Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co

Citation46 S.Ct. 408,70 L.Ed. 747,270 U.S. 587
Decision Date12 April 1926
Docket Number670,Nos. 193,s. 193
PartiesSMITH et al. v. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO. (two cases.)
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Harry C. Heyl and R. H. Radley, both of Peoria, Ill., and Edward J. Brundage and Oscar E. Carlstrom, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.

Mr. Wm. D. Bangs, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

The telephone company, an illinois corporation, owns and operates a telephone system in the city of Peoria and vicinity. It brought suit on June 18, 1924, against appellants (members of the state Commerce Commission and Attorney General of the state of Illinois), to enjoin them from enforcing or attempting to enforce a schedule of rates alleged to be confiscatory, and from taking any steps or proceedings against the company by reason of the collection by it of rates and charges under another and higher schedule. A motion to dismiss the bill was overruled, and, upon the bill and attached exhibits and affidavits, appellants refusing to plead further, a permanent injunction in accordance with the prayer was granted by the lower court. The appeal in No. 670 is from that decree.

The appeal in No. 193 is from an order previously entered, granting an interlocutory injunction. A motion to dismiss that appeal, on the ground that the order for the interlocutory injunction had become merged in the final decree, was submitted, but consideration postponed to the hearing on the merits. The motion is now granted and the appeal in No. 193 dismissed. Shaffer v. Carter, 40 S. Ct. 221, 252 U. S. 37, 44, 64 L. Ed. 445; Pacific Tel. Co. v. Kuykendall, 44 S. Ct. 553, 265 U. S. 196, 205, 68 L. Ed. 975. In the cases cited, both interlocutory and permanent injunctions had been denied; here they were granted; but the record discloses no reason which prevents the same principle from being applicable.

The averments of the bill, which, upon this record, must be taken as true, disclose the following facts:

The operations of the company wee conducted with reasonable economy. For the year 1921, the net revenues, after payment of operating expenses and taxes, were, in round figures, $46,000; for the year 1922, there was a deficit of over $48,000; for 1923, a deficit of nearly $65,000; and a deficit for each month of the year 1924 preceding the filing of the bill. The fair value of the property, including working capital, material and supplies, and going value, was at least $3,800.000.

In July, 1919, the predecessor in ownership of the company filed with the commission a schedule of rates covering the telephone service in question, which the commission, by final order after a hearing, approved. Prior to that order, however, the predecessor of the company had filed with the commission a second schedule of increased rates, to become effective May 1, 1920. The commission first suspended the effective date of this schedule until August 29, 1920, and then, by successive orders. until February 26, 1921, August 26, 1921, and February 23, 1922. The present company, in December, 1920, succeeded to the property and rights of its predecessor.

During 1920, hearings were had before the commission in respect of the justice and reasonableness of the rates proposed by the second schedule, but no determination of the matter was reached. The commission, although often requested by the company to do so, thereafter failed and refused to hold further hearings, but on October 31, 1921, entered an order purporting permanently to sus- pend, cancel, and annul the second schedule. A hearing was applied for and denied.

Thereupon an appeal was prosecuted to the circuit of Peoria county, and that court, on April 6, 1922, reversed the commission's order and remanded the cause for further proceedings. The commission redocketed the cause and had hearings in June, July, and September, 1922, after which the company filed its written motion requesting the commission to make effective a temporary schedule of rates pending a final determination. This motion was denied on September 28, 1922. On July 5, 1923,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
140 cases
  • Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 16, 1976
    ...... aspect of landlord-tenant relations (see California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 27--28, 61 .... .' (Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co. (1926) 270 U.S. 587, 591, 46 S.Ct. 408, 410, 70 ......
  • Allen v. State, Human Rights Com'n, 16303
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 6, 1984
    ......Gooden v. Bonar, 155 W.Va. 202, 183 S.E.2d 697 (1971); Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. Siders, 155 [174 W.Va. 157] W.Va. 193, 183 S.E.2d 433 (1971). The ... In Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 270 U.S. 587, 591, 46 S.Ct. 408, 410, 70 L.Ed. 747, ......
  • American Dairy of Evansville, Inc. v. Bergland, 77-1926
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 1, 1980
    ...Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Paine, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 166, 436 F.2d 882, 896 (1970).61 E. g., Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587, 591, 46 S.Ct. 408, 409, 70 L.Ed. 747, 749 (1926) (2-year delay in ending confiscatory rates); Prendergast v. New York Tel. Co., 262 U.S. 43, 46-47,......
  • Wright v. Califano, s. 78-1174 and 78-1175
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 5, 1979
    ...as did the court in Perez v. Lavine, 378 F.Supp. 1390 (S.D.N.Y.1974), finds some support in Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 270 U.S. 587, 46 S.Ct. 408, 70 L.Ed. 747 (1926). However, in Smith the Court noted that the delay of the commission in considering utility rates for two years wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 48-3, March 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...(1925) (railroad rates); Banton v. Belt Line Ry., 268 U.S. 413, 419-25 (1925) (street railway fares); Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587, 590-92 (1926) (telephone rates); Board of Pub. Util. Comm'rs v. New York Tel. Co., 271 U.S. 23, 31-32 (1926) (telephone rates); Patterson v. M......
  • CHAPTER 17 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL|INDIAN|STATE ROYALTY AND COLLECTION DECISIONS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Royalty Valuation and Management (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...in which exhaustion has not been required: 1. Where the agency has delayed action for an inordinate time, Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587, 591 (1926); 2. Where the pursuit of administrative remedies will prove futile, Bituminous Coal Oper. Ass'n. v. Secretary of Interior, 547 ......
  • Constitutional Limitations on the Ability of States to Rehabilitate Their Failed Electric Utility Restructuring Plans
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 31-03, March 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...note 12, at 134-44. 44. 550 P.2d 1001 (Cal. 1976). 45. Id. at 1007. 46. Id. at 1027. 47. Id. at 1030 (citing Smith v. 111. Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587, 591 (1926)) ("Property may be as effectively taken by long continued and unreasonable delay in putting an end to confiscatory rates as by e......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT