US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

At the time of the filing of an application to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a permit under the "grandfather clause" of § 209(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act to continue designated contract carrier operations, and at the time of the hearing by the Commission on the application, § 210 of the Act provided that a certificate as a common carrier and a permit as a contract carrier could not be held by the same carrier except upon a finding by the Commission of consistency with the public interest. Prior to the Commission's decision on the application, § 210 was amended to provide that, without a similar finding, a certificate as a common carrier and a permit as a contract carrier could not be held by carriers which are under common control.

Held:

1. The Commission was required to make its decision on the application in accordance with the Act as amended. P. 318 U. S. 78. chanrobles.com-red

Page 318 U. S. 74

2. The contentions that the applicant was not given proper notice of the hearing, and was denied an opportunity to show compliance with the Act as amended, are unsupported. P. 318 U. S. 79.

3. The Commission's order denying the application on the ground that the applicant was under common control with a certificated common carrier, and that the application could not be granted consistently with the public interest and the national transportation policy, is supported by the evidence. P. 318 U. S. 80.

Affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of a District Court of three Judges refusing to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.