Hamilton v. Caribou Water, Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1922
• Citation: 117 A. 582
• Parties: HAMILTON et al. v. CARIBOU WATER, LIGHT & POWER CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

117 A. 582

HAMILTON et al.

v. CARIBOU WATER, LIGHT & POWER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

July 8, 1922.

Exceptions from Public Utilities Commission, at Law.

Action by W. P. Hamilton and others against the Caribou Water, Light & Power Company. From an order and decree of the Public Utilities Commission, defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, PHTLBROOK, DUNN, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

W. P. Hamilton, and Cyrus F. Small, both of Caribou, and Pattangall & Locke, of Augusta, for complainants.

Powers & Guild, of Ft. Fairfield, for defendant.

WILSON, J. This case comes before this court on exceptions to an order and decree of the Public Utilities Commission.

Questions are raised and argued in the briefs of counsel which are not properly before this court upon the bill of exceptions presented, or cannot be determined upon the facts found by the Commission. But since the practice in such proceedings has not become established, the questions raised will be considered so far as the case before us will permit.

Though clothed with certain judicial powers, the Public Utilities Commission is not a court in the strict sense of the term. Its functions are mainly legislative and administrative and not judicial. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210, 225-227, 29 Sup. Ct. 67, 53 L. Ed. 150. Acting within its powers, its orders and decrees are final except as a review thereof by the regularly constituted courts is authorized under the act creating the Commission.

Such and the only power of review is found in R. S. c. 55, § 55, as amended by chapter 28, P. L. 1917, and relates only to questions of law:

"Questions of law may be raised by alleging exceptions to the rulings of the Commission on an agreed statement of facts, or on facts found by the Commission."

The facts on which the rulings of the Commission are based must either be agreed to by the parties or be found by the Commission. Facts thus determined upon are not open to question in this court, unless the Commission should find facts to exist without any substantial evidence to support them, when such finding would be open to exceptions as being unwarranted in law.

A bill of exceptions under this statute should accord with the general practice in the courts and comply with the requirements laid down in Jones v. Jones, 101 Me. 447, 450. 64 Atl. 815, 115 Am. St. Rep. 328, and Feltis v. Power Co., 120 Me. 101, 112 Atl. 906. It should not be general, but should specifically set out in what respect the party excepting is aggrieved.

An examination of the findings and orders of the Commission and the bill of exceptions shows that neither has the requirements of the statute in respect to findings by the Commission, nor the practice in the courts in the making up the bill of exceptions, been complied with.

The only facts found by the Commission were that the water supplied by the utility was not suitable for drinking by reason of pollution, and that the rates filed by the company with the Commission were unreasonable, unjust, and unlawfully discriminatory; the reasonableness of rates being a mixed question of law and fact.

To this order the company filed its exceptions, alleging generally that it was erroneous in law. Counsel in their brief, however, argue as grounds for their exceptions: (1) That there is no evidence justifying the rates fixed by the Commission; (2) that in fixing the rates the Commission disregarded certain requirements of the statutes upon which its authority to fix rates is based; (3) that the rates fixed by the Commission are so low as to be confiscatory and therefore unlawful.

The exceptions cannot be sustained on the first ground. The findings of the Commission upon questions of fact must be given the weight and effect due to the decisions of a tribunal authorized by law and qualified by training and experience. This court will not review the evidence upon which such findings are based. Only in case its findings of fact are unsupported by any substantial evidence may the court hold them erroneous as a matter of law and subject to exceptions. Twae Commission...