City of Huntington v. Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 02 June 1922
• Docket Number: 4629.
• Citation: 112 S.E. 571,91 W.Va. 346
• Parties: CITY OF HUNTINGTON v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

112 S.E. 571

91 W.Va. 346

CITY OF HUNTINGTON v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL.

No. 4629.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

June 2, 1922

Submitted May 30, 1922.

Syllabus by the Court.

The order of the Public Service Commission now complained of is affirmed on the rules and principles laid down in the opinion filed on the former hearing. 89 W.Va. 703, 110 S.E. 192.

Petition by the City of Huntington against the Public Service Commission and another for suspension of an order. Order of suspension refused, and petition dismissed.

J. H Meek, of Huntington, for petitioner.

Fitzpatrick Brown & Davis, of Huntington, for respondents.

MILLER J.

This is the same case which was before us for review of a former order of the Public Service Commission, and was disposed of on the record then presented, upon the rules and principles enunciated in the opinion of the court reported in 89 W.Va 703, 110 S.E. 192.

The present petition was brought by plaintiff to review the final order of the commission, promulgated on April 22, 1922, upon the original record, and the supplemental record and proceedings had before the commission since the former decision.

No questions are presented by the present record and the order of the commission complained of not involved in and settled by the principles laid down in the former decision and opinion of the court; and we need only restate those rules and principles by reference to the former opinion.

The principal questions then in controversy before us were as to the proper basis for valuing the property of the water works company for rate making purposes, and the rate of net income it should be allowed to earn on that valuation. Both these questions were determined on the former hearing, and if not res adjudicata of the same questions again presented, we see no reason for departing from them on the present hearing. The commission has filed with the record an elaborate opinion in writing giving the reasons for its final order; and we find no reason for interfering with the conclusions reached by it.

The only new facts presented by the supplemental record relate to the new improvements ordered by the commission, and actually added subsequent to the date to which the former valuation was made to relate. As to these no question has been made. Including these added values the proper basis for rate making was found to be $1,271,747.00, instead of...