Opinion
January 31, 1935.
April 1, 1935.
Public service company law — Commission — Jurisdiction — Carriers — Common carrier — Definition — Coöperative association — Hauling for members of.
A carrier who, under a contract with a coöperative association and its members, hauls only milk consigned by the members to the association for sale, is not a common carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the public service commission, although the membership of the association is large, and the individual members pay the hauling charges to the carrier.
See 115 Pa. Super. 100.
Mr. Justice SIMPSON and Mr. Justice KEPHART dissented.
Argued January 31, 1935.
Before FRAZER, C. J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 87, 88 and 89, March T., 1935, by The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from decisions of Superior Court, April T., 1934, Nos. 268-70, reversing orders of Public Service Commission, Nos. 9706-8, in cases of Dairymen's Co-Operative Sales Association v. The Public Service Commission et al. Orders affirmed.
Proceedings upon complaints against alleged common carriers.
The opinion of the Superior Court states the facts.
Orders entered by commission holding respondents to be common carriers. Respondents appealed to Superior Court. Orders of commission reversed and respondents held not to be common carriers. Appeals by Public Service Commission to Supreme Court allowed.
Errors assigned, among others, were orders of Superior Court.
Paul H. Rhoads, with him Samuel Graff Miller, E. Everett Mather, Jr., and John Fox Weiss, for Public Service Commission, appellant.
David I. McAlister, of Hughes, McAlister Zelt, for Tri-State Milk Haulers' Association and H. R. Robinson et al., intervenors.
A. W. Powell, with him D. I. McAlister, of Hughes McAlister and Wray G. Zelt, for Milk Producers' Co-Operative Association, intervenor.
E. Lowry Humes, with him R. Murray Gibson, Jr., for Dairymen's Co-Operative Sales Association, appellee.
A majority of the members of this court, Mr. Justice SIMPSON and Mr. Justice KEPHART dissenting, agree that the decision appealed from should be affirmed on the opinion of the Superior Court written by Judge PARKER and reported in 115 Pa. Super. 100.