Pub. Utilities Comm'n v. Saco River Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1937 |
| Citation | 189 A. 186 |
| Parties | PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION v. SACO RIVER TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CO. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Kennebec County at Law.
Proceeding by the Standish Telephone Company against the Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Company before the Public Utilities Commission, wherein the commission entered a complaint on its own motion, and the Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Company filed a cross-complaint. On exceptions by the Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Company. Case dismissed.
Argued before DUNN, C. J, and THAXTER, STURGIS, BARNES, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.
Benjamin F. Cleaves, of Portland, for plaintiff.
Hiram Willard, of Sanford, for defendant.
The respondent, Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Company, purports to bring this case before this court on exceptions to certain findings and alleged rulings of the Public Utilities Commission.
The proceeding originated on a complaint filed by the Standish Telephone Company against the respondent, seeking to determine the ownership of certain poles and equipment used in furnishing telephone service in the towns of Buxton and Hollis, and to establish the respective rights of the two companies to supply telephone service to such towns. The commission, not being satisfied that the matter was properly before it, entered a complaint on its own motion. The respondent filed an answer, in which was included by agreement what was in substance a cross-complaint.
Hearings were had before the commission which made certain findings. These are to the effect that the Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Company had unlawfully extended its service to a certain portion of the area in question; that with respect to that part of the territory in which both companies have for some time operated, matters should for the present be left in statu quo, until the ownership of certain of the facilities should be settled. The final paragraph of the findings reads as follows:
"In view of the foregoing conclusions we shall make no definite order herein at this time but the case will remain open on the Commission's docket for such further hearing and order as may be required."
The respondent excepted to the exclusion of certain evidence and to the admission of other evidence, also to the findings of the commission. These exceptions were allowed.
The case is not properly before us. The commission has made no order. It has suggested in its findings what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
...rates is not sufficient to transform the Consolidated Decree into a final judgment. Public Utilities Commission v. Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Co., 135 Me. 68, 69, 189 A. 186, 187 (1937). Similarly, neither the January 21 initial decree, nor the January 22 Supplemental Order No. 1, nor......
-
Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. McShane
...of Zoning Appeals of Whitley County, supra, 149 Ind.App. at 692, 274 N.E.2d at 545. See also Public Utilities Commission v. Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Co., 135 Me. 68, 189 A. 186 (1937); Thomas v. Ramberg, 240 Minn. 1, 60 N.W.2d 18 In the situation before us, the ABC has express autho......
-
Downing v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Whitley County
...impossible for a complainant to show such irreparable injury as would warrant judicial review. Public Utilities Commission v. Saco River Telegraph & Telephone Co. (1937) 135 Me. 68, 189 A. 186; Thomas v. Ramberg (1953) 240 Minn. 1, 60 N.E.2d No harm can come to Downing until the Board's dec......