New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 14 November 1952
• Citation: 92 A.2d 408,97 N.H. 555
• Parties: NEW ENGLAND TEL. & TEL. CO. v. STATE.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 408

92 A.2d 408

97 N.H. 555

NEW ENGLAND TEL. & TEL. CO. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Nov. 14, 1952.

Gordon M. Tiffany, Atty. Gen. and John N. Nassikas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

In 1951 the Legislature provided that the Public Utilities Commission may suspend higher rates filed by a public utility, for a period not exceeding a year pending investigation by the commission, but that the proposed rates may nevertheless be placed in effect by the utility if their reasonableness has not been determined at the expiration of six months from the filing, provided the utility furnishes a bond 'to secure the repayment to the customers * * * of the difference, if any, between the amounts collected under said schedule of rates and the schedule of rates determined by the commission * * *.' R.L. c. 292, § 6, as amended by Laws 1951, c. 203, § 46.

The statutory procedure was followed in this case, so that the rates presently in effect are those filed by the Company on September 1, 1951, and placed in effect on April 1, 1952. The Company seeks a suspension of the Commission order disallowing these rates so that they may remain in effect (subject to a repayment bond or undertaking) pending a determination of the merits of the Company's appeal.

The question presented is whether justice requires such a suspension until the merits of the pending appeal can be presented to this Court and reviewed by it. R.L. c. 414, § 20, as amended by Laws 1951, c. 203, § 16; Chicopee Mfg. Co. v. Public Service Co., N.H., 89 A.2d 751. As matters now stand the Court is in no better position to determine the merits of the appeal than was the Commission on April 1, 1952, to determine the reasonableness of the rates proposed by the Company. We are of the opinion that justice will best be served by a continuance of the rates presently in effect under suitable bond or undertaking. Such an order is consistent with the legislative policy indicated in the revision of R.L. c. 292, § 6, supra. Consumers will be protected by the Company's undertaking for repayment. No comparable provision of the statute exists which might be utilized to afford similar protection to the utility, if the order of the Commission should be permitted to take immediate effect. Moreover, continuance of the currently effective rates pending the appeal is likely to be productive of less disruption both to the public and the Company than would arise from immediate institution of the...