Consumers' Co., Ltd. v. Public Utilities Commission of Idaho
| Decision Date | 13 May 1925 |
| Citation | 40 Idaho 772,236 P. 732 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONSUMERS COMPANY, LTD., a Corporation, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF IDAHO and THE CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondents |
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION-ORDER-REHEARING-APPEAL.
1. Before an appeal can be prosecuted from an order of the Public Utilities Commission an application for a rehearing must be made and determined.
2. The purpose and effect of a pleading rather than its designation is controlling.
3. The purpose of an application for a rehearing of any of the matters determined by an order of the Public Utilities Commission is to afford an opportunity to the parties to bring to the attention of the commission any error claimed to have been committed in such former determination, and thereby afford the commission an opportunity to rectify any mistakes made by it.
4. The Public Utilities Commission may grant more than one rehearing in any matter pending before it when the circumstances are such that the commission is of the opinion that more than one rehearing is necessary.
MOTION to dismiss appeal from order of Public Utilities Commission. Denied.
Motion to dismiss the appeal denied.
A. H Conner, Attorney General, James L. Boone, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles P. McCarthy, for Respondent.
The legislature may provide conditions of appeal, scope of appeal and procedure on appeal from orders of the Public Utilities Commission. (Const., sec. 9, art, 5; Laws of 1919, p. 620 chap. 72, sec. 1, Laws of 1921.)
The court has no power to extend the time within which an appeal can be taken. Whether or not the appeal has been properly taken is a jurisdictional question. (Kimzey v. Highland Livestock & Land Co., 37 Idaho 9, 214 P. 750.)
Robert H. Elder, for Appellant.
Sec. 1 chap. 72, 1921 Sess. Laws, p. 141, provides the time in which appeal may be taken.
C. S sec. 2503, provides for rehearing before the Public Utilities Commission. The commission and all the parties in interest treated the petition of appellant for revaluation as a petition for a rehearing and as a continuation of the proceedings in case No. F-499.
C. S., sec. 6728, provides: "The court must in every stage of an action disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings, which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."
In July, 1922, the Public Utilities Commission, on its own motion ordered a hearing for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the property of the appellant and of investigating its rates. Hearings were held and the Commission made and filed certain orders fixing the value of the property of the utility and prescribing rates to be charged by it. An appeal was taken from the orders, and respondent moves to dismiss the appeal.
After an order has been made by the Commission any person or corporation interested may apply for a rehearing in respect to any matter determined therein. (C. S., sec. 2503.) Within thirty days after the rendition of the decision on rehearing, any party aggrieved may, appeal to the supreme court. (Chap. 72, 1921 Laws.) A party is required to ask for a rehearing before taking an appeal, and may ask for a rehearing of the cause in its entirety or of only one or more of the matters determined in the original order. When the first order was made and filed, a rehearing was asked on seven separate grounds, and a rehearing was granted on two or three grounds.
On the rehearing allowed by the Commission, among other things, appellant offered certain evidence with respect to going concern value, but the Commission rejected such evidence. On the making of Order No. 881, which was the decision on rehearing, appellant contends that by making its "Application for Revaluation" and "Petition for Revaluation," it asked for a rehearing of the matter of going concern value, which had been raised for the first time on the rehearing and determined for the first time in the decision on rehearing. Respondents contend that the "Application for Revaluation," although filed in time, was not sufficient as an application for a rehearing, and that the "Petition for Revaluation" was not filed in time. Substantially the same objections were made to the Commission and were overruled. The Commission construed together the application and petition for a revaluation and gave them the same effect as an application for a rehearing. It granted and held a hearing and (in Order No. 960) declined to make the requested allowance for going concern value. Within thirty days after the filing of Order No. 960 the appeal was perfected.
The application and petition for revaluation had the effect of a petition for rehearing; they were so considered by the Commission; they merely brought to the attention of the Commission the fact that it had in its second order (No. 881) failed to place a going concern value on appellant's property, and asked that such a value be given the property. They were incorrectly labeled, but they constituted, to all intents, an application for rehearing. The purpose and effect of a pleading rather than its designation is controlling. (Swank v. Sweetwater Irr. etc. Co., 15 Idaho 353, 98 P. 297; 6 Cal. Jur. 256, sec. 164.)
The purpose of an application for the rehearing provided by statute, and it must be presumed to have a useful purpose, is to afford an opportunity to the parties to bring to the attention of the Commission, in an orderly manner, any question theretofore determined in the matter and thereby afford the Commission an opportunity to rectify any mistake made by it before presenting the same to the supreme court. In view of the indefiniteness of the statute and the great liberality allowed in pleading and practice before the Commission, this court would not be justified in laying down any rule that would prevent the Commission from allowing more than one rehearing in any matter pending before it where the circumstances are such that the Commission is of the opinion that more than one rehearing is necessary.
A rehearing of the second order having been granted, a hearing held and an appeal having been perfected within thirty days after the rendition of the decision on the last rehearing, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
I cannot concur in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal herein. It being conceded that "the purpose of an application for a rehearing . . . . is to afford an opportunity to the parties to bring to the attention of the Commission any error claimed to have been committed in such former determination, and thereby afford the Commission an opportunity to rectify any mistakes made by it," and C. S., sec. 2503, providing that "the Commission shall grant and hold such rehearing if in its judgment sufficient reason therefor be made to appear," then unless such application does point out or claim errors, there is nothing for the Commission to determine and no "sufficient reason" for a rehearing "made to appear."
The purpose of an application for rehearing, in contemplation of this statute, is no different than in proceedings before the courts, that is, to point out specifically in what respect the original decision is erroneous. (4 C. J., p. 622, sec. 2479, p. 635, sec. 2507.) The application is confined to matters urged at the original hearing, and may not include new points, raised for the first time, or matters not in the record when the case was decided. (4 C. J., p. 627, sec. 2488, p. 629, secs. 2494, 2495.)
Briefly stated, the steps in this proceeding were as follows: August 14 and 15, 1922, a valuation hearing was had. November 4, 1922, what is designated as Order No. 865 fixed the valuation of the appellant's utility at $ 194,000, to become effective December 1, 1922. November 27, 1922, appellant filed a petition for rehearing upon seven specified grounds. November 28, 1922, the Commission, by Order No. 871, granted a rehearing as to some of the questions decided which were recited in the application for rehearing. December 8, 1922, a rehearing was had. At the rehearing, the appellant injected into the hearing an attempt to establish going value, although this element of value had not been proven in the previous hearing, nor proof offered, nor was this specified as one of the grounds of error in the application for rehearing. February 6, 1923, the Commission entered Order No. 881 on the rehearing, raising the valuation to $ 224,050. In this order and decision the Commission considered the showing made by appellant as to going value, but made no allowance therefor, saying:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Missouri
... ... Public Service Commission et al., Appellants. State of Missouri at the Relation of ... 548; Pond Public ... Utilities (4 Ed.), sec. 913, p. 1849; State ex rel ... Electric ... 52; ... Pond, Public Utilities (3 Ed.), sec. 901; Idaho Power Co ... v. Blomquist, 26 Idaho 222, 141 P. 1083; ... in this case. 51 C. J. 69; Consumers Co., Ltd., v. State ... Pub. Utilities Comm., 40 Idaho ... ...
-
Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
...Water Users Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co., 89 Idaho 147, 154, 404 P.2d 859, 862 (1965) (quoting Consumers' Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 40 Idaho 772, 775, 236 P. 732, 732-33 (1925)). In the present case, since the Commission did have the opportunity to consider WWP's objections to the add......
- Consumers' Co., Ltd. v. Public Utilities Commission of Idaho
-
Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, 12509
...to this Court. Idaho Underground Water Users Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co., 89 Idaho 147, 404 P.2d 859 (1965); Consumers Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 40 Idaho 772, 236 P. 732 (1925). We conclude from the record here that although the Commission reviewed the issues of jurisdiction and standing......