DocketNumber: Appeal, 18
Judges: Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, Rhodes
Filed Date: 9/29/1938
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Argued September 29, 1938.
The appellant is a Pennsylvania corporation, organized under the General Corporation Act of April 29, 1874, P.L. 73, for the purpose of carrying on a general warehousing business.1 Its charter gives it no power to engage in or carry on business as a common carrier. Notwithstanding this, it has for some years been acting as a common carrier in the transportation of goods, in operations known as household movings. In 1933, it applied to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience evidencing its approval of the company's engaging in the business of house to house moving, which was granted; but this was *Page 178
evidently done without a realization that such operation amounted to carrying on business as a common carrier. The certificate expired at the end of two years and when the company filed an application for its renewal, the Commission refused to renew it on the ground that the applicant's charter gave it no power to engage in the business of a common carrier. The company appealed. If the corporation applicant clearly had no power to conduct the business of a common carrier, the Commission was justified in refusing it a certificate of public convenience, evidencing approval of its doing so: Pittsburgh Railways Co. v. PublicService Commission,
The appellant bases its appeal to this court on the proposition that the operation of transporting household goods, known as household moving or house to house moving, is incidental to its main business of general warehousing, and intended to promote the comfort and convenience of the patrons of its warehousing business, although not restricted to them. It relies on the principles enunciated in Malone v. Lancaster Gas Light FuelCo.,
The Commission, in reviewing the scope of appellant's activities, found that in transporting for the general public goods and personal property which did not go into, or come out of, its warehouse, it was carrying on the business of a common carrier. The appellant does not dispute this finding, but claims the right to carry on such business as a common carrier as being merely incidental to its corporate business of general warehousing. We are of opinion that transporation of goods as a common carrier cannot legally be made incidental to the carrying on of a general warehousing business, so as to permit a corporation organized for the latter purpose to carry on business as if under the former. No private corporation can carry on the business of a public utility except one that has been incorporated as a public utility. This will not interfere with the right of the appellant to transport goods and personal property to its warehouse to be stored or from its warehouse to its customer's home or place of business — these are proper incidental powers — but it will prevent its transporting, for the general public, goods and personal property which neither go into nor come from its warehouse.
The General Corporation Act of 1874, supra, restricted the corporation to the one purpose stated in its charter. *Page 180 While the Business Corporation Law of 1933, (May 5, 1933), P.L. 364, as amended July 2, 1937, P.L. 2828, has liberalized this, it specifically exempts from its scope "any corporation which by the laws of this Commonwealth is subject to the supervision of. . . . . . The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. . . . . ." [Sec. 4(3)].
The appeal is dismissed and the order of the Commission is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.