State v. Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 31 December 1923
• Docket Number: No. 24808.,24808.
• Citation: 303 Mo. 212,259 S.W. 445
• Parties: STATE ex rel. and to Use of MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

259 S.W. 445

303 Mo. 212

STATE ex rel. and to Use of MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. et al.

v.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 24808.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 31, 1923.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled March 7, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cole County; Henry J. Westhues, Judge.

Certiorari by the State of Missouri, at the relation and to the use of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and the Missouri Southern Railroad Company, to review a judgment of the circuit court affirming an award of the Public Service Commission of Missouri in favor of the Mid-Continent Equipment & Machinery Company. Judgment of circuit court reversed, and cause remanded to circuit court, with directions to reverse order of Commission.

M. U. Hayden and Jas. F. Green, both of St. Louis (Jules Fremon, of Leeper, of counsel), for appellants.

L. H. Breuer, of Rolla, and Frank B. Atwood, of Carrollton, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

This case has its origin in a statutory certiorari from the circuit court of Cole county to the Public Service Commission. This statutory certiorari was upon the application of relators, and after trial and an adverse judgment in the circuit court they appear here as appellants.

The record certified by the Public Service Commission was its records and findings in a complaint by the Mid-Continent Equipment & Machinery Company against relators (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and Missouri Southern Railroad Company) in which complaint the complainant charged that relators had transported for it used rails (railroad iron rails) from Buckner, Mo., to St. Louis, Mo., upon which shipments the complainant was charged freight at the rate of $7.70 per ton, when complainant charged that $4,50 was a reasonable rate for a gross ton of 2,240 pounds.

In the complaint it is said that there was "an excessive and unreasonable charge to the extent of four hundred fifty-four and 12/100 dollars ($454.12) for which complainant asks reparation." The complaint before the Public Service Commission then thus proceeds:

"Complainant calls attention to the publication in Supplement 2 to Southwestern Lines Tariff 68-I on May 3d and effective May 15, 1922.

"Complainant asks that a hearing be had of the above-mentioned complaint, and that such order or orders be made commanding the defendants above mentioned to refund to complainant the sum of $454.12 by way of reparation for the unreasonable charges hereinbefore described."

Both railroads filed similar answers, and we quote that of the Missouri Pacific Railroad only. Its answer is as follows:

"Now comes the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, one of the defendants in the aboveentitled cause, and for its separate answer to the complaint filed herein says that it appears from the statements contained in said complaint that the charges complained of were collected under tariffs of the railroad company which were duly fixed with this Commission, and which had not been suspended or set aside.

"It is further alleged in the complaint that defendant railroad company collected from the consignee the freight charges in said tariffs, and that therefore the matter of such collection is one which this honorable Commission has no jurisdiction to annul or set aside.

"This defendant, therefore, states that this Commission has no jurisdiction, under the Public Service Commission Law of the State of Missouri, to make any order or enter any judgment as to the matters set up and pleaded in the complaint filed herein, and defendant prays that such complaint be dismissed."

After hearing the Public Service Commission entered an order, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:

"Order 2. That the defendants the Missouri Southern Railroad Company and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, as they participate in the traffic, be and they are hereby directed to pay to the Mid-Continent Equipment & Machinery Company the sum of $201.52, as damages by reason of the charging and collecting of the unlawful rate described in the report attached hereto.

"Order 3. That said award of damages shall be paid to said Mid-Continent Equipment & Machinery Company on or before December 1, 1922.

"Order 4. That this order shall be in full force and effect on and after the 15th day of November, 1922, and the secretary of the Commission shall forthwith serve, by mail, upon each party in interest, a certified copy of the report and order herein and the said defendants, the Missouri Southern Railroad Company and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, shall, in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of the Public Service Commission Law, notify this Commission on or before November 13, 1922, whether the terms of this order are accepted and will be obeyed."

By subsequent order the foregoing order or judgment was amended so as to make the sum awarded $328.53, instead of $201.52.

After unsuccessful motions for rehearing in the Public Service Commission, the cause was removed by statutory certiorari to the circuit court of Cole county, as above indicated. That court upheld and affirmed the record and findings of the Public Service Commission, and the present appeal followed.

The motions for rehearing in the Public Service Commission are full of details, in every way challenging the right of that body to enter the order which we have set out, supra. These motions need not be set out in full, but such portions thereof as may become pertinent will be noted in the course of the opinion. This outlines the case.

I. This case presents several angles. In substance the sole matter before the Public Service Commission, under the wording of the complaint filed, was the determination of two legal questions: (1) Was claimant entitled to reparation or damages, and (2) the amount of same. The railroads challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission to thus enter the field of the courts. This is one angle to the controversy. The answers were broad enough to cover this question. An other angle to the controversy is that the Public Service Commission Act did not grant to this body of limited powers and duties, the right to determine reparations. In the opinion of the Commission now before us, no express words...