State ex rel. Spokane United Rys. v. Department of Public Service of Washington, 26805.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1937 |
| Docket Number | 26805. |
| Citation | 71 P.2d 661,191 Wash. 595 |
| Parties | STATE et rel. SPOKANE UNITED RYS. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE OF WASHINGTON et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Washington, on the relation of the Spokane United Railways, against the Department of Public Service of the State of Washington, and others.
Writ granted.
Post Russell, Davis & Paine, of Spokane, for relator.
G. W Hamilton and George G. Hannan, both of Olympia, for respondents.
George M. Ferris, of Spokane, amicus curiae.
This is an original application in this court for a writ of mandamus directed to the Department of Public Service and the members thereof.
The relator, the Spokane United Railways, is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, and for many years pursuant to a franchise granted by the city of Spokane, it had owned and operated, by electric power, a street railway system for the carriage of persons and property. July 7, 1937, the original franchise ordinance was amended, which granted to the United Railways the right to operate and maintain a street railway system, and 'also to own, maintain and operate trolley busses and a trolley bus system, and motor busses, and motor bus system, or any or all, operated by electricity, gasoline or other motor fuel, in the City of Spokane.' Pursuant to the extension given in this ordinance of the right to operate motorbusses propelled by gasoline or other motor fuel and a previous ordinance, the United Railways had substituted motorbusses for the carriage of persons and property in the place of the street cars. The United Railways thereupon filed with the Department of Public Service a schedule of rates for carrying passengers on the system, and the city of Spokane filed a protest against this schedule. The department, acting on the opinion of the Attorney General, dismissed the application on the ground that the department did not have jurisdiction over the operation of the motorbusses. The present proceeding was then instituted to require the department to assume jurisdiction of the matter of the adjustment of the fares and to determine the reasonableness and adequacy of the rates applied for.
It thus appears that the question presented is one of jurisdiction of the Department of Public Service, and the answer to this question must be found in chapter 117, p. 538, of the Laws of 1911 (chapter 1, title 72, Rem.Rev.Stat. [section 10339 et seq.]). That chapter contains an act of the Legislature relating to public service properties and utilities within the state and providing for the regulation of the same. It is a comprehensive act, and in section 8 thereof (Rem.Rev.Stat. § 10344), there are a large number of persons and things defined. It defines a 'street railroad' and a 'street railroad company,' and 'express company,' a 'common carrier,' the term 'transportation of property,' the term 'transporta-of persons,' the term 'service,' and the term 'public service company.' The term 'common carrier' therein is defined as follows: 'The term 'common carrier', when used in this act, includes all railroads, railroad companies, street railroads, street railroad companies, steamboat companies, express companies, car companies, sleeping car companies, freight companies, freight line companies, and every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, partnership and person, their lessees, trustees or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever, and every city or town, owning, operating, managing or controlling any such agency for public use in the conveyance of persons or property for hire within this state.'
It will be observed that there is no mention within this definition of motorbusses for the carriage of persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...940, 947 (1956); State ex rel. Becker v. Wiley, 16 Wash.2d 340, 350-51, 133 P.2d 507 (1943); State ex rel. Spokane United Rys. v. Department of Pub. Serv., 191 Wash. 595, 598, 71 P.2d 661 (1937). The legislature's employment of the term "any individual" evinces an intention to render the st......
-
HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County
...P.2d 467 (1942)). 87. Burley Lagoon Improvement Ass'n, 38 Wash. App. at 537, 686 P.2d 503 (citing State ex rel. Spokane United Rys. v. Dep't of Pub. Serv., 191 Wash. 595, 71 P.2d 661 (1937)). 88. Burley Lagoon Improvement Ass'n, 38 Wash. App. at 538, 686 P.2d 89. Former PCC 18.50.145A.2. 90......
-
Inland Empire Rural Electrification, Inc. v. Department of Public Service of Washington
... ... the Department of Public Service of the State of ... Washington and others for a ... Heil & Davis, of Spokane, for respondent ... STEINERT, ... Administration, a United States' agency which was created ... under ... P.2d 341, 114 A.L.R 1345; State ex rel. Yakima Amusement ... Co. v. Yakima County, ... ...
-
West Valley Land Co., Inc. v. Nob Hill Water Ass'n
...Works, 118 Wash. 416, 203 P. 978 (1922); Clark v. Olson, 177 Wash. 237, 31 P.2d 534 (1934); State ex rel. Spokane United Rys. v. Department of Pub. Serv., 191 Wash. 595, 71 P.2d 661 (1937); Port of Seattle v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n, 92 Wash.2d 789, 800, 597 P.2d 383 (1979); Puget Sound ......