Co., authorizing it to operate as a common carrier by motor vehicle in a short haul mass transportation of passengers and their baggage between Jersey City and Mid-town Manhattan, N.Y. This certificate was later modified by the Commission in a certificate dated March 16, 1942.
15. On September 24, 1943, the Commission issued to Hudson a certificate which superseded and combined all the operating rights possessed by it under the certificates dated June 11, 1942 and March 16, 1942, as amended.
16. Operation of service between West New York and Keansburg had been suspended during the war by the Commission under date of December 22, 1944.
17. By order of February 9, 1945, the Commission permitted a partial resumption of the suspended service between West New York and Staten Island.
18. The Commission, by virtue of the rights contained in Hudson's certificate of September 24, 1943, stated, by letter dated January 26, 1945, that Hudson could combine its authorized routes so as to permit a through, connecting service between Staten Island, N.Y., and Mid-town Manhattan, N.Y., via Bayonkne and Jersey City, N. j.
19. The through service between New York and Staten Island was accomplished by a combination of the West New York-Keansburg and the Jersey City-Manhattan route, using Jersey City as the connecting point.
20. Plaintiff, Boulevard Transit Lines, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, is a common carrier engaged in a short haul mass transportation operation between Port Richmond, Staten Island and Manhattan, N.Y. via Bayonne and Jersey City, N.J., and is in competition with the defendant herein.
21. The failure of the Commission to include in the certificates of June 11, 1942, or September 24, 1943, the seasonal limitation on the West New York to Keansburg operation was not inadvertent but was a result of a careful, studied, procedure surrounding the issuance of the compliance order of July 20, 1940, which, also, did not contain the seasonal limitation.
22. The failure of the Commission to include a specific designation of city streets, in the certificates of June 11, 1942 or September 24, 1943, issued to Hudson, was not inadvertent.
23. In a petition to the Commission, plaintiff sought to modify or revoke the certificate of September 24, 1943, which was denied in an opinion dated December 10, 1945 by Division 5.
24. Petition for reconsideration before the entire Commission was denied September 13, 1946.
25. A hearing and investigation, to determine if Hudson was operating within the scope of its certificate, was conducted at which time evidence bearing on seasonal operations was excluded, resulting in an opinion of the Commission, sustaining Hudson, dated September 9, 1946.
26. Plaintiff's petition for reconsideration of this opinion, before the entire Commission, was denied April 8, 1947.
27. Plaintiff thereafter filed its compliant and, pursuant to Statute, this Court heard oral argument on December 19, 1947, reserving decision.
Conclusions of Law
We conclude as matters of law:
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this suit.
2. The Interstate Commerce Commission, by virtue of the power granted to it by Congress, had the authority to issue the certificates of June 11, l942 and September 24, 1943.
3. It is not mandatory on the Commission to designate specific streets where the streets are not the essence of the operation.
4. The Commission can grant more authority than is sought by applicant in its request for a certificate.
5. Objections to the issuance of the certificates, dated June 11, 1942, and September 24, 1943 were made out of time.
6. The Commission properly excluded evidence bearing on seasonal limitations at the hearing to determine if defendant was operating within the scope of its certificate.
7. The Commission is without authority to modify or revoke a certificate once it has issued, unless it comes within one of the provisions in Section 212(a) of the Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 312(a).
8. There is present no condition that would bring the instant case within Section 212(a) of the Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 312(a).
9. The order of the Commission, dated April 8, 1947 denying plaintiff's request for reargument and rehearing on a petition to set aside an order of Division 5, was proper and is hereby in all aspects affirmed.