Wiley Blount Rutledge

Summary

Wiley Blount Rutledge Barrett Line v. United States…

It may well be that the carrier holds itself out to, and actually does, transport all traffic offered to it from and to all points covered by its application but that the great bulk of such transportation is exempt from regulation. It seems clear that if we shut our eyes to all of applicant's transportation except that which is subject to regulation, we get an incomplete and distorted picture of the nature and extent of its operations.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge Barrett Line v. United States…

It is true that its confinement, since about 1940, to operations substantially, if not exclusively, in transportation of petroleum products has been induced, according to the proof, by the war emergency, and that this business in all probability will terminate with the emergency's end. It is likewise true that appellant's equipment can be converted readily for other uses when that occurs and, unless authority is obtained to conduct operations upon a scale sufficient to enable appellant to employ it profitably, the business may be forced to close or required to operate uneconomically.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge Barrett Line v. United States…

The legislative history shows that the original counterpart of the 'furnishing' provision of § 302 (e) extended to the furnishing of a vessel 'to another person' rather than 'to a person other than a carrier subject to this Act' as it now stands. This met with vigorous opposition, on the ground that an owner supplying equipment to another carrier would become subject to the Act, thus possibly imposing upon him responsibility for the charges of the lessee, or other person performing the operation, for performing it and for those operations, over which of course the owner would not have control.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature