# Appendix — Jones Motor Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_1250%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1959 - **Citation:** 361 U.S. 904 ## Text la _ APPENDIX! SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT HARRISBURG Peis April 29, 1959 - Christian V. Graf, Esquire | 11 North Front Street Harrisburg, Penna. Dear Mr. Graf: @ .7 . ; Jones Motor ‘Co.,’ Exc. ee a y . v. Penna. Pusitic Utmity Commission No, 123-A Miscellaneous Docket Please be advised that the Court has entered the follow- — + ing order on petition for allocatur at No. 53 March Term, 1959: | ¢ “Per Curiam 4/27/59 Petition denied.” Very truly yours, . Cuartes H. McKinsey Prothonotary By /s/ Miriam A. GREENAWALT «Deputy Prothonotary c. ¢. oe : William J y Wilcox, Esq., 624 Commonwealth Bude. | Allentown, Pa. } e Thomas M. Kerrigan, Esq., 127 North. Office ae Harrisburg, Pa. Paul F. Barnes, Esq., 811 Lewis Tow er Bldg. Philadelphia 2, Pa. _ | fe on 2a - APPENDIX II IN: THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 53 March Term, 1959 Jones Motor Company, Inc., Appellant, a. | SRE ; “eye PENNSYLYANIA PusLic Uriuiry CoMMISSION ‘Appeal From the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission at Complaint Docket No. 16813 _ Opinion by Hirt, J. Filed: March 18, 1959 ‘On August 5, 1957 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commis: sion, of its own motion, filed a complaint against Jones = ag Company, Inc., charging it. with violation of’ Art. , § 202(b) and (ce) of the Publie Utility Law of? May 1937, P.L. 1053,. as amended, 66 P S § 1122. The basis of the complaint Was the transportation of com- modities by motor truck as a common ec#frier ‘between points in Pennsylvania without certification. by the Com- mission, | Highway Express Lines, Inc., and Modern Transfer'Company, Ine., holders of certificates of public . conveniénce issued to ‘inns by the Commission, were granted leave to intérvene in the proceeding on their allegation that they ‘were adversely affected ‘by the unauthorized carrier activity of the respondent in Pennsylvania. | ioe . The complaint specifically charged 22 violations which - ineluded: eleven shipments originating in Philadelphia for delivery in Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton and Catasauqua, Pennsylvania; for shipments originating in Easton des- _tinéd for. Philadelphia and Hatboro, Pennsylvania; three shipments. originating in Bethlehem for Philadelphia; one shipment originating in Oaks for Bethlehem; one’ ship- ment originating in Emmaus for Philadelphia; one ship- 3a ment originating in Catasauqua for Philadelphia; and one -. shipment originating in Chester for Bethlehem. That these shipments had been made, was admitted by the respondent ; in: justification however it asserted certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Com- merce Commission, specifically set forth in its answer to ~ the complaint. - The respondent, Jones Motor Company, Ine., -holds a. number of- eortificates i issued) by Pennsylvania Publie Utility Commission authorizing. i TP to transport property— as a Class ‘A common carrier between points within this “State. But the extent of the ‘common carrier rights: is restricted for the most part’ to local transportation, They’ are enumerated in a finding of the C ommission thus: ... it is authorized to transport property as a Class A car- rier between Allentown and Easton and_ intermediate points via “Bethlehem, Butztown and Dryland; and it holds rights as a Class A carrier between Bethlehem, Allen- town and Stroudsburg and intermediate points over speci- fied routés; between Borough of Bally, Berks County and. Philadelphia ‘and intermediate points, including Spring City, Trappe, King of. Prussia, ‘and -Bridgeport ; between PhiJadelphia and Reading; and ‘between Reading and . Bally.’’ Jones Motor Company, Ine:, under: Interstate Cominerce Commission certificate MC 4963 had authority to transport . commodities ‘*From Philadelphia ovet U.S. Highway 1 to New York and return over the same route.’ Under the same certificate ancillary carrier service by this re- xpondent was authorized: “to and from off route points .in that part of Hew Jersey within 35 miles of Princeton, New Jersey .. .’’' Both Trenton and Clinton, Nv J. are within 35 miles of Princeton: : Prior: to August 18, 1952 Clinton Motor Express had interstate commerce rights, as a common carrier over US. Highway Route 22 betwe@n Allentown, Pennsylvania, | : * e\s i we te via Clinton, to Elizabeth, New Jersey. On the above date - Jones Motor Company, Ine., with the consent of the Inter- staté Commerce Commission, acquired by purchase all of the operating rights of Clinton Motor Express. After the. sale was consummated, the Jongg. company, by I.C.C. certificate numbered— MC 4963 Sub 7, was autliorized to operate asa common. carrier ‘‘Between Allentown, Pa. and Elizabeth, N. J.. ... over U.S. Highway 22 to june- tion New Jersey Highway 28’? and thence to Elizabeth ‘‘and return over the same route’’. Under this certificate service was also authorized ‘‘to and from all intermediate points ‘and off-route points . . ..in Pennsylvania within 25 miles of Allentown’’. re -Theoperation with which we are concerned in the ship- ments described in the complaint, consists in a combination of authorized service from Philadelphia .ander certificate — MC 4963 to Clinton, N. J. joined by a ‘‘tacking’’ process upon that avthorized by I.C.C.. certificate. MC 4963 Sub 7 which includ:d service on U.S. Route 22 between Clinton’ and points within 25 miles from Allentown. Respondent -~ admittedly in 1953 began the transportation of general commodities between the two areas of Philadelphia and Allentown under the above two I.C.C. certificatgs and has continued that service without aathority from ‘our. Public Utility Commission. «It is not without significance that the. Jones company in 1950 had filed an application with our Public Utility Commission in an effort to consolidate its distinct'and unconnected ‘‘northern’’ and ‘!southern’”’ class A. routes in Pennsylvania, above -referred to, for which it held Pennsylvania P.U.C. certificates of public conven- ience. The order of the Commission granted on the appli- — cation allowed an extension of routes from Allentown to Pottstown, a distance of 13 miles which. in -effect, by con- necting the two certified local areas, gave respondent intra- state common carrier rights between the Philadelphia area - and Allentown and to Stroudsburg on the north. On appeal ° to this court, howevereby a number of earricrs which had ? ’ "exclusive dxercise by each State of the power of regulation ee | —_ protested the application before the Commission, we ‘re- versed the order on the ground that inadequacy of existing service and the need for the additional service as proposed had not been proven. Modern Tr, Co. et al. v. Pa. P.U.C., 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 46 (1955), 115 A. 2d 887: An alloeatar to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was refused. Thus it- not only appears that respondent does not have intrastate rights for transportation between the Philadelphia ‘and Allentown areas but it is established with finality that it is not entitled to ‘certification to that end. Jurisdiction over interstate transportation by eater ve- hieles was conferred on the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion by the Federal Motor Carrier Act of August 9, 1935, as amended, 49 U. S.C.A. § 301 et seq., which however in § 302(b) provides: ‘‘Nothing: in this chapter shall be con+ Strued to aff¢ct the powers of taxation of the several States or to authoraze a motor, carrier to do an intrastate business . on the highways of any ‘State, or to interfere with the | of intrastate commerce by motor carrie ighways— thereof.’ Thus the C ss has asserted. a hands-off policy by expressly recognizing the power of each State to regulat¢ commerce within its borders. Eicholz v. Public ° Servied Commission, 306 U.S. 268, 59 S. Ct. 532 was a case in whifh the Commission had revoked Eicholz’ carrier per ‘mit of a finding that he. had unlawfully engaged in intra- state/ecommerce under the pretensé of transacting interstate busifiess. On dppeal the District Court from the evidence ° fouhd that the’ carriage’ of property from Missouri into’ Kansas and thence back into Missouri fon delivery there’ : = not ‘‘the normal, regular, or usual route for shipping ; rchandise between the two cities in Missouri: and. the court accordingly refused to issue a permanent ‘injunction restraining the State Commission from prosecuting: aetions against Eicholz for using State Highways in the transport- ing of property for hire in interstate commerce. On appeal, the Supreme Court of- the United States in affirming the 6a order itt ‘*We may assume that Congréss could regulate fin nterstate transportation of the s&t here in question, what- ever the motive of those engaging ‘in it.. But in the absence of the exercise.of federal authority, and in the light of local exigencies, the State is free to act in order to protect its _— legitimate interests even though interstate commerce is. directly affected.’’ Cf. Nevin B. Lines, Ine. et al. v. Public - Service Cormission, 120 Pa.. Superior Ct. 266, 272, 182 A. 80. Questions similar to those presented in the Eieholz case have been before this court, most recently in Atlantic Freight Lines v. Pa, P.U.C., 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 215, 60 A. 2d 589 where we said: ‘‘Regulation of interstate high- ways transportation is vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission by the Motor Carrier Act of August 9, 1935, 49 ULS.C.A. § 301, et seq., and by that Act of Cotigress controverted’ questions of fact were entrusted to the ~ : mission. United States ¥. Maher, 307°U.S. 148, 154, S. Ct. 768. Under the definitions of the Act, Cedars commerce’. may include transportation of. goods ‘between places in the same State through another State...” 49 — ~ULS.C.A. & 303(a), (10), (Central ‘Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653, 68S, Ct. 1260), but with the limitation that ‘Nothing in this chapter. shall be construed to... authorize a motor ‘carrier to do an intrastate business ‘on the highways of any. State, or to mterfere with. the. _ exclusive éxereise by edch State of the power of regulation ~* of intrastate commerce by. motor carriers on the highways. ° thereof.’ 49 U.S.C.A. § 302(b). ” The Atlantic: Freight ' [Lines case involved ioieeeds of sugar from a refinery ' in Philadelphia over highways in the State of Maryland gnd thence back into this State for delivery to consignees in Braddock, Pennsylvania. The Commission, after hear- ing, entered a cease and desist order prohibiting a continu-. . ance of this method of transportation under the guise of Interstate Commerce Commission authority. We affirmed the order’in the application of the principle that a mere fiction of interstate commerce may not be so availed uf as’ a 7a to deprive a State of its pow er-to enforce sound venubation of the use of its. highways in interstate commerce. From the order an allocatur to our Supreme Court was refused, and certiorari to the: United States Supreme Court denied. ~ Nevin B. Lines, Inc., et al. v. Public Service Commission, supra, and Ryan et al. v. Pa. PU. C., 143 Pa. Superior,, Ct. 517, 17 A. 2d 637, have much in common with the above Atlantic Freight Lines ease and on appeals’ were disposed’ of with similar results. . Cf. Service Storage & Transfer Co. v. Commonwealth of vee, 199 Va. 797, (1958),* 102 S.E. 2d 339. The obvi re Wernep of the Interstate Commerce Com-. mission’s certificate is to permit’ ‘a carrier to engage in interstate Commerce and regulation ‘of such..service is the extent of the Commission’s jurisdiction. Moreover, inter- ; state tommerce, to be entitled to protection as such ‘‘must be real.and, bona fide’’: Blackmore et al.\y. Publie Service ~ Commission, 120 Pa. Superior Ct. 437, 183 A. 115. Tacking — of the authority in.the present case, under vertificate MC 4963 to that of: certificate MC 4963 Sub 7 Was entirely proper in establishing.through routes in interstate com- merece (Cf. 49 U.S.C.A. § 316(e)) but, such tacking cannot supply a” carrier with authority to transport property in intrastate commerce. Service Storage & Transfer Wo, 7. Commonwealth of Virgitiia, supra. .The Commission found that the shipments here involved were not bona fide interstate and in its order said: ‘It is quite apparent that», we-cannot, in these circumstances, regard routing via New | Jersey under mere color of interstate operating authority as anything othér than a subterfuge to provide what is in fact intrastate service.’’ That conclusion was inevitable especially after respondent had been denied a certificate by our Publie Utility Commission ‘authorizing transporta-. ‘tion of ‘property intrastate between Philadelphia and Allentéwn areas. The Interstate reais Commission. did not at any time assume. jurisdiction ofarrier service, via New Jersey, between ‘two points in Pennsylvania; the A] 8a usual aw and normal route between Philadelphia and .. the Allentown areas in Pennsylvania was U.S. Highway . 309, a distance of 55 miles; the distance by way of the ‘+ eireuitous route through New Jersey. was 100 miles, with driving time of 3% hours as against 2% hours over the direct intrastate route; the shipments in )question here . were all made at night; there was no termjnal at Clinton and -no stops, pickups, or-deliveries were made enroute in _ - New Jersey; in the present ord the Campion noted . that. no difference in freight rates was indicated, between those charged by: r respondent and the approved tariff rates applicable to certjfied intrastate carriers. : ‘In this case the evidence was entirely sly sulficient to support the findings of the Commission that the Interstate Com- merce Commission had not assumed jurisdiction of carrier transportation between two points in Pennsylvania, via ‘New Jersey: and that the movement by respondent across the State line was but a subterfuge to evade the State's requirements as to intrastate comnierce. Atlantic Freight Lines v. Pa. P.U.C., supra. Accordingly, the entry of a . ceas cand desist order was proper in this case. — Order affirmed. , ? 9a. APPENDIX Wm 4 ‘PENNSYLVANIA, PUBLIC UTIL&rY COMMISSION . ° - . ~ Complaint Docket No: 19813 ~ » Pennsytvanta Pustic Uritity Commission v. a. Jones Motor Company, Inc. a Order Sorat - By THE Conemission, SEPTEMBER 2. 1958: On August 5, 1957, we instituted the on deities on Our Own motion against’Jones Motor Company, Inc., respondent herein for transportation not authorized by its certificates of public convenience, in violation of Article IT, Sections 202(b) and 202(e¢) of the’ Publie Utility ‘Law, ‘Act of May 28, 1937, P.cb. 1053, as amended (66 P.S, 1122(b) and 1122(c)). Jones Meter Comee y, Ine.,. respondent, filed an answer thereto, in which it ddmitted the transportation but set up as a defense its efrtificates of publie convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission (1.C.C.) at Docket Nos. MC 4963 and MC 4963, Sub No. 7 (Respondent's Exhibits ‘‘A’’ and ‘*B’’ of its Answer). - Highway’Express Lines, Ine, and Modern Transfer Com- pany, Ine., holders of certificates of publie convenience of - _ this Commission, authorizing them to transport, as. common varriers, property between certain designated points and areas within this Commonwealth, were granted leave to intervene on the ground that they are: adversely affected by the alleged illegal’ activities of this respondent. 4. ave | ‘. e ‘ “2 a? ; > ‘ | Theroat er, earings were held on February.3, 1958 and on Jun¢ 30, 19: 8. Jones Motor Company, Inc., ‘Fespondent, : filed it brief” ‘on, August 14,1958. The matter is now before 7 us ‘for/ dispositign. ee ‘ Mae AF “, . The instant complaint specifically dharged, Jones’ Motor. ‘ Company, Inc., respondent, with 22 violations. The illegal shipments sleand inclt ed:- (1) eleven shipments odriginat- ing | jin ‘Philadelphia destined for Allentown, Bethlehem, _.Faston. and Catasauqua; (2).four shipments originating in . Easton destined for Philadelphia and Hatboro; (3) three * shipments originating in Bethlelit destined far Philadel- . phia;, (4) one shipmentriginating I Oaks for Bethlehem; (5) one shipment originating in Emmaus for Philadelphia ; (6) one shipment oxiginating in Catasauquafor Philadcl- phia ; and (7) one shipment originating in Ghester for . Bethlehem. These shipments have been admitted. ae hoe. | : | Jones Motor Company, Inc. is the holder of a. number ot certificates of public convenience issued by this Commis- sion, authorizing transportation of property, as a common arrier, between points. within this Commonwealth, For the ‘purpose. of this proceeding, it is authorized to trans- port property as a Glass A carrier between Allentown and | Easton and intermediate . oints via Bethlehem, Butztown, and, Dryland ; and it holds rights as a Class “A carrier, - hetweeh Bethlehem, AUentoww and Stroudsburg and inter- mediate points over- specified routes; between. Borough of Bally, Berks County*and Philadelphia and intermediate ' points, inelading Spring City, Trappe, King of Prussia, and Bridgeport; between Philadelphia and Reading: and “between Reading and Bally. It is of signi eance that on sins 17, 1950, Jones Motor (Company, Ine., tiled an applieation for amendment of its . certifiertes“at: Applieation Docket No. 59731, , Folder 8 8, ‘Am- AS sO as to permit the transportation | of property over an exfénsion “ the abgve-deseribed Class A routes’ as . Jom follows : : tt. | ®) ‘*To transport, as a common carrier, property over an extension of the above described routes between the - City of Allentown, Lehigh County and the Borough of Pottstown, M ontgomery County, including inter mediate points, via the following routes: z “Beginning ' in the City of edits: ia via ‘Highway Route 29 to its intersection with High- - way Route 100 at the Village of Shimerville, Lehigh County, thence via. Highway routes:29 and . 100 to the Village of Hereford, Berks County, thence via Highway | Route 100 to the ‘Borough of’ Bally, . Berks County, thence via an unnumbered road-known --as Hill Road to its intersection with Highway Route ' 66357 thence via Highway Routé 663 to the Borough = Pottstow n, Montgomery. County, and via an alter- “mate route’ beginning at the Village of Hereford, ~~ Berks’ County, therice via: Highway Route 29 to its intersection with Highway Route 663 at the Borough of Pennsburg, ‘Montgomery County, . thenee via High- way Route 663 to its intersection with the aforesaid ‘road known as Hill’Road; with the right to render through service from points on the aforedeseribed routes as authorized in the certificates, proposed extension and proposed alternate route to points on applicant's other certifi¢ated routes briefly deseribed as follows, and vice versa, between the Borough of Bally, Berks County and the City of .Phikidelphia, ' via routes 100 and 423 ‘and over an alternate route * between the Borough of Poftstown and Philadelphia, via Highway routes 100,83 and 23, connecting route ~ between Boyertown and Limerick, via Swamp Pike _ Road, connecting route between Spring City and , eo Trappe, via Highway Route 683, and spur route - between King of Prussia and Bridgeport, via High- oe way Route 2025, between the-City- of Philadelphia and the City of Réeadihe, via. Highway Route 422 and via an alternate route betw een n Philadelphia : and Reading, ¢ l2a « —s » : via Highway routes 83 and.23 with connecting route between Highway routes 422 and 23, via, Butler, Pike, Fayette Street and Matsonford Road; and be- tween the City of Reading and the Borough of Bally, via Highway routes.562 and 100.”’ % _ The order of the Commission, dated August 23, 1954, granted the application; and modified this carrier’s cer- tificated Class A routes in the Allentown, Bethlehem, : |’ -Easton, Stroudsburg area by an extension of such routes from Allentown to Pottstown, a distance of 13 miles, with the further right to render through service between points ° on these Class A routes, by way of the extension, and — points on Jones’ other Class A routes in the Philadelphia, Pottstown, Reading area. However, on appeal, the order of the Commission was reversed: Modern Transfer Com- pany v. Pa. P.U.C., 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 46, 48, 49 and 55, . 115 A. (2) 887 (1955). Th its opinion of —_ 21, 1955, the Superior Court stated: P ‘Originally, Jones had class A rights to haul he- tween the Borough of Bally, Berks County, and Phil- adelphia and intermediate points, including Spring City, . Trappe. King of Prussia, and Bridgeport; between Philadelphia and Reading; and between Read- |. -ing and Bally. These routes are designated as its ‘southern’ routes. In 1949, the Commission denied Jones’ application, at Application Docket No. 59731, folder 2, Am-b, to tra ort property as a class D.- earrier from points in the Borough of Spring City and within 10 miles to points within 35 miles. In 1950, Jones acquired additional class A routes designated ‘as its ‘northern’ routes;.by purchasing the operating | authority of Allentown-Kaston Motor Express, Inc., _and ‘of Allentown- Bangor: Motor Transfer, Inc. The .- latter was certificated to conduct-—a-route-service be. . tween: Allentuwn, Bethlehem, Stroudsburg, and other points to the north of Allentown in the Pocono area; - a _while Allentown-Easton Motor Express, Ine., was cer- tificated to conduct a ‘route service between Allentow n, Easton, and intermediate points by way: of Bethlehem. Butztown, and Dryland. *‘It is obvious that the purpose of the present ani cation was not merely to obtain an extension of class ° A rights from Allentown to Pottstown, but to effect a consolidation of Jones’ prior distinct and unconnected ‘northern’ and,‘southern’ class A routes. The Com- - mission’s order, in effect, provides for such a consoli- dation, and also has the effect of granting applicant _ 4 very substantial portion of those rights denied it in 1949. As a result Jones could ‘haul from Philade!- phia by using the newly certificated connecting route, as far north as Mountain Nome’in the Poconos. In addition Jones may haul between such vital ‘areas as the Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Stroudsburg terri- tory and. nite at tents or reriatown. si It coneluded ‘“* * * The burden was upon the applicant to show the need for the extensive rights’ sought on the com- bined routes including the 13-mile connecting route between Ailentown and Pottstown. ‘his was not met _by equivocal or. inconclusive testimony which, if’ it shows anything, substantiates the adequacy of existing service between the principal points on the combined routes, °° * ”’ Therefore, it seems plain that this carrier was specifically . denied intrastate operating authority to transport property between Philadelphia, Allentown, Bethiehem, and’ Kaston and intermediate points, beeause of the adequacy of exist- ing service. the interstate chuieneter ‘of the transportation it in t aaseieen 7 l4a relied npon its. certificates of public convenience and nee: essity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. ° At MC 4963 Jones is authorized to perform the’ following » transportation, inter alia: ‘“I7 [s FUrtuer Orperep, That the transportation service to be performed by the said carrier in inter- state or foreign commerce shall be as specified below: Recuuar Routes: P <2 2 eS ‘‘General commodities, except those of unusual yalue, and exeépt dangerous explosives, livestock, films, house: hold goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carri~rs of Household Goods, 17 M.C.C. 467, com- - modities in bulk, eémmodities requiring special equip- ment, and those injurious or contaminating to other lading, os * a * . * “ ‘* Between Philadelphia, Pa., and -New York, .N. Y.: From: Philadelphia over U.S. Highway 1 to New York, and return over the same route, — Service is authorized to and from all intermediate points. — * fe: eS * * e 8 6¢ * *- ‘Service -is authorized to and from off-route points in that part of Pennsy lvania within 20 miles of Spring City, Pa., those in that yg of New Jersey within 39 miles. of Jersey City, N. J., those in that part of New Jersey, within 35 miles of Princeton, N. J., and all other off- route points in the New York; N.Y.,. CommenctaL Zonk, as defined by- the Commission in 1 M.C.C. 665.”’ 7 At MC 4963; Sub. No: 7 ientat is qutertinn te persone vee following transportation : eer” 15a ‘‘Ir Is FurtHER Orpekep, That the transportation service to-be performed by the said earrier in inter- state or foreign commerce shall be as specified below : . Recauiar Routes: .- ‘‘General commodities, except those of unusual value, _ livestock, Class A and. B explosives, household goods _as defined -by the Commission, commodities in bulk, commodities requiring. special equipment, and those ‘injurious or contaminating to other lading. ‘Between Allentown, Pa., and Elizabeth, N. Ji: From Allentown ‘over U. S. Highway 22 to junction New Jersey Highway 28 near Raritan, N. J., and thence over New Jersey Highway 28 to Elizabeth, and return over the same route. ‘‘Service is authorized to and from all intermediate ' points and the off-route points of Lancaster, Pa., Dover, Newark, Hackettstown, Washington, Belvidere, and Newton, N..J., and points'in Pennsylvania within 25 miles of Allentown.”’ . Therefore, in effect, the rights authorized by the Inter- state’'Commerce Commission permit Jonés Motor Company; Inc. to go from Philadelphia.to New York, to points within a 35 miles radius of. Princeton, and from Allentown, Pennsylvania, to Elizabeth, New Jersey. It is -by virtue of these rights and decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission permitting ‘‘tacking’’? that Jones contended that it is able to combine its rights so as to set up a route ‘ from Allentown; Pennsylvania, thence to Clinton, New - Jersey, thence to Trenton, New Jersey, and thence to Phil- adelphia,.and vice versa. The routes traversed.for each - of the 22 shipments involved in this complaint proceeded from Philadelphia to. Trenton, New Jersey, via U.S. High. way Roufe 1; thence via U. S.sRoute’ 60 to Clinton, New Jersey; thence’ via U. S. Highway Route 22 to Allentown, 16a and vice versa. Such operations in fact have been con- ~ dueted-on a daily basis since 1952. Of course, regulation of interstate highway transporta- — tion is vested in, the Interstate Commerce Commission by . the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935,.49 U.S.C.A., Section 301; et seq. However, such regulation does not authorize * a motor carrier to do an intrastate business on the high- ways of any state or otherwise interfere with the exclusive - exercise of.a state’s power to regulate intrastate commerce: 49 U.S.C.A., Section 302(b); Ryan, et al. v. Pa. P.U.C,: 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 517, 17 A. 2d 637, 39 PUR (NS) 455 (1950), allocatur to the Supreme Court refused and certioriari to the United States Supreme Court denied | 314 U. S. 640, 62 S: Ct. 80,-86 L. Ed. 514 (1941); Atlantic Freight Lines v. Pa. P.U.C., 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 215, 60 A. 2d 589 (1948), alloeatur to Supreme Court: refused, certiorari denied to the. United States ‘Supreme Court 336 U. S. 925, 69 S. Ct. 656, 93 L? Ed. 1087 (4949); Clark_ _v. The Public Service Commission, 209 Md, 121, 120 A. 2d -- 363 (1956) ; Eichholz v. The Public Service Conimission of the State of Missouri, 306 U. S. 268, 59 S. Ct. 532, 83 L. Ed. 641, 27 PUR (NS) 288, rehearing denied. 306 U. S. 622, 669, 83 L. Ed. 106% (1939) ; and Central Greyhound Lines v.. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653, at 660, 68 S. Ct. im, 92 L. Ed. - 1633 (1947). _ In our opinion, Jones Motor Company, Inc. has not established that these shipments between two points in Pennsylv ania via New Jersey constituted bona fide ship- | ~ ments in interstate commerce. (1) The Interstate Com- merece Commission has not assumed jurisdiction of trans- portation between two points in Penrisylvania. What the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized was trans- portation - (a) from Philadelphia to New York, to points within a@35 mile radius of Princeton and (b) from Allen- town, Pennsylvania, to Elizabeth, New Jersey, ‘and not transportation from Philadelphia to Allentown, Bethle- 17a, ‘ hem, Easton, and intermediate points, and vice’ versa—- points of origin and delivery within Pennsylvania. (2) All of the shipments in the complaint were hauled from the Allentown terminal of Jones Motor Company, Inc., to its Philadelphia terminal or vice versa. No stops, pickups, or deliveries were made in New Jersey. (3) The distance via New Jersey measured approximately 100. miles as compared to 55: miles by the usually traveled or most, direct intrastate route, and the average driving time ‘via New Jersey consumed approximately three hours and thirty minutes as compared to two hours and fifteen min- utes by the direct intrastate ‘route. (4) No difference in rates was indicated between those charged by Jones Motor: - Company, Ine. and those charged hy the certificated intra-. state carriers. -(5) No-legitimate reason was advanted for routing the shipments via New Jersey. 3 * ° It is quite apparent that we cannot, in these cirecum- . » . Stanges, regard routing via New Jersey under mere color _ of interstate operating authority. as anything .other than - asubterfuge to provide what is in fact an intrastate service. _ Jones Motor Company, Inc. actually holds itself out to provide transportation between points beginning and end- ing in this Commonwealth. By mere routing via New. Jersey it has been doing iridirectly what it enuld not do @rectly. If this Commission is’ unable to control such _* activities, it cannot effectively regulate transportation service within this Commonwealth, pursuant ‘to the provi- sions of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Law, Act-of Mav ° 28, 1937, P. L. 1053, as amended (66 P,S. Section 1101, , et seq.); Regulation under the Act in the transportation“. field is there declared to be the public interest. ‘Section 801 (66 P.S § 1301). Declaration of ~ _Poliey.—It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Legislature to regulate in this act the service of e@@fimon carriers by motor vehicle and forwarders in such manner as to recognéze and preserve the inherent i J i ; ‘ ; \ , ’ 18a advantages of, “oad foster sound economic conditions in such service, and among such carriers and forwarders ‘m-the public interest; to promote safe, adéquate, eco- noyhical, and efficient service by common earfiers by - motor vehicle and forwarders, and just and reason. | able rates therefor, without unjust discrimination, and . unfair or destructive practices; to improve thettyela- tions between and coordinate the ‘service and révula- ’ tion of common carriers by motor vehicle, forwarders, and other carriers; to develop and. preserve a safe highway transportation system properly adapted to | the needs of, the commerce of the Commonwealth ‘of Pennsylvania and insure its ‘availability between all points of production and markets of this Common- wealth: ee © es Included in the Act as a duty of this Commission is that it ‘«* * * enforce, execute, and carry out, by its regulations, orders, or otherwise, all and.singular the provisions of this Act, and the full intent thereof: * * * ”’ Section 92. : The Supreme Court of ienwale of Virginia recently affirmed a holding of the Virginia Commission that a carrier serving two poin‘s within a state does not escape © state regulation by following a circuitous route into an- other state and back again for the purpose of evading such regulation; and that state regulation depends upon . whether the movement is bona fide, of which the test is whether an ordinarily prudent carrier not restrained by regulation would use the interstate route: Virginia v. Service Storage & Transfer Co., 14 PUR (3d) 218 (1956) ; affirmed sub nom. Service Storage & Transfer Company, Ine. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 199 Va, 797, 102 S. F. (2) 339. (1958). Applying this test to the instant case, wherein the evidence. clearly shows that the ‘‘normal or ° usual’’ routes were not followed between the Pennsylvania ‘points, there is no doubt in our nfinds that the shipments - a 4 © | . 19a in question are amenable to the jurisdiction - of this Commission. Ge ; In our consideration of the facts’ and ‘the law in this, case, we find and determine that Jones Motor Company., Ine., respondent, has been engaged in the transportation of property between points in Pentisylvania- without | first having obtained the approval of this Commission ;, further that the transportation -between points of origin and desti- | nation within the Comtonwealth of Pennsylvania via New Jersey routes is a subterfuge to evade the Pennsylvania, — ldw and the jurisdiction of this ommission; THEREFORE a It Is, ORDERED: That the instant complaint be and is . hereby sustained, It Is FurTHER Orperep: That Jones Motor Company, Inc.,-its agents and employees, forthwith cease’and desist rendition of service as a.motor carrier in intrastate com. merce except as specificall¥ authorized by certificates of - public convenience issued by this Commission. . . 2 f° PENNSYLVANIA Pusiic Utitity Com MISSION (signed) Lox Scrwanrz e Chairman aes ATTFST : . | /s/ Wiiam P. Roan R ae Secretary — | (Seat) . x F Commissioner. Houck voted in the negative. 2. - an _ ee 20a APPENDIX IV. C. P. Dauphin County ; Equity Docket No, 2008 : -C. D. No, 267 Pewxsytvanta Pvsuic Uniniry Commission - Vv. \? _. ATLANTIC Freicut Lives, Ie. STIPULATION © og: Anp Now, this 27th day oof July, A. D., 1955; it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to the above styled cause that the Court shall and may enter | the following decree. e's ; - | | 7 (s) Harris Latra les = - (s) Josepn Hisstey * Attorneys for Atlantic * Freight Lanes. -9 C. P. Dauphin County Equity Docket Mo. 2008 ni C.D. No. 267 PENNSYLVANIA, PusLic UTILITY, COMMISSION ¥ $< a “Amtaxtic Yomsonis sane, Inc. DECREE Anp Now, this 27th day of July, 1955, upon the consent of the parties to the above styled cause, and upon consider: | ation of the pleadings filed and proceedings heretofore had therein, the plaintiff having exhibited its complaint, as la amended, asking relief touching the matters therein’ particu- ~~ Tar complained-of andt-set-forth-at length, and preliminary objections to the complaint having been determined, and answer having been filed by defendant/ and the parties, including intervenors,-having agreed that the matter shall he disposed of by the entry of a consent decree, : Now Tuererore, It Is Orperen, ADJUpGED, DecreEp AND’ Fivatty Determinen that’ defendant, .Atlantie Freight Lines, Ine., be, and hereby is, enjoined from transporting ., fre ‘ight, as a ‘commefi\carrier hy motor vehicle, or other- ‘ wise, between points in Pennsylvania, execpt such trans. ‘portétion i in interstate commerce as may be authorized -by operating authority from the Interstate Commerce Com- mission and which in fact moyes over an interstate route of movement; it being-the intent of thix decree to prohibit absolutely any. transportation of freight by-defendant be- tween points in Pennsylvania in intrastate comnierce over a route of movement tying wholly within the Commonwealth of Pennsylv ania, but to impose no restriction whatsoever ° upon defendant with repsect to transportation in interstate. commerce between points in Pennsylv ania which defendant is authorized to serve by operating authority from the ‘Interstate Commerce Commission and which transportation — in fact moves oer a route of movement so authorized by _the Interstate Commerce Commission ‘and lying partly within and paxtly without the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania. ae as (o} Waseca, Sous d. bs L - " + We consent to the entry of the foregoing decree, se .. (s) Harris Latia (x) Josepn Nissiry . Aitorneys for Atlantic Freiaht Lines --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_1250%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.