Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States

59 F. Supp. 503, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1613
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 16, 1944
DocketCivil Action No. 26—508
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 59 F. Supp. 503 (Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 503, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1613 (S.D.N.Y. 1944).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

1. Since the parties agree on the correctness of the facts stated in the Commission’s opinion, as supplemented by the opinion of Division 5, we need not repeat them here.

2. Were we entirely free to consider the order of June 4, 1937, and the certificate issued in accordance therewith, without any regard to the Commission’s subsequent interpretation in its opinion of June 6, 1944, we would independently, for the following reasons, arrive at the same conclusion as did the Commission: (a) It is highly doubtful whether the Commission, in granting, as it did, a certificate pursuant solely to 49 U.S.C.A. § 306, could validly authorize the use of a tunnel in existence neither in or before 1935 nor at the time of the issuance of the certificate. Accordingly, as the certificate did not unambiguously authorize such use, it should be interpreted not to permit it. (b) The certificate does not authorize transportation under but merely “across” the river, (c) The words in § 306, “within the territory,” refer, we think, to carriers which, in the required period, had, in whole or part, no regular routes; and plaintiff did not come within that category, (d) The failure of the Commission to act on the application of December 23, 1937, was not the legal equivalent of an order granting the application; it is irrelevant that Division 5 failed to act on that application because it believed the order of June 4, 1937, already permitted the use of the tunnel.

3. But we must decide against plaintiff in any event. At best, the Commission’s order is ambiguous. So regarding it, its interpretation is for the Commission; and the courts cannot disregard such an interpretation in those circumstances unless it is clearly erroneous or arbitrary, and the interpretation here is not.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DeCamp Bus Lines v. United States
224 F. Supp. 196 (D. New Jersey, 1963)
Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company v. United States
185 F. Supp. 390 (N.D. Alabama, 1960)
Palmer Lines, Inc. v. United States
179 F. Supp. 629 (D. Massachusetts, 1959)
Burlington-Chicago Cartage, Inc. v. United States
178 F. Supp. 857 (S.D. Illinois, 1959)
Chesapeake Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States
176 F. Supp. 98 (D. Maryland, 1959)
Inland Motor Freight, Inc. v. United States
145 F. Supp. 275 (E.D. Washington, 1956)
Bird Trucking Company v. United States
159 F. Supp. 717 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1955)
A. B. & C. Motor Transportation Co. v. United States
130 F. Supp. 87 (D. Massachusetts, 1955)
W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
107 A.2d 159 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
Pomprowitz v. United States
119 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1954)
Salvino v. United States
119 F. Supp. 277 (W.D. Washington, 1954)
Wilson v. United States
114 F. Supp. 814 (W.D. Missouri, 1953)
Converse v. United States
109 F. Supp. 807 (N.D. California, 1953)
Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States
82 F. Supp. 153 (S.D. New York, 1948)
Old Colony Bondholders v. New York, N. H. & H. R.
161 F.2d 413 (Second Circuit, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F. Supp. 503, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adirondack-transit-lines-inc-v-united-states-nysd-1944.