In Re Petition For Increase Of v. City Of Charlotte
Citation | 101 S.E. 619 |
Decision Date | 27 December 1919 |
Docket Number | (No. 445.) |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Parties | In re PETITION FOR INCREASE OF STREET CAR FARES IN CITY OF CHARLOTTE. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE. |
On Appeal of City of Charlotte.
Under the police power the Legislature has authority, either directly or through appropriate governmental agency, to establish reasonable regulations for public service corporations in matters affecting the public interests, and a municipal corporation cannot, by reason of a franchise contract with a street railway company, deprive the Legislature of its regulatory powers.
Under Revival 1905, c. 20, and amendments thereto, creating a Corporation Commission and giving it general supervision over railways, street railways, etc., and power to fix rates, charges, and tariffs that may be reasonable and just, the Corporation Commission may grant a street railway company an increase in fares, notwithstanding franchise contract between the street railway company and a municipality fixing the lower maximum.
The courts lean against a construction which will make the contract provision of a franchise fixing maximum rates for street railways of indefinite duration.
On Appeal of Southern Public Utilities Company.
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Adams, Judge.
In the matter of the petition of the Southern Public Utilities Company for an increase of street car fares in the City of Charlotte. The Corporation Commission granted an increase of fares, and the City of Charlotte, which opposed the petition, appealed to the superior court, which tribunal entertained the appeal, and referred the case to hear evidence. From such determination both the Southern Public Utilities Company and the City of Charlotte appeal. Affirmed.
The petition was filed by the Southern Public Utilities Company, operating street cars in the city of Charlotte, and in which it was alleged:
"That on account of the abnormal increase in the price of steel, copper, cars and all equipment and materials and the increased cost of labor incident to our business, your petitioner cannot profitably nor properly conduct its street railway at the present pre-war rates."
That it had been charging a 5 cent fare, with 11 tickets for 50 cents, and closed with the prayer that it might be granted the privilege of increasing said rate to 7 cents, with the understanding that the company would sell four tickets at 25 cents.
The city of Charlotte, made a party by notice issued by direction of the commission, appeared and resisted the application. The hearing was set for July 8th at the city of Raleigh, the parties appeared, and on suggestion from the city's counsel that, as the developments of the hearing might render a further presentation of facts necessary on the part of the city, they would ask for that privilege. The chairman replied that it was the purpose of the commission to get at the real facts with as little formality as possible and that, if it became necessary to make further investigation to set forth the substantial facts, opportunity would be given. The hearing was then entered upon; no formal answer having been filed.
For the petitioner, the president of the company was examined, making an elaborate statement of conditions, which it was claimed justified the proposed increase.
On the cross-examination the city of Charlotte sought to disclose that the facts and conditions presented did not justify the increase; that the company had given an overvaluation of the property, and had made excessive claims for depreciation, etc. At the close of the examination of this witness, the taking of the oral testimony was not further pursued.
The following day the company, by leave given, submitted to the commission certain data in illustration and support of the oral evidence of its president.
On July 13th, five days after the first hearing, pursuant to leave given, the city of Charlotte filed its formal answer, resisting the application in terms as follows:
And in support of this further answer it was shown that:
On consideration of the facts in evidence the commission made an order granting the prayer of the petitioner, the said order being in terms as follows:
From this order, the defendant, the respondent, gave notice of appeal as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Utilities Com'n v. Nantahala Power and Light Co.
... ... J. Truett; Town of Bryson City; Swain County Board of ... County Commissioners; Cherokee, Graham and ... begun in 1976, with Nantahala's application for permission to increase its retail rates and a revision of its purchased power adjustment clause ... See Nantahala Power and Light Co., 2 F.P.C. 833 (1940), petition for discontinuance denied, 2 F.P.C. 388 (1941). 5 TVA, ... Page 409 ... ...
-
State v. Burr
... ... resolved against the city. This rule was applicable to ... statutes conferring authority upon the ... state, in the exercise of its police power, may reduce or ... increase the rates fixed by a city ordinance for a common ... carrier company ... Jacksonville a petition asking that the said franchise ... ordinance should be so amended as to ... So. 919; Southern Public Utilities Co. v. City of ... Charlotte (N. C.) 101 S.E. 619; State ex rel ... Indianapolis Traction Co. v ... ...
- In re Petition for Increase of Street Car Fares in City of Charlotte
-
City of Durham v. Southern R. Co.
... ... Railroad (Hoke, J.) 178 N.C. 245, 100 S.E ... 424; Utilities Co. v. City of Charlotte, 179 N.C ... 159, 160, 101 S.E. 619; Goff v. R. R., 179 N.C. 224, ... 102 S.E. 320; Raleigh ... and necessarily so in order to meet the new dangers and ... increase of old dangers, constantly occurring as natural ... incidents of advancing civilization. We think ... ...