Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 07 March 1955
• Docket Number: No. 8212,8212
• Citation: 280 P.2d 1067,76 Idaho 241
• Parties: , 8 P.U.R.3d 393 The MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George R. JONES, H. C. Allen and H. N. Beamer, as the Commissioners of, and constituting, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and Stephen L. Guice, its Secretary, Robert E. Smylie, Attorney General, and Edward J. Aschenbrener, Assistant Attorney General, respectively, of the State of Idaho, and attorneys for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and for the people of the State of Idaho (including all the plaintiff's subscribers), Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 1067

280 P.2d 1067

76 Idaho 241, 8 P.U.R.3d 393

The MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George R. JONES, H. C. Allen and H. N. Beamer, as the Commissioners of, and constituting, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and Stephen L. Guice, its Secretary, Robert E. Smylie, Attorney General, and Edward J. Aschenbrener, Assistant Attorney General, respectively, of the State of Idaho, and attorneys for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and for the people of the State of Idaho (including all the plaintiff's subscribers), Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8212.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

March 7, 1955.

Robert E. Smylie, Atty. Gen., J. N. Leggat, Edward J. Aschenbrener, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

Carey H. Nixon, Boise, J. H. Shepherd, Denver, Colo., for respondent.

SMITH, Justice.

This proceeding, heretofore before this Court, resulted in reversal of the trial court and remand for further proceedings, Case No. 8041, 75 Idaho 78, 267 P.2d 634.

Respondent Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company will sometimes be referred to as the company, and appellant Idaho Public Utilities Commission and its officers, as the commission.

The original proceeding for increase in rates commenced by the company, designed to afford it an additional annual income of $1,097,000, resulted in an order of denial of the increase by the commission, May 15, 1953.

The district court upon the company's application, made and entered its order and decree May 25, 1953, granting a temporary injunction permitting the company to charge and collect such increased rates under proper bond, with appellants restrained from interfering with the charging and collection of such increased rates, and impounding of the increase under bond, pendente lite.

The transcript of the proceedings had before the commission including the evidence, was presented to the district court for its consideration by applicant, appellant company, in the injunction proceeding; but, inasmuch as the district court instanter made its order and decree of May 25, 1953, without affording appellants opportunity to adduce evidence, in addition to that contained in such record of proceeding before the commission, this Court, upon disposition of an appeal taken therefrom, reversed and remanded the cause with instructions to the trial court 'to admit evidence presented by any party to the proceedings, in addition to the evidence contained in the record of proceedings and exhibits before the Commission.' Case No. 8041, 267 P.2d 634, 638.

The remanded matter came on for hearing by the district court on April 12, 1954, and July 6, 1954, the court entered its order and decree; thereby it continued in full force and effect said temporary injunction and bond, and all conditions relating to the charging and collection of such increased rates and impounding the increase under bond, pendente lite.

At the time the district court entered its first order and decree May 25, 1953, the company had applied for a rehearing of its initial application for increase in rates, by the commission; as provided by I.C. § 61-626. The commission on such rehearing again denied the company's application for increase in rates by its order, in the completed proceeding, entered May 14, 1954. The company's appeal therefrom is still pending in this Court.

Appellants assign error of the trial court, at the April 12, 1954 hearing on remand, in indicating that it would not consider the evidence adduced before the commission on rehearing 'in determining whether or not said district court should issue an injunction pendente lite.'

The company as a condition precedent to the issuance of the interlocutory injunction May 25, 1953, presented to the district court a transcript of the proceedings theretofore had before the commission, including the evidence, for the court's consideration in determining the company's right to such injunctive relief, I.C. § 61-633.

The instruction of this Court, on remand of Case No. 8041, recognized the right of any party thereto to adduce evidence in addition to the evidence contained in the record of the proceedings theretofore had before the commission in the matter of the company's original application for increase in rates.

The evidence in the matter now before this Court shows that the so-called 'record' before the commission on rehearing, to which appellants refer in their aforesaid specification of error, consisted of a transcript of the evidence taken before the commission on rehearing of the company's application for increase in rates. The proceeding on such rehearing had not been completed when the district...