Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company v. Railroad Commission of Indiana
| Decision Date | 15 January 1907 |
| Docket Number | 1. Railroad Commission |
| Citation | 79 N.E. 927,39 Ind.App. 358 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF INDIANA |
From Railroad Commission of Indiana; Union B. Hunt, Chairman Charles V. McAdams and William J. Wood, Commissioners.
Appealed by the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company from an order of the Railroad Commission of Indiana in fixing the rate for the shipment of coal. .
Appeal dismissed.
E. C Field and H. R. Kurrie, for appellant.
C. V McAdams, for appellee.
OPINION
A motion to dismiss the appeal herein was heretofore overruled. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad Com., etc. (1906), 38 Ind.App. 439, 78 N.E. 338. The action was instituted by the filing of a verified complaint by the Romona Oolitic Stone Company against the appellant and the Vandalia Railroad Company, complaining of a joint rate on coal from the Greene county coal fields via the Vandalia line, Gosport Junction, and then over appellant's line to Stinesville. The rate complained of was ninety-five cents per ton, which the commission reduced to eighty cents, the reduction applying solely to that part of the charge made by appellant for transportation over its line. Complaint was also made of a rule by which appellant required its agents to way-bill such coal at actual weight but not less than ninety-five per cent of the marked capacity of the car. The commission prohibited the enforcement of this rule in all cases where the car or cars furnished would not hold the quantity of coal in weight, equal to the marked carrying capacity of such cars.
The questions which this court may decide, are, whether the rate fixed by the commission has been established in due form of law, under a valid law, by a valid commission, and whether such rate is a reasonable and therefore a lawful one. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad Com., etc., supra. The averments of the complaint fix the scope of the commission's inquiry. Acts 1905, p. 83, § 3, cl. h, § 5405c Burns 1905.
The questions which come to this court are those made by "a concise written statement of its or his causes of complaint against the action of the commission." Acts 1905, p. 83, § 6, § 5405f Burns 1905. The insufficiency of the complaint is not thus questioned in the case at bar, but the order of the commission is challenged as being contrary to law and unsupported by evidence. No strictness of pleading is required by the act, and both the complaint filed with the commission and the concise written statement filed in this court must be liberally construed for the purpose of obtaining a disposition of the matters involved, upon their substantial merits.
Section seven of the act of 1905, supra (§ 5405h Burns 1905), is as follows: "In all trials under section six of this act, the burden of proof shall rest upon the plaintiff, who must show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the rates, regulations, orders, classifications, acts or charges complained of are unreasonable and unjust to it or them." The appellant correctly states that "in determining what is a reasonable rate for services, the value of the property employed and the expenses of operation should be considered." Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Houston, etc., R. Co. (1898), 90 F. 683; Judson, Interstate Com., § 135.
It is not necessary to determine whether the action of the commission was supported by clear and satisfactory evidence, for the reason that it is made to appear that, since the filing of the transcript herein, the appellant has issued and put in force a new proportional coal tariff in which the rate fixed conforms to the order of the commission appealed from, and that the rule whose enforcement was limited by the order of the commission has been superseded by an order of the appellant which has been filed with the commission. This action reduces the questions raised by the appeal to moot questions. The sole object of the proceeding was to secure the reduction of the rate and nullification of said rule, and, if we were to hold that the burden resting upon the complainant had not been discharged and remand the case for further proceedings,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago, I.&L. Ry. Co. v. Hunt
... ... CO.v.HUNT et al.No. 1.Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.Jan. 15, 1907 ... Appeal m Railroad Commission.Proceedings against the Chicago, napolis & Louisville Railway Company before the railroad commission, ... ...