Case Name: Motor Freight Express et al., Appellants, v. Public Service Commission
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1935-03-13
Citations: 117 Pa. Super. 182
Docket Number: Appeal No. 19
Parties: Motor Freight Express et al., Appellants, v. Public Service Commission.
Judges: Before Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld and Parker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
Motor Freight Express et al., Appellants, v. Public Service Commission.
Argued October 19,1934.
Before Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld and Parker, JJ.
E. Mode Vale, for appellant.
Samuel Graff Miller, with him Paul PL. Rhoads, E. Everett Mather, Jr. and John Fox Weiss, for appellee.
March 13, 1935:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Cunningham, J.,
This is another case in which the commission refused to approve the interchange of freight between the appellants at Harrisburg, for the reasons thus stated in its report:
Amos Harshman, trading as Harshman's Express, "is authorized to transport freight between Harrisburg and "Waynesboro, with certain restrictions concerning local service. He has been transferring about two tons of freight per month to Motor Freight Express and receiving about the same amount from it. He agreed to a restriction that all freight would be received or delivered at Waynesboro and that no property would be received at Waynesboro for delivery to points on the truck lines of Alko Express Lines. This would prevent deliveries to York and Lancaster. All transfer shipments in the past have been to and from Philadelphia. The evidence does not indicate a public need for such service and the application will be refused."
The legal principles under which this appeal should be considered and disposed of are stated in our opinion in the appeal of Motor Freight Express and Hall's Motor Transit Co. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Com., 117 Pa. Superior Ct. 174, 177 A. 493. With these principles in mind, we have examined the record in this case and have concluded that the order appealed from is reasonable and in conformity with law.
Appeal dismissed.