State ex rel. Pacific Inland Tariff Bureau v. Clifford
| Decision Date | 23 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 33292,33292 |
| Citation | 46 Wn.2d 807,285 P.2d 569 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, on the Relation of PACIFIC INLAND TARIFF BUREAU, a corporation; Arrow Transportation Company of Delaware, a corporation; System Tank Lines, Inc., a corporation; Howard R. Williams, Inc., a corporation; James J. Williams, Inc., a corporation; Lee & Eastes, Inc., a corporation; Inland Petroleum Transportation Co., Inc., a corporation; Fleetway Transport, Inc., a corporation; Asbury Transportation Company, a corporation; Harms Pacific Transport, Inc., a corporation; Herb Meyer, Inc., a corporation; Big Bend Transport Co., a corporation; General Transport, Co., a corporation; Valley Transport, Inc., a corporation; Tidewater-Shaver Barge Lines, a corporation; Columbia Barge Lines, a corporation; and Inland Navigation Company, a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Honorable Raymond W. CLIFFORD, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Thurston County, Respondent. |
Henry T. Ivers, Seattle, for plaintiffs.
R. Paul Tjossem, Seattle, Fletcher Rockwood, Roy F. Shields, Portland, Or., Roger J. Crosby, Charles F. Hanson, Seattle, Don Eastvold, Robert L. Simpson, Olympia, for respondent.
The proceeding now before us is an outgrowth of the longstanding competition between certain railroads, motor carriers, and barge lines, in the transportation of petroleum products in bulk. This competition once before led to litigation which reached this court. See State ex rel. Bohon v. Department of Public Service, 6 Wash.2d, 676, 108 P.2d 663.
The present controversy had its inception in December, 1952, when the railroads filed with the public service commission of the state of Washington tariff supplements naming reduced rates for bulk petroleum. After a hearing, the commission entered an order approving in part and condemning in part the proposed rate reductions. The competing groups of carriers each appealed to the superior court. Following a hearing, the court, on February 21, 1955, reversed the order and remanded the matter to the commission for further proceedings.
Without awaiting the outcome of such further proceedings, the railroads immediately began charging the reduced rates which were in issue. The competing motor carriers and barge lines, together with the commission, then petitioned the superior court to restore and maintain the status quo as to rates, pending the outcome of the further proceedings before the commission. On March 14, 1955, the court entered an order denying the petition. This was done on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The denial of this petition is now before us for review on a writ of certiorari.
The first question presented is whether the form of the decree of February 21, 1955, as entered, entitled the railroads to place the reduced rates in effect without awaiting the outcome of further commission proceedings. Consideration of this question calls for a step by step analysis of the proceedings before the commission and the court.
The tariff supplements naming the reduced railroad rates in question were filed with the commission on December 5 and 31, 1952. By their own terms, these supplements were to become effective January 10 and February 1, 1953, respectively. Before these effective dates, however, the commission suspended the supplements for the maximum period of seven months authorized by statute. See RCW 81.04.130 [cf. Rem.Supp.1941, § 10424]. The effective dates of the supplements were thus postponed until August 10 and September 1, 1953, respectively.
During this suspension period, the commission entered into a co-operative hearing with the interstate commerce commission, which was faced with a parallel interstate rate problem. The hearing commenced on March 30, 1953, and continued for eight days. On August 4, 1953, the state commission wrote to the railroads, asking them to voluntarily postpone the effective date of the tariff supplements. In this letter, the railroads were advised that the commission would not be able to reach a decision prior to the then specified effective dates of the supplements. Complying with this request, and in order to prevent the reduced rates from taking effect prior to the issuance of such decision, the railroads voluntarily postponed these effective dates until December 22, 1953.
On November 25, 1953, the interstate commerce commission issued its report and order finding the proposed reductions in interstate railroad rates just and reasonable and permitting them to become effective. Petroleum in North Pacific Coast Territories, 291 I.C.C. 101, affirmed on rehearing, 292 I.C.C. 317.
On December 18, 1953, the state commission entered its order. It found that the railroads had not sustained their statutory burden, RCW 81.04.130, supra, of proving that the proposed rates are just and reasonable for statewide application. To the extent that such reduced rates were necessary to maintain parity between Portland and Puget Sound points on shipments to specified points in eastern Washington, however, they were found to be within the zone of reasonableness. Pursuant to these findings, the commission, in this order, permitted the reduced rates to become effective between the designated parity points, and prohibited the rate reduction as to all other intrastate railroad transportation of bulk petroleum.
Had the proceedings ended at this point, the railroads could have put into effect, as of December 23, 1953, reduced petroleum rates to the limited extent approved by the commission in its order of December 18, 1953. However, on the day when this order was entered, the motor carriers and barge lines applied to the superior court for a writ of review. At the same time, they asked the court for an order superseding the parts of the commission order which were adverse to their interests, and restraining the commission and railroads from putting reduced rates into effect 'until the court can determine this cause.'
The writ of review was issued on December 18, 1953. The request for a supersedeas and restraining order came on for hearing on December 21 and 22, 1953, under the three-day notice procedure specified in RCW 81.04.180 ]. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court orally entered such an order. A formal order confirming this oral order was entered on January 11, 1954.
The result was that the right of the railroads to place the reduced rates in effect was again postponed until 'the final hearing and determination of this cause unless sooner altered, amended, or terminated by further order of this court.' In the meantime, on January 4, 1954, the railroads applied for and received a writ of review covering that part of the commission order which was adverse to their interests. A supersedeas covering this part of the commission order was entered on January 7, 1954, 'until further order or judgment of the court in this proceeding.'
The two review proceedings were consolidated for trial, and soon came on for hearing. Thereafter, on February 21 1955, the court entered an order containing the following decretal provisions:
'It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed:
'1. That the findings made by the Commission in its Cause No. T-8917 do not support the order of the Commission in said cause, wherein the Commission in said order approved the proposed reduced rates involved in said proceeding to points in Eastern Washington, but denied the proposed reduced rates between points in Western Washington.
'2. That the findings of the Commission in said order are hereby neither approved nor disapproved and it is not the intent of this decree to limit the action of the Commission in reconsidering said order, but that the Commission shall be free upon rehearing or reconsideration of its order in Cause No. T-8917 to enter new and/or additional findings based upon the record made or to be supplemented as the Commission may provide.
'3. It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Commission's order in Cause T-8917 under review be reversed and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
'It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the supersedeas and restraining orders and bonds entered in Causes No. 27757 and 27772 be and the same are hereby dissolved and exonerated.'
Both the plaintiffs (motor carriers and barge lines) and the railroads agree that the effect of this decree was to nullify, vacate, and set aside the commission order of December 18, 1953. Both agree that the result is that the railroads and the commission were thus immediately restored to the same status which they occupied prior to the entry of the commission order.
As we have seen, immediately prior to the entry of the commission order, the situation was that the reduced rates would go into effect on December 23, 1953. It would therefore seem that, in view of the fact that when the decree was entered the old deadline of December 23, 1953, had passed, the railroads, immediately upon the entry of such decree, were free to apply the reduced rates.
Indeed, it would appear that the railroads were then compelled to charge the reduced rates named in the supplements duly on file. Wolverton Auto Bus Co. v. Robinson, 151 Wash. 67, 274 P. 1056; Robinson v. Wolverton Auto Bus Co., 163 Wash. 160, 300 P. 533. It was then too late for the railroads to voluntarily suspend the tariffs for a further period, because they were already in effect. The railroads could have filed new supplements withdrawing the reduced rates, but this would have rendered the further commission proceedings moot. In order to obtain a ruling on the reduced rates, the railroads would have then been required to file new supplements proposing such reductions. The new filings would have been subject to a seven-month suspension, and the whole controversy...
To continue reading
Request your trial