. C. C. 201 (203).

And only those common carriers who engage exclusively in transportation of special or chartered parties are required to obtain certificate specifically authorizing such operations.-Peninsula Transit Corp., 1 M. C. C. 440 (442).

See also sec. 208 (c), n. 1, special, charter, operation.

Operation continued by applicant since filing application for authority to operate is lawful.-Thomas v. National Delivery Assn., Inc., 24 Fed. Supp. 171 (172); Laske, 10 M. C. C. 431 (432)*.

Authority to conduct operations over routes purchased from another carrier can not be granted to an applicant solely as a successor in interest.-Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc., 16 M. C. C. 530. Applicant cannot under sec. 207 application be authorized to conduct any operations except those for which he assumes full responsibility in his own name.-Grady, 9 M. C. C. 511 (512).

[ocr errors]

Operation by other than applicant under "grandfather" clause, sec. 206 (a), n. 50a.

Stipulation between applicant and a competitor wherein applicant agreed to limit its operation in certain points is inconsistent with the duties of a common carrier. If granted certificate applicant must serve all shippers indis criminately.-Canny Trucking Co., Inc. 17 M. C. C. 559.

See also sec. 213 (a) (1), n. 1, agreements.

Before certificate is issued to operate over a highway under construction or about to be constructed, not only should date of its completion be ascertainable and not too remote, but all requirements necessary to construction should have been met.-Oregon Motor Stages Extension, 18 M. C. C. 732.

Transportation interstate by the caravan method, for compensation, is transportation subject to the act.-D. L. Wartena, Inc., 4 M. C. C. 619 (620).

Transportation defined, sec. 203 (a) (19), n. 2.

Return of vehicles refused by distributor or dealer is a necessary incident to the business of transporting automobiles by driveway or caravan method.-Fleming, 8 M. C. C. 469.

Transportation of express matter for Railway Express Agency is common carrier service. Applicant having authority as a common carrier, no additional authority is needed.-Sheetz, 10 M. C. C. 393.

Operation without authority, n. 10, this paragraph.


As found in the Scott Bros. case, 4 M. C. C. 551, a motor-vehicle operator engaged in collection and delivery service for a railroad is not subject to regulation under part II. Certificate or permit from the commission for such services is not required.-Pomeroy, 4 M. C. C. 723; Atherton, 19 M. C. C. 120. See also n. 35, this paragraph.

If all certificates for new common carrier operations were to be withheld until safety regulations are made effec

[ocr errors]

tive, shippers would be denied a con- termini, if any, between which, and venient and necessary service in the meanwhile.-Bowles, 1 M. C. C. 589


intermediate and off-route points at which the motor carrier is authorized to operate.-Id., p. 205 i. e., not necessary to handle local as well as through traffic.-All American Bus Lines, Inc., 18

Public regulation can enforce reasonable standards of safe, continuous, adequate service, but it can hardly be ex-M. C. C. 755 (775). pected to take the initiative in experimentation and development of new types of service.-Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M. C. C. 190 (208).

Interstate character will not be presumed to attach to wholly intrastate movements. The commission has no Jurisdiction over wholly intrastate commerce.-Benninghoven, 9 M. C. C. 117. Interstate commerce defined, sec. 203 (a) (10), n. 5.

For operation over a new route, extension must be authorized, n. 30, this paragraph.

That applicant has served the public for a substantial period and its business has been steadily growing, would be one method of determining public convenience and necessity.-Brown Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 2 M. C. C. 667 (675)*.

When applicant has been operating for a substantial period over the same route as that of protestant, a portion of the public nas found its service a convenlence and desires its continuance, termini served are cities of substantial size, traffic available is considerable, commission is not warranted in concluding existing service is adequate.-Mo-Ark Coach Lines, Inc., 19 M. C. C. 419 (426)*. 6. Restriction of operations.-The definition in sec. 203 (a) (14) recognizes that common carriers of property may restrict their operations to a "class or classes of property," but does not indicate that common carriers of passengers may si:nilarly restrict their operations to a class or classes of passengers.-PanAmerican Bus Lines Operation, 1 M. C. C. 190 (205).

A common carrier can lawfully restrict its undertaking to carriage of specific commodities between specific places and over specified routes.-Slagle, 2 M. C. C. 127 (136).

Unless permits for contract carriers of general commodities over irregular routes in a territory are restricted to the particular type of service engaged in, to prevent evolution from specialized to general service, serious injury to motor common carriers will result.-Keystone Transp. Co., 19 M. C. O. 475 (494); Jones Extension, 21 M. C. C. 470; DeMerchant, 21 M. C. C. 585; Stepanek, 21 M. C. C. 612; Marianelli, 22 M. C. C. 142; Inter-City Transport & Motor Co. Extension, 22 M. C. C. 588.

Applicant will operate with closed doors through two points already served by motor carriers.-Nye Extension, 6 M. C. C. 661.

Certificate limited to transportation in through service, with no passengers to be picked up or discharged at intermediate points.-Penn Bus Co., 2 M. C. C. 278 (281).

Restricted authority granted, in view of the number of carriers available, that their service may not be jeopardized or impaired.-May and Gregoris, 9 M. C. C. 494 (495).

Restriction to use of six-passenger sedans, as used in the past, would be inconsistent with the proviso of sec. 208 (a); cannot lawfully be imposed.Peters, 23 M. C. C. 611 (617); Nudelman, 22 M. C. C. 275 (280).

Restriction imposed to withhold from applicant right to handle any shipment destinated to or intended for any onCommon carriers of property or pas- rail bulk-storage facility at any point sengers may restrict their operations as not served under its "grandfather" provided in sec. 208 (a), which provides right, in Arizona. Only rejected cargo that a certificate shall specify service to to move on return trips.-Cantalay & be rendered, routes over which, fixed | Tanzola, Inc., 10 M. C. C. 743 (753).

Restriction to hiring out of exclusivement of t. L. lots.-Humphries, 20 use of applicant's vehicles denied, appli- M. C. C. 781. cant being a class D-3 operator.-Aronson Extension, 10 M. C. C. 284.

Applicant has never maintained interchange arrangements. Restriction would permit it to continue the essentially local service it has maintained in the past, but would prevent competition with existing interstate bus lines for long-haul traffic. Such limitation would be invalid as beyond commission's power; would conflict with duty under sec. 216 (a) to establish through routes. Southwest Missouri R. Co., 4 M. C. C. 582 (583).

Authority limited to transport by truck-away method. Drive-away operations are supplemental to truck-away operations, are only incidentally used in certain instances, as, where a piece of equipment is too large for truck-away loading, or there is urgent need for 1. t. 1. movement.-Commercial Carriers, Inc., 12 M. C. C. 479 (484).

Stipulation between applicant and a competitor wherein applicant agreed to limit its operation in certain points is inconsistent with the duties of a common carrier. If granted certificate applicant must serve all shippers indiscriminately.-Canny Trucking Co., Inc., 17 M. C. C. 559.

See also sec. 213 (a) (1), n. 1, Agreements.

No useful purpose would be served by restricting carriers of motor ve hicles to particular types thereof, and it is in the public interest to avoid arbitrary and artificial classifications within a service which is in itself highly specialized.-McDowall, 17 M. C. C. 642 (645).

No good purpose would be served by restricting the territory for shipments of cotton yarn.-Whisenant, 17 M. C. C. 259.

Limitations, special, charter operations, see sec. 208 (c), n. 1.

Authority to operate in Hudson County over routes approved will be granted subject to such restrictions as may hereafter be imposed if need be shown.-Lincoln Tunnel Applications, 12 M. C. C. 184 (199).

What included in transportation, sec. 203 (a) (19), n. 2.

Authorization of persons engaged in other businesses, sec. 206 (a), n. 60, sec. 207 (a), n. 25, sec. 209 (a), n. 10, 29.

In view of efficiency, general satisfaction, with applicant's arrangements for transfer by independent operator, as well as location of its freight house, actual operation of applicant's vehicles over proposed route should be restricted, as to the southern terminal, to Kansas City, Kans.-Kansas City & L. Transp. Co., 3 M. C. C. 307 (310).

7. Competition. - Commercial services rendered by truck operators, sec. 202 (a), n. 15.

Competition, rail and motor carriers, n. 307, sec. 1 (5). Competition, contract and common carriers, sec. 209 (a), n. 12.

Applications denied, service adequate, § 207 (a), n. 25, Necessity.

Extension of credit, factor in competition, sec. 223.

Rates, sec. 216 (b), n. 25.

Common carriers, since they undertake to serve the general public, should be protected against contract carriers who take the cream of the traffic and thus make it difficult for common carriers to continue their broader operations.-Gollock, 1 M. C. C. 161 (165)*; Keystone Transp. Co., 19 M. C. C. 475 (491).

Disadvantage of the common carrier Considering the large number of mo- is accentuated when competitors, claimtor carriers operating intrastate in the ing to be contract carriers, shop around territory, as well as interstate operators among shippers, confine their actual transporting general commodities, ap- contracts to individual shipments, playplicant's operations limited to move-ing contract carrier against common,

« AnteriorContinuar »