Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Colorado

• Decision Date: 04 February 1918
• Docket Number: 8939.
• Citation: 64 Colo. 263,171 P. 86
• Parties: CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

171 P. 86

64 Colo. 263

CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.

No. 8939.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

February 4, 1918

Error to Public Utilities Commission.

Petition by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and Jacob M. Dickinson, receiver, for a writ of error to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado and others to review an order of that board. Order reversed and remanded.

William V. Hodges, Wallace T. Hughes, of Chicago, Ill., and D. Edgar Wilson and Harold H. Healy, both of Denver (M. L. Bell, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for petitioner.

Tyson S. Dines, Tyson Dines, Jr., Carle Whitehead, and Albert L Vogl, all of Denver, for respondent Denver & S. L. R. Co.

HILL C.J.

This action is to review an order of our Public Utilities Commission fixing divisions of through rates on coal to be shipped from points in northwestern Colorado, known as the Oak Hills district, on the road of the respondent, the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad Company, called 'the Moffat road,' to points in Eastern Colorado, on the road of the petitioner, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, called 'the Rock Island.' When before the Public Utilities Commission, this case was a part of Denver &amp S. L. R. Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (No. 8938) 171 P. 74 decided at this term. Both roads were dissatisfied with the commission's divisions and asked for reviews, the Moffat road in the other case, the Rock Island in this. We allowed one record for both. In the other case, the Rock Island joined in the briefs in so far as its contentions were the same as the other roads; hence the opinion in that case controls those questions. In this case it urges the consideration of facts in its favor which it claims distinguishes its position from that of the Union Pacific and Burlington, for which reasons different results should be reached concerning its divisions.

Regardless of the contention in the other case urged by the respondents other than the Rock Island that we were without jurisdiction to consider these questions, etc., the Rock Island requests us in this case to not only assume jurisdiction, but to consider the evidence, to determine the evidentiary degree of certain testimony, to hold that the commission erred concerning it, to declare that its order is unjust and unreasonable, etc., to set aside its decision and make a finding from the testimony that its divisions should be in amounts as claimed by it. We cannot subscribe to all of these contentions, but agree with those portions recognized as correct in the former opinion, viz. that is, that it is our duty to examine the testimony in order to determine whether there is competent testimony to support the findings of the commission, and whether the commission's order is just and reasonable. This the statute says we shall do.

For the reasons stated in case No. 8938, we find no substantial conflict in any material testimony concerning the questions under consideration. The commission held that, as between the Moffat, the Burlington, and the Union Pacific roads, the divisions of the new lower rate fixed by it should be prorated in the same proportion as the former divisions, each bearing its proportional share of the reduction; that the divisions between the Moffat and the Rock Island for stations on the Rock Island line east of Limon should be on a parity with the divisions fixed for the Burlington and the Union Pacific out of Denver, although some of them were fixed at less than this conclusion calls for. These are the alleged errors complained of as being in conflict with both the law and the evidence. To sustain its contention to the first, the Rock Island points to testimony which shows that it had been...