WJ Dillner Transfer Company v. ICC

• Decision Date: 26 April 1961
• Docket Number: Civ. A. 60-606.
• Citation: 193 F. Supp. 823
• Parties: W. J. DILLNER TRANSFER COMPANY, Heavy-Specialized Carriers Conference Steel City Transport, Inc., Ace-Doran Hauling and Rigging Company, Plaintiffs, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, and United States of America, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

193 F. Supp. 823

W. J. DILLNER TRANSFER COMPANY, Heavy-Specialized Carriers Conference Steel City Transport, Inc., Ace-Doran Hauling and Rigging Company, Plaintiffs, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, and United States of America, Defendants.

Civ. A. 60-606.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

April 26, 1961.

Ernie Adamson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Herbert F. Baker, Columbus, Ohio, Henry Wick, Jr., Delisi & Wick, Pittsburgh, Pa., for intervenors.

Donald A. Brinkworth, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Pennsylvania R. Co.

Fritz Kahn, Washington, D. C., for ICC.

Wendell Stanton, A. U. S. A., Pittsburgh, Pa., for U. S.

Before STALEY, Circuit Judge, and McILVAINE and SORG, District Judges.

McILVAINE, District Judge.

This is an action to enjoin, annul and set aside the report on oral argument and orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, entered April 10 and September 23, 1959, and January 13, and August 1 and 16, 1960, in Docket No. MC-C-1766, W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. — Investigation of Operations, wherein the Commission construed Dillner's certificate as a heavy hauler and rigger as not authorizing the transportation of certain bundled articles of iron and steel and palletized firebrick, and ordered it to cease and desist from the performance of such unauthorized operations.

In 1954 certain motor carriers petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, to enter an order investigating certain alleged unlawful practices of W. J. Dillner Transfer Co., hereinafter referred to as Dillner. Thereafter Dillner moved to dismiss this petition and petitioned the Commission for declaratory judgment to clarify its authority.

In February 1955, the Commission by order instituted an investigation docketed as No. MC-C-1766, W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. — Investigation of Operations, to determine what commodities can be transported by Dillner and whether it has engaged in operations not authorized by the terms of its certificate. It would appear that under Dillner's certificate Dillner is authorized to engage as a common carrier by motor vehicle in the transportation of: Heavy machinery and such commodities which because of their weight and size require special equipment,

Between points and places in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on the one hand, and, on the other, points and places in West Virginia, Ohio and New York.

And by subsequent certificate was authorized to transport such commodities as, because of their weight or size require special equipment,

Between points and places in Pennsylvania west of U. S. Highway 15, on the one hand, and, on the other, points and places in the southern peninsula of Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York.

Between points and places in Ohio, on the one hand, and, on the other, points and places in West Virginia.

The issue really before the Commission was what commodities may be transported by a motor carrier authorized to transport such commodities which because of their weight and size require special equipment. In attempting to resolve this problem, the hearings were held before an Examiner of the Commission on July 26 through 28, and October 7, 1955. There does not appear to be any complaint about the hearings.

At the hearings testimony was offered by Dillner. Following the submission of briefs the Examiner filed his proposed report in which he divided the commodities into two groups:

Group I consisting of steel channels, plates strip, coils of sheet, and rolling-mill rolls, each individual piece of which is of such weight that it cannot be loaded manually, but requires a crane or other special device for loading.

Group II consisting of steel channels, plates, sheets, bars, rods, pipe, coils, rolling-mill rolls, and firebrick, each individual piece of which is not in excess of the weight and size that can be loaded and unloaded manually, without the use of a crane or other special device, but which as tendered to the carrier are in bundles or packages, or fastened on skids, in such quantity and of such aggregate weight that a crane or other special device is necessary to load the bundles, packages, and skids.

Exceptions were filed to this report by several of the parties. On October 3, 1956, the entire Commission heard oral arguments. The report of the Commission was entered on April 10, 1959, and is reported at 79 M.C.C. 335. The Commission found:

"* * * the transportation of the commodities in group 1 (which were loaded and unloaded by the shipper or consignee) by * * * Dillner * * * has been and is authorized by * * * its certificates and is lawful * * * and that the transportation by Dillner of commodities in group 2 consisting of steel channels, plates, sheets, bars, rods, pipe, coils, rolling-mill rolls, not required by the inherent nature of the commodity to be bundled in the size contemplated by group 2, and of firebrick, is not authorized by its certificate and is unlawful."

It ordered Dillner

"to cease and desist, and thereafter to refrain and abstain, from all operations in interstate or foreign commerce, of the character and scope found in said report to be unlawful and unauthorized."

Application was made for reconsideration and/or rehearing, and the Commission with minor exception denied these. Subsequent petitions for rehearing were filed and denied, and ultimately on August 1, 1960, an order of the Commission was entered fixing September 23, 1960, as the date on which Dillner must comply with the order of the Commission. Thereafter a complaint was filed in the District Court seeking to enjoin, annul and set aside the orders of the Commission referred to above. On September 27, 1960, this Court with the consent of all the parties issued a restraining order pending the disposition of the case before the Court.

The issue as we see it is whether the Commission erroneously, arbitrarily or capriciously interpreted the certificate of the Dillner Company as conferring no rights to transport certain bundled articles of iron and steel and palletized firebrick. In making the determination of this basic issue there are certain principles that we must follow. The fundamental principle is that the interpretation of a certificate issued by the Commission is best left to the Commission. Service Storage & Transfer Co. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 359 U.S. 171, 79 S.Ct. 714, 3 L.Ed.2d 717. And it would appear that the District Court is bound by that interpretation unless it is persuaded that the interpretation is capricious or arbitrary, that it constituted an abuse of discretion, or that it did violence to some established principle of law. Malone Freight Lines v. United States, D.C.N.D.Ala.1952, 107 F.Supp. 946, 949, affirmed mem. 1953, 344 U.S. 925, 73 S.Ct. 497, 97 L.Ed. 712. This same principle has been recognized in this district in Waite v. United States, 161 F.Supp. 856, 860. The Court held that its duty is to determine whether the decision of the Commission is arbitrary, capricious, or constituted an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law. It is to determine whether or not the Commission's order was supported by substantial evidence. The scope of judicial review is limited. The Court pointed out that the decision of the Commission carries the presumption of validity.

Counsel for Dillner urges that the burden of proof is upon the Commission, and he bases a considerable portion of his argument on such assertions. However, in the Waite case, this Court held that the decision of the Commission carries a presumption of validity. "Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that it is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences." The burden is on Dillner to show this. Dillner must show that the decision of the Commission is not based on substantial evidence.

There have been many pages of testimony taken before the...