Denney v. Pacific Telephone Telegraph Co Same v. Home Telephone Telegraph Co
Decision Date | 20 February 1928 |
Docket Number | Nos. 150,151,s. 150 |
Citation | 72 L.Ed. 483,276 U.S. 97,48 S.Ct. 223 |
Parties | DENNEY, Director of Public Works of Washington, et al. v. PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. SAME v. HOME TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Arthur Schramm, Jr., of Seattle, Wash., John H. Dunbar and H. C. Brodie, both of Olympia, Wash., Alex M. Winston, of Spokane, Wash., and Thos. J. L. Kennedy, of Seattle, Wash., for appellants.
Mr. Otto B. Rupp, of Seattle, Wash., for appellees.
It will be convenient to dispose of these causes by one opinion as was done in the court below. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Whitcomb et al. (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) 279.
Appellees operate telephone plants in Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane, Wash., under local franchises which designated maximum permissible rates. These were granted prior to 1911, but after adoption of the present Constitution of the state.
The 'Public Service Commission Law' of Washington (chapter 117, Laws 1911; Remington's Comp. Stat. 1922, §§ 10339-10441), authorized a public service commission and directed that telephone rates, tolls, contracts and charges 'shall be fair, just, reasonable and sufficient.' etc. It further provided—
* * *'
Chapter 7, Laws of 1921, vested in the Department of Public Works powers theretofore intrusted to the commission.
Control of the telephone systems owned by appellees was assumed by the Postmaster General August 1, 1918, and retained for one year. He fixed rates for Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane higher than the maximum rates permitted by the original franchises.
The Act of July 11, 1919 (41 Stat. c. 10, p. 157) repealed the Act of July 16, 1918 (40 Stat. 904)-which authorized federal control of telephone systems-and directed that rates established by the Postmaster General should continue for four months after the termination of federal control (July 31, 1919), unless sooner modified or changed by public authorities.
August 8, 1919, the Public Service Commission directed appellees to observe the rates established by the Postmaster General; and they continued so to do. January, 1922, the Department of Public Works by formal complaint challenged the reasonableness of these rates. In the autumn of 1922 appellees files schedules of proposed increased rates which were suspended. Extended hearings were had concerning the value of properties devoted to the service and the reasonableness of the rates proposed. The department found and declared the value of the properties; also 'that the existing rates are just, fair, reasonable, and sufficient; that the proposed increased rates, both toll and exchange, are unjust, unfair, unreasonable, and more than sufficient.' And on March 31, 1923, it ordered 'that the applications of respondents for increased rates be and the same are hereby denied; that the proposed increased rates in their entirety be and they are hereby permanently suspended; that the same shall not become effective, and existing rates shall remain in effect until the further order of the department.'
Shortly thereafter appellees began these proceedings in the United States District Court. They attacked the valuations by the department and alleged that the rates designated by the order of March 31, 1923, were confisca- tory. The matter went to a master and was heard upon his report, etc. The court approved the master's conclusions that the department's valuations were too low and the prescribed rates were confiscatory. It accordingly adjudged the challenged order void and without effect.
The causes are here by direct appeal. The valuations approved by the court are not questioned; nor is it now claimed that the rates prescribed by the departmental order would yield adequate returns. But it is said that these rates must be regarded as contractual franchise rates and therefore they cannot be confiscatory in a constitutional sense.
Appellants maintain that under the statutes of Washington when the department terminates a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Los Angeles Gas Electric Corporation v. Railroad Commission of California
...Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Minnesota v. Duluth St. Ry., 273 U.S. 625, 47 S.Ct. 489, 71 L.Ed. 807; Denney v. Pacific Tel. Co., 276 U.S. 97, 48 S.Ct. 223, 72 L.Ed. 483; Wabash Valley Elec. Co. v. Young, 287 U.S. 488, 53 S.Ct. 234, 77 L.Ed. 447. In Missouri Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 474, ......
-
New York Telephone Co. v. Prendergast
...was investigated by the Public Service Commission and won approval. It is an enforceable contract. Denney, etc., v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 276 U. S. 97, 48 S. Ct. 223, 72 L. Ed. 483; State of Mo. ex rel. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, 262 U. S. 276, 43 S......
-
Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. Gilchrist
...53 L. Ed. 176. This construction is consistent with the state court decisions to which we should give sanction. Denney v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 48 S. Ct. 223, 72 L. Ed. ___ (decided Feb., It is argued that the commission, as a state agency, could exercise or not, in its discretion, this ......
-
Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States, 9568.
...805. In Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Whitcomb (D. C. Wash.) 12 F.(2d) 279, 288, affirmed in Denney v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 276 U. S. 97, 48 S. Ct. 223, 72 L. Ed. 483, it was held: "Utilities which are equal to its present requirements may be grossly inadequate in the r......
-
How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
...Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. v. Public Utils. Comm'n, 274 U.S. 344, 350-52 (1927) (railroad rates); Denney v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 276 U.S. 97,101-04 (1928) (telephone rates); United Rys. & Elec. Co. v. West, 280 U.S. 234, 249-54 (1930) (street railway rates); Railroad Comm'n v. Maxcy, 282 ......