Summary

Frank Murphy United States v. N. E. Rosenblum Truck Lines…

Congress has set that forth for us broadly in the declaration of policy [6] -in essence it is the regulation of transportation by motor carriers in the public interest so as to achieve adequate, efficient and economical service. To implement that policy Congress forbade common carriers by motor vehicle to operate in interstate commerce without securing a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission, [7] and required contract carriers to secure a permit from that body.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy United States v. N. E. Rosenblum Truck Lines…

Cargo, public-liability, property-damage, and similar types of insurance for the protection of the general and the shipping public were taken out by the common carriers and in some instances charged to the appellees. They occasionly paid small cargo damage claims not covered by insurance. The drivers of appellees' trucks were their employees. The specificity with which the common carriers directed the routes to be followed is in some doubt but the drivers were requested to 'sign in' at certain registration stations enroute.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy United States v. N. E. Rosenblum Truck Lines…

Since appellees' operations, namely, serving the common carriers, on the critical date did not make them 'carriers' within the meaning of the Act, and thus subject to regulation under it, it follows that they are free to engage in such operations without securing the authorization of the Commission. [11] But those operations cannot be the basis for appellees' automatically securing permits to serve the public in their own right, a service which they were not performing on the 'grandfather' date.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature