Haugh & Keen an Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | KELLER, President Judge |
| Citation | 2 A.2d 548 |
| Parties | HAUGH & KEEN AN STORAGE & TRANSFER CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1938 |
HAUGH & KEEN AN STORAGE & TRANSFER CO.
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.*
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov. 18, 1938.
Appeal No. 18, April term, 1939, from order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Application Docket No. 25417 —Folder No. 3; Thomas C. Buchanan, Acting Chairman.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of the Haugh & Keenan Storage and Transfer Company for renewal of a certificate of public convenience. From an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission refusing to renew the certificate of public convenience, the Haugh & Keenan Storage and Transfer Company appeals.
Appeal dismissed and order affirmed.
Argued before KELLER, P.J., and CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, and RHODES, JJ.
Alexander Cooper and Arnold J. Lange, both of Pittsburgh, for appellant.
John C. Kelley, Asst. Counsel, and Edward Knuff, Counsel, both of Harrisburg, for appellee.
KELLER, President Judge.
The appellant is a Pennsylvania corporation, organized under the General Corporation Act of April 29, 1874, P.L. 73, 15 P.S. § 1 et seq., for the purpose of carrying on a general warehousing business.1
Its charter gives it no power to engage in or carry on business as a common carrier. Notwithstanding this, it has for some years been acting as a common carrier in the transportation of goods, in operations known as household movings. In 1933, it applied to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience evidencing its approval of the company's engaging in the business of house to house moving, which was granted; but this was evidently done without a realization that such operation amounted to carrying on business as a common carrier. The certificate expired at the end of two years and when the company filed an application for its renewal, the Commission refused to renew it on the ground that the applicant's charter gave it no power to engage in the business of a common carrier. The company appealed. If the corporation applicant clearly had no power to conduct the business of a common carrier, the Commission was justified in refusing it a certificate of public convenience, evidencing approval of its doing so. Pittsburgh Railways Co. v. Public Service Commission, 115 Pa. Super. 58, 174 A. 670.
The appellant bases its appeal to this court on the proposition that the operation of transporting household goods, known as household moving or house to house moving, is incidental to its main business of general warehousing, and intended to promote the comfort and convenience of the patrons of its warehousing business, although not restricted to them. It relies on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi-Gulfport Compress & Warehouses, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 34206
...R. R. Co., 233 Ill. 378, 84 N.E. 368, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 604; Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pa. Public Utilities Com., 2 A.2d 548. In instances such as this where this court has had no occasion to pass on the specific question here presented, it is not often that the cou......
-
Tappato v. Teplick & Eisenberg Co.
...of positive orders, provided the employee's duties included the doing of an act which caused the injury, or where his duties were so 2 A.2d 548 connected with the act which caused the injury that as to it he was not in the position of a stranger or trespasser. Dickey v. Pittsburgh & Lak......
-
Chicago & NW Ry. v. Buckingham, 8439
...to pass on the issue. Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 133 Pa. Super. 175, 2 A2d 548. And see 5 U. of Pittsburgh L. Rev. 192. [69 SD 7] That the legislature, if it had seen fit, could have required the Public Utilities Commission to de......
-
Protective Motor Service Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
...warehousing business in Haugh & Keenan Storage and Transfer Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 133 Pa.Super. 175, 2 A.2d 548 (1938). The transportation of milk by the owner of a dairy to his own dairy from the several farms comprising his source of supply was held to be ......
-
Mississippi-Gulfport Compress & Warehouses, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 34206
...R. R. Co., 233 Ill. 378, 84 N.E. 368, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 604; Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pa. Public Utilities Com., 2 A.2d 548. In instances such as this where this court has had no occasion to pass on the specific question here presented, it is not often that the cou......
-
Tappato v. Teplick & Eisenberg Co.
...of positive orders, provided the employee's duties included the doing of an act which caused the injury, or where his duties were so 2 A.2d 548 connected with the act which caused the injury that as to it he was not in the position of a stranger or trespasser. Dickey v. Pittsburgh & Lak......
-
Chicago & NW Ry. v. Buckingham, 8439
...to pass on the issue. Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 133 Pa. Super. 175, 2 A2d 548. And see 5 U. of Pittsburgh L. Rev. 192. [69 SD 7] That the legislature, if it had seen fit, could have required the Public Utilities Commission to de......
-
Protective Motor Service Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
...warehousing business in Haugh & Keenan Storage and Transfer Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 133 Pa.Super. 175, 2 A.2d 548 (1938). The transportation of milk by the owner of a dairy to his own dairy from the several farms comprising his source of supply was held to be ......