Keystone Warehousing Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com

• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: Trexler, P. J.
• Citation: Keystone Warehousing Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com, 161 A. 891, 105 Pa.Super. 267 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)
• Decision Date: 14 July 1932
• Docket Number: 37-1932
• Parties: Keystone Warehousing Company, Appellant, v. Pub. Serv. Com

161 A. 891

105 Pa.Super. 267

Keystone Warehousing Company, Appellant, v. Pub. Serv. Com

No. 37-1932

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 14, 1932

Argued March 18, 1932

Appeal by respondent from order of the Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at Complaint Docket C8911-31, in the case of Keystone Warehousing Company v. The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Complaint charging respondent with operating as a common carrier without a certificate of public convenience. Before The Public Service Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The Public Service Commission ordered the respondent to discontinue the transportation of merchandise as a common carrier. Respondent appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the order of the commission.

Affirmed.

C Brewster Rhoads, and with him William H. Lathrop and Lucien B. Carpenter and Montgomery & McCracken, for appellant cited: Harder v. Public Service Commission, 90 Pa.Super. 373; Frantz v. Public Service Commission, 93 Pa.Super. 416.

E. Everett Mather, Jr., Assistant Counsel, and with him John Fox Weiss, Counsel, for appellee, cited: Hoffman et al. v. Public Service Commission, 99 Pa.Super. 417; Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. Corbin, 285 Pa. 273.

R. W. Archbald, Jr., and with him Ralph C. Busser, Jr., and Harold S. Shertz, for Philadelphia Local Express, Philadelphia Drayage & Express Corp. and Merchants Parcel Delivery, intervening appellees.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Gawthrop, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld and Parker, JJ.

OPINION

Trexler, P. J.

Complaint was made to the Public Service Commission that the Keystone Warehousing Company was operating as a common carrier, without the approval of the Commission. The facts are properly stated in the report of the Commission.

"The respondent began business on April 20, 1931. Before beginning business, the present manager of the respondent company solicited from various business houses in Philadelphia the business of transporting packages from their stores to customers in the city and the surrounding counties. The manager has continued to solicit business and states that he will continue to do so in the future. He interviewed representatives of about eighty firms and secured the business of eleven of them. With each of these shippers contracts were made. The contracts are practically uniform. The respondent agrees to deliver all merchandise consigned to him by the shipper, and the shipper agrees to consign to the respondent all merchandise for delivery in the towns served by it. The prices vary from fifteen to seventeen and one-half cents per package. The contracts have a term of one year and are subject to cancellation on thirty days' notice. It admitted, however, that it was willing to make similar contracts with all shippers in the same general class as those whom it now serves.

Although respondent has solicited business from a large number of shippers, it has refused to make similar contracts with a few business houses. The reason for this refusal was that the goods could not be mixed with other goods, as in the case of meat, or that the packages were of sizes which were not convenient to handle."

The Public Service Company Law of 1913 states "the term 'common carrier' as used in this Act includes any and all common carriers, whether corporations or persons, engaged for profit in the conveyance of passengers or property, or both, between points within this Commonwealth by, through, over, above, or under the land or water, or both."

Contention of the appellant is that it does not come under this designation for the...