Consumers' Sanitary Coffee & Butter Stores v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n ex rel. Commonwealth Edison Co.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21016.,21016. |
| Citation | 348 Ill. 615,181 N.E. 411 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONSUMERS' SANITARY COFFEE & BUTTER STORES v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ex rel. COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceedings by the Consumers' Sanitary Coffee & Butter Stores before the Illinois Commerce Commission, attacking an electric rate of the Commonwealth Edison Company. The Commission entered an order denying the relief sought, and on appeal the circuit court reversed the order of the Commission and remanded the cause for further proceedings, and the Commonwealth Edison Company appeals.
Order of the circuit court affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; A. W. Summers, Judge.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale, of Chicago (Harry J. Dunbaugh and David F. Taber, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Sims, Stransky, Brewer & Poust, of Chicago (Franklin J. Stransky, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
The appellee, the Consumers' Sanitary Coffee & Butter Stores, filed a complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission attacking a rate of the appellant, the Commonwealth Edison Company, which rate is applicable only to small commercial light and power users and is known as rate ‘A2.’ The grounds of the complaint are: (1) That the rate provides for the furnishing of lamp service (electric light bulbs) as well as electric current under a single charge, and the Public Utilities Act does not vest the Commerce Commission with power to regulate charges for articles of merchandise; (2) that the rate embodies a concealed charge of one-half of a cent per kilowatt hour for lamp service in violation of section 33 of the Public Utilities Act (Cahill's St. 1931, c. 111a, par. 48); and (3) that, if complainant had purchased lamps in the open market and its current from appellant during the preceding year, it would have saved approximately $2,600. The complaint prayed that appellant be ordered to discontinue such violations and to establish reasonable and just rates and charges free from discrimination, and that reparation be made to complainant. Upon a hearing the commission made detailed findings against the contentions of appellee and entered an order denying the relief sought. On appeal to the circuit court of Cook county, the order of the commission was reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. The circuit court found that rate ‘A2’ (3 cents per kilowatt hour for all electric current used in any month) includes a charge for lamp service; that appellee could have purchased identical lamps in the open market at a saving of approximately $207 per month; that under rate ‘A2’ consumers are unlawfully required to pay a lamp service charge based upon the quantity of current used, not only for lighting, but also for power, heat and refrigeration; that the electric energy utilized by such consumers for power, heat, and refrigeration is a substantial and considerable amount of the current going through the meters; that rate ‘A2’ is discriminatory against consumers in the same class, in violation of the Public Utilities Act; that the combining of the charges for lamps and electrical energy under a single rate in effect compels the consumer to purchase from the utility company outright, or at least the use of, articles of merchandise which he has a right to purchase wherever he desires; that incandescent lamps do not constitute a necessary part of the facilities to be furnished in light and power service; that appellee is entitled to reparation in an amount equal to the difference between what it was compelled to pay for such lamp service and the price of the same lamps in the open market; that the findings of the commission were contrary to the evidence, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond v. General Telephone Co. of Illinois, 2-90-0624
...the Public Utilities Act has been held to be in derogation of the common law (Consumers Sanitary Coffee & Butter Stores v. Commerce Comm'n ex rel. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1932), 348 Ill. 615, 618, 181 N.E. 411), and, as such, it is to be construed strictly in favor of the persons sought to......
-
Churchill v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
...Act is in derogation of the common law and nothing is to be read into it by intendment (Consumers Sanitary Coffee & Butter Stores v. Commerce Com. (1932), 348 Ill. 615, 618, 181 N.E.2d 411). In Anderson v. Board of Education (1945), 390 Ill. 412, 422, 61 N.E.2d 562, this court held that a s......
-
Barthel v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co.
...court has held that the Public Utility Act is in derogation of the common law. (Consumers Sanitary Coffee & Butter Stores v. Commerce Com. ex rel. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1932), 348 Ill. 615, 618, 181 N.E. 411.) Section 73 is plainly in derogation of the common law because it prevents a de......
-
Gowdey v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
...to impose a mandatory charge for this service until 1932 when the Illinois Supreme Court, in Consumers Sanitary Coffee and Butter Stores v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 348 Ill. 615, 181 N.E. 411, ruled that Edison must provide the bulb service on an optional basis. Thereafter, apparently ......
-
Illinois. Practice Text
...Tying arrangements also may be proscribed under § 3(2). Additionally, in Consumers Sanitary C.B. Stores v. Illinois Commerce Commission , 181 N.E. 411 (Ill. 1932), the Illinois Supreme Court found that a tying arrangement that promoted an unlawful monopoly was illegal under common law. 94. ......
-
Illinois
...Tying arrangements also may be proscribed under § 3(2). Additionally, in Consumers Sanitary C.B. Stores v. Illinois Commerce Commission , 181 N.E. 411 (Ill. 1932), the Illinois Supreme Court found that a tying arrangement that promoted an unlawful monopoly was illegal under common law. 86. ......