Nez Perce Roller Mills of Lewiston v. Public Utilities Commission of State

• Decision Date: 13 July 1934
• Docket Number: 6137
• Citation: 54 Idaho 696,34 P.2d 972
• Parties: NEZ PERCE ROLLER MILLS OF LEWISTON, IDAHO, FARMERS GRAIN AND SUPPLY COMPANY OF CRAIGMONT, IDAHO, UNION WAREHOUSE AND MERCANTILE COMPANY OF CRAIGMONT, IDAHO, VICTOR PETERSON OF GRANGEVILLE, IDAHO, and T. E. ROBINSON OF NEZ PERCE, IDAHO, Appellants, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, Consisting of J. D. RIGNEY, M. REESE HATTABAUGH and HARRY HOLDEN, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

34 P.2d 972

54 Idaho 696

NEZ PERCE ROLLER MILLS OF LEWISTON, IDAHO, FARMERS GRAIN AND SUPPLY COMPANY OF CRAIGMONT, IDAHO, UNION WAREHOUSE AND MERCANTILE COMPANY OF CRAIGMONT, IDAHO, VICTOR PETERSON OF GRANGEVILLE, IDAHO, and T. E. ROBINSON OF NEZ PERCE, IDAHO, Appellants, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, Consisting of J. D. RIGNEY, M. REESE HATTABAUGH and HARRY HOLDEN, Respondents

No. 6137

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 13, 1934

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION-FINDINGS-REVIEW ON APPEAL-WAREHOUSES-RATES.

1. Upon appeal to supreme court from order of Public Utilities Commission, findings of commission are presumptively correct and function of court is only to determine whether order is valid and reasonable and whether it invades any constitutional right (I. C. A., sec. 59-629; Const., art. 2 sec. 1).

2. Public Utilities Commission order fixing rates for warehousing and storing cereal grains was approved where there was substantial evidence to support rates as fixed, and warehousemen had failed to show that there was such an attack upon rights of property under guise of regulations as to deny just compensation for private property taken for public use (I. C. A., sec. 59-629; Const., art. 2, sec. 1).

APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Idaho.

Appeal from an order rejecting a proposed schedule of rates. Affirmed.

Order affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Tannahill & Durham and Paul W. Hyatt, for Appellants.

The refusal of the commission to allow, accept and approve the proposed rate schedule of the appellants is manifestly unreasonable and oppressive and in the light of the uncontradicted facts, arbitrary and without the first element of due process of law, and is a denial of the constitutional guaranties. (Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 18 S.Ct 418, 42 L.Ed. 819; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U.S. 649, 15 S.Ct. 484, 39 L.Ed. 567; Georgia R. & B. Co v. Smith, 128 U.S. 174, 9 S.Ct. 47, 32 L.Ed. 377.)

Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, D. Worth Clark, Assistant Attorney General, and Bert Auger, for Respondents.

The public is entitled to demand that no more shall be exacted from it by the utility than the services rendered are reasonably worth, and this right takes precedence even over the right of the utility to earn a fair return on its investment when the two rights cannot stand together. (10 C. J. 418; Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. et al. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 198, 41 L.Ed. 560; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 18 S.Ct. 418, 42 L.Ed. 819; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U.S. 257, 22 S.Ct. 900, 46 L.Ed. 1151.)

GIVENS, J. Budge, C. J., Morgan, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Public Utilities Commission refusing and rejecting a proposed schedule of rates for warehousing and storing cereal grains.

Appellants contend that the rates as fixed, 75 [cents] a ton, for handling and storage for one month, and 10 [cents] a month thereafter are confiscatory, and they introduced evidence in support of such contention.

The attorney general, on behalf of the commission and the grain growers, contends, on the other hand, that not only is the rate not confiscatory, but that it is sufficient under proper business methods to be remunerative, and even if not, that the rule to be applied is that the rate even though not compensatory, must not be more than the service is worth and that the producer can hardly afford to pay the rate fixed and certainly none in excess thereof.

It is unnecessary, however, for us to go so far as to adhere to the second of these two irreconcilable contentions, because the growers introduced evidence by warehousemen, and others, to the effect that under the rate fixed, though not without difficulty, warehousemen could at least meet their expenses, with some return on their investment, and in some instances make from a fair to a good profit.

The generally recognized standard, upon appeal from an order of a Public Utilities Commission to the courts is:

"Its findings (The Department of Public Work's) and conclusions (In fixing rates to be charged by warehousemen) should therefore be given the weight accorded to any impartial tribunal, and should be overturned only when the clear weight of the evidence is against its conclusion, or when it mistakes the law applicable to the matters adjudicated by it. State ex rel. G. N. R. Co. v. Railroad Com., 60 Wash. 218, 110 P. 1075; Puget Sound Elec. Ry. v. Railroad Commission, 65 Wash. 75, 117 P. 739. Ann. Cas. 1913B 763." (Pacific Coast Elevator Co. v. Department of Public Works, 130 Wash. 620, 228 P. 1022.)

"To justify this court in setting aside this finding, the evidence would have to be strong and persuasive that the commission had abused its discretion." (Boise Artesian Water Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 40 Idaho 690, 236 P. 525.)

"Findings of fact made by a public utility commission are presumptively correct. Such presumption, however, is only prima facie, and may be rebutted; but the burden is upon one attacking the commission's action to show their incorrectness." (51 C. J. 60.)

"The function of the court, however, is only to determine whether the...