S. D. Warren Co. v. Me. Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 December 1926
• Citation: 135 A. 526
• Parties: S. D. WARREN CO. v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

135 A. 526

S. D. WARREN CO.

v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 30, 1926.

Report from Superior Court, Cumberland County, at Law.

Action by the S. D. Warren Company against the Maine Central Railroad Company. On report. Judgment for plaintiff.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., PHILBROOK, DEASY, STURGIS, and BASSETT, JJ., and MORRILL, A. R. J.

Johnson, Clapp, Ives & Knight, of Boston, Mass., and Drummond & Drummond, of Portland, for plaintiff.

Charles H. Blatchford, of Portland, for defendant.

WILSON, C. J. An action to recover moneys collected of the plaintiff by the defendant, a common carrier, for the transportation of pulpwood, which the plaintiff contends were in part ordered refunded by the Public Utilities Commission under section 2 of chapter 44, P. L. 1917, and in part were unlawfully collected, being in excess of the maximum rates established by the commission as reasonable for such service.

On January 4, 1924, the defendant company under section 28, chapter 55, R. S., as amended (P. L. 1917 c. 135), filed with the Public Utilities Commission a schedule of proposed changes in its freight rates, including those for the transportation of pulpwood, to become effective February 5, 1921. On February 15th, following, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the commission, alleging that the proposed rates were unreasonable, and on the same day the commission issued its order for a public hearing on the plaintiff's complaint on the 28th day of February, of which hearing due notice was given to all parties interested.

At the hearing on February 28, the defendant, by a motion to dismiss, raised the question of the jurisdiction or authority of the commission to act on the complaint, upon the ground that the complaint was not filed in accordance with chapter 44, P. L. 1917, nor signed by ten persons as required by section 43, c. 55, R. S. The commission overruled the motion and held that the complaint was seasonably filed under section 2 of chapter 44, P. L. 1917, and the hearing was continued until May 6, 1924, when the defendant again renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the commission overruled, and proceeded to hear the parties, and on August 4, 1924, filed its findings: That the proposed rates were unreasonable, in that they were excessive, and fixing a maximum rate that might thereafter be lawfully charged for the transportation of pulpwood within the state, and also ordering the defendant company to refund within six months all sums collected by it or the plaintiff for such service in excess of the maximum rates established by the commission.

In September, 1924, on a petition of the defendant for a rehearing, a hearing was ordered, and the petition dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to file a new schedule of rates to conform to the order of the commission issued on August 4, 1924. Exceptions were taken to the rulings of the commission, but were not presented within the time prescribed by its rule, and were never perfected.

The plaintiff now contends that the order of August 4th is final and binding on the parties, and cannot be attacked collaterally in this action, while the defendant contends that the commission had no jurisdiction over the complaint; that, in ordering a hearing thereon, It acted without authority, and its final order was therefore a nullity; and, further, that the order as issued was not in the form required by the statute, and was of no effect, and the sums collected by it on the shipments in question were the sums legally established by its schedule filed on January 4, 1924.

The case is reported to this court on an agreed statement and the pleadings, which include a count for moneys had and received.

It is true that the Public Utilities Commission possesses only statutory powers. If it exceeds those powers, or, though it has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, proceeds in a manner unauthorized by the statute, or otherwise exceeds its authority, its decrees are of no validity (Spofford v. B. & B. Railroad, 66 Me. 26), and may be attacked collaterally. If, however, it keeps within the bounds marked out by the Legislature, its orders, unreversed or unmodified in the manner provided by the statutes, have the effect of judgments, and cannot be attacked in another proceeding, because of some alleged error of law, which might have been corrected on proper application to the court of last resort under the statute. Hamilton v. Water Co., 121 Me. 422, 117 A. 582; Public Serv. Co. v. Indianapolis, 193 Ind. 37, 137 N. E. 705; Ala. Water Co., v. Attalla, 211 Ala. 301, 100 So. 490.

It is urged by the counsel for the defendant that to authorize the commission to proceed under section 2 of chapter 44, P. 1. 1917, a complaint must be filed before the rates have become effective, otherwise the investigation would be, not of proposed rates, but of effective rates, which can only be done under sections 43-50 of chapter 55, R. S.; and he bases his contention on the ground that the title of the act contained in chapter 44, P. L. 1917, indicates that it relates only to "proposed rates," and that the hearing authorized under section 2 is for the purpose of investigating the propriety of "proposed change or changes."

But the terms of the act clearly indicate, we think, that with respect to complaints against changes in rates for all other public service, except for the transportation of freight, and changes in freight rates, the Legislature established two entirely distinct methods of procedure:

Under section 1, "whenever the Public Utilities Commission receives notice of any change or changes proposed to be made in any schedule of rates filed with said Commission * * * it shall have power at any time before the effective date of such change or changes, either upon complaint or upon its own motion," etc. (changes affecting the transportation of freight being expressly excepted); while section 2 provides that, "whenever the Public Utilities Commission receives notice of any change or changes proposed to be made in any schedule * * * affecting the transportation of freight, * * * said commission shall have power at any time within thirty days after the effective date of such change or changes, either upon complaint or...