Public Service Commission of Indiana v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago And St. Louis Railway Company

• Decision Date: 11 December 1918
• Docket Number: 23,423
• Citation: 121 N.E. 116,188 Ind. 197
• Parties: Public Service Commission of Indiana v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

121 N.E. 116

188 Ind. 197

Public Service Commission of Indiana v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company

No. 23,423

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 11, 1918

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1919.

From Marion Circuit Court(27,522); Louis B. Ewbank, Judge.

Petition by the Syracuse and Milford Railway Company, and intervening petition by the Sandusky Cement Company, before the Public Service Commission, to require the Cleveland, Cincinnati Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company to maintain through routes and joint rates with the petitioner.The commission made an order for joint rates, and from a judgment of the trial court annulling the order, the commission appeals.

Affirmed.

Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, Hoyt, Dustin, Kelley, McKeehan & Andrews, and Bingham & Bingham, for appellant.

Frank L. Littleton, Forest Chenoweth and Charles P. Stewart, for appellee.

OPINION

Lairy, J.

On May 3, 1916, the Syracuse and Milford Railway Company filed a petition asking for an order requiring the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company to establish and maintain, in connection with the petitioner, through routes and joint rates between Syracuse, Indiana, and all points on the line of the last-named company within the State of Indiana.Thereafter the Sandusky Cement Company, a manufacturer of cement at Syracuse, filed an intervening petition alleging, among other things, that its plant was located on the line of the petitioner, and was served by it, and also by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company; that it shipped large tonnage of its product to points on the line of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway and was desirous of making use of the facilities for shipment over the lines of the petitioner which would be afforded by the establishment of the through routes and joint rates prayed for in the petition; that the service furnished by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company is inadequate, and that the intervenor cannot ship by way of the lines of the petitioner and those of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway, in the absence of joint rates, over such lines, for the reason that it is required to pay the cost of transportation over the lines of the petitioner in addition to the rates over the lines of the last-named company from the junction point to the point of destination, which are the same as the joint rate over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, from the initial point of shipment to the same destination.

After a hearing on the petition and intervening petition, the Public Service Commission made and entered an order classifying the Syracuse and Milford Railway Company as a common carrier possessing the right to have joint rates established with the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, and to have a fair division of rates, and the two companies named were directed to establish, publish and put into effect such joint rates within thirty days from the date of the order.

Appellee filed this action in the Marion Circuit Court asking to have said order annulled and set aside.The trial in the circuit court resulted in a finding and judgment in favor of the plaintiff by which the order of the commission was adjudged to be null and void.The Public Service Commission appealed from this judgment, assigning as error that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a new trial.The reasons assigned in the motion for a new trial were that the decision of the trial court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that such decision was contrary to law.

In support of the reasons thus assigned, it is asserted by appellant that the findings of fact made by the Public Service Commission, upon which an order is based, are conclusive on the court if there is substantial evidence to sustain such findings.It seeks to invoke the same rule in favor of findings of the commission which obtains in courts of appeal and error in favor of the findings of trial courts.This contention cannot be sustained, as it is out of harmony with the entire spirit of the act under which such proceedings are conducted.By § 6 of the Railroad Commission Act(Acts 1913p. 820, § 5536 Burns 1914), it is provided that any carrier or other party, dissatisfied with any final order made by the commission, may, after its ruling on petition for rehearing and within twenty days from the date of such ruling, begin an action against the commission in any court of competent jurisdiction in any county of this state into or through which any carrier operates to suspend or set aside any such order.It is evident that the court in which such an action is brought does not sit as a court of review to correct errors of the commission; but, on the contrary, it is clear that the court in such action shall hear the casede novo and determine it from the evidence adduced at the trial.The same section of the act provides that, in all actions in the courts of this state authorized by this act, the rules of evidence shall be the same as in the trial of civil cases as now provided by law, excepting as otherwise provided in this act.Under similar statutes, it has been decided that the court in an action brought to set aside an order of the commission was not bound by the findings of the commission, but that it was the duty of the court to determine the case from a consideration of the evidence adduced.Interstate Com. Comm. v. Louisville etc., R. Co.(1912), ...