145 A. 340 (Md. 1929), 71, United Rys. & Electric Co. of Baltimore v. West

Docket Nº:71.
Citation:145 A. 340, 157 Md. 70
Opinion Judge:OFFUTT, J. BOND, C.J.
Party Name:UNITED RYS. & ELECTRIC CO. OF BALTIMORE v. WEST ET AL., PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND.
Attorney:Joseph C. France, Charles McHenry Howard, Charles Markell, and Henry H. Waters, all of Baltimore, for appellant. Raymond S. Williams and Thomas J. Tingley, both of Baltimore, for appellees.
Judge Panel:Parke, J., dissenting. Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
Case Date:March 20, 1929
Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 340

145 A. 340 (Md. 1929)

157 Md. 70

UNITED RYS. & ELECTRIC CO. OF BALTIMORE

v.

WEST ET AL., PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND.

No. 71.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 20, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Joseph N. Ulman, Judge.

Action by the United Railways & Electric Company of Baltimore against Harold E. West and others, constituting the Public Service Commission of Maryland. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Parke, J., dissenting.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Joseph C. France, Charles McHenry Howard, Charles Markell, and Henry H. Waters, all of Baltimore, for appellant.

Raymond S. Williams and Thomas J. Tingley, both of Baltimore, for appellees.

OFFUTT, J.

The most important question presented by this appeal is whether the Public Service Commission of Maryland in limiting the United Railways & Electric Company of Baltimore to a rate schedule which permits it to earn by reasonably efficient management a return of 6.26 per cent. on the total value of its property deprives it of its property without due process of law.

While that question was considered and decided adversely to appellant's contention in West v. United Railways & Electric Co., 155 Md. 572, 142 A. 870, the decree in that case was reversed, and the case remanded that the allowance made by the commission for the annual depreciation of the company's property might be reconsidered and determined in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion.

Subsequent to the remand proceedings were had which resulted in increasing the allowance for depreciation by $755,116, and following that increase the commission revised the schedule of rates fixed in its order involved in the former appeal, and permitted appellant to charge a base rate of 8 3/4 cents when tokens were sold, or 10 cents cash, for the transportation of passengers over 12 years of age, as compared with 7 1/2 cents when tokens were sold or 9 cents cash allowed by its previous order. Thereupon the appellant filed a supplemental bill in which, omitting so much as is merely argumentative or historical, it alleges:

"As the Commission thus found, all the evidence before the Commission showed, and the fact is, said increase in rate permitted by Order No. 13430 is not more than is required to increase the Company's annual return by $755,116...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP