The State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission of Missouri

• Decision Date: 11 July 1927
• Docket Number: 27187
• Citation: 296 S.W. 790,317 Mo. 815
• Parties: The State ex rel. City of St. Louis, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, and T. J. Brown et al., Members Constituting Public Service Commission of Missouri
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

296 S.W. 790

317 Mo. 815

The State ex rel. City of St. Louis, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, and T. J. Brown et al., Members Constituting Public Service Commission of Missouri

No. 27187

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 11, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Franklin Miller, Judge.

Dismissed.

Julius T. Muench and Forrest G. Ferris, Jr., for appellant.

Respondent complains that appellant's brief filed in this case on the merits violates Rule 15 of this court "in that it does not contain a fair and concise statement of the facts of the case." In addition to the statement proper, we set forth the specific grounds of error relied upon, and then follow the points and authorities. The brief concludes with the argument, wherein the facts are fully discussed and the law applied. We do not understand, especially in a case like this, that it is necessary or even good practice to set out in the statement proper, and comment upon, the evidence of the various witnesses, any more than it would be necessary or proper to repeat the assignment of errors. If this were done in this case, the statement proper would practically constitute the entire brief, and, in a large measure dispense with the abstract. The statement proper sets forth among other things, the parties involved, enumerates the hearings, gives a brief history of the proceeding, points out the prayer of the company, states that the Commission valued the Company's property at $ 24,700,000; that it granted increased rates in St. Louis, for business service only, of approximately $ 900,000 per annum; that in so doing, it necessarily had to determine the St. Louis value, revenues and expenses separately and apart from the other portions of the system. The statement concludes: "The city, in its assignment of errors herein, challenges in several respects the value so found and the increased rates allowed, in the Commission's order of June 6, 1925." In other words appellant here, in the statement proper, has attempted to state, briefly and without repetition, that this is a valuation and rate case. The particular instances wherein the Commission erred as to value, revenue and expenses, and the granting of increased rates, are specifically set forth in the assignment of errors next following. Appellant then sets out separately the points of law and the authorities relied upon, and this is followed by the argument, wherein the evidence is discussed and referred to under the points made, and the law applicable thereto is cited. Appellant has served upon respondent and filed in this court a so-called "Statement, Brief and Argument of Appellant." Said brief is not in compliance with Rule 15 of this court, in that it does not contain a fair and concise statement of the facts of the case. The so-called statement contains neither a fair nor concise statement, or any statement whatever, of the facts in the case, either with or without reiteration. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. Longan v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 253 S.W. 758; Royal v. Ry. Co., 190 S.W. 573; State v. Hunt, 270 S.W. 368; State v. Parrish, 270 S.W. 689.

Graves, J. Gantt, Ragland and White, JJ., concur; Blair, J., concurs in result; Walker, J., concurs on the ground of a failure of the appellant to comply with Rule 15; Atwood, J., not sitting.

OPINION

GRAVES

The brief for appellant in this case is filled with a mass of irrelevant matter. Matters are briefed that have no place other than in a general treatise upon public service commission law. Counsel seem to have overlooked the real character of the order made by our Public Service Commission, which order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. It is a test order, and nothing more. There has been no final order fixing rates for the telephone exchange of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in the city of St. Louis. The order made by the Public Service Commission reads:

"Order.

"This cause being at issue upon application and answer filed herein, and having been duly heard and submitted by the parties, and such investigation of matters and things involved having been had, and the Commission on the date hereof having filed its report containing its findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which said report is made a part hereof:

"Now, upon the evidence in this case, and after due deliberation, it is

"Ordered: 1. That the Commission finds that the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's proposed schedule of rates in its St. Louis exchange are just and reasonable and should be permitted to become effective, beginning July 1, 1925, for a trial period of thirteen months.

"Ordered: 2. That any and all increases of telephone rates provided for in said schedule referred to and authorized herein shall, at the end of said thirteen months' period, cease and expire, without further notice or order; and the rates and charges of said Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for furnishing telephone service in said St. Louis exchange shall then be reduced and restored by said company to the rates now on file and charged by it for such service: Provided, however, that the Commission may hereafter by further order continue in effect such increases in rates and charges for another and further period, or otherwise charge or modify such rates and charges.

" Ordered: 3. That said Southwestern Bell Telephone Company be required to keep full and accurate account of the revenues and expenses of operating its exchange at St. Louis, and file a full and complete report thereof with this Commission, on or before July 31, 1926, for the year ended June 30, 1926; that said report shall be in addition to any other reports now required by law; and that the Commission fully retains jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter of this case to continue, charge or modify the rates for telephone service charged by said company in its St. Louis exchange, upon the expiration of said thirteen months' period, or at any other time upon the evidence as said Southwestern Bell Telephone Company or any interested parties may offer.

"Order: 4. That this order takes effect on the 18th day of June, 1925, and that the secretary of the Commission forthwith serve copy of this report and order on the parties interested herein, and that said parties be required to notify the Commission, on or before the effective date of this order, in the manner required by Section 25 of the Public Service Commission Law, whether the terms of this order are accepted and will be obeyed.

"By the Commission.

"(Seal)

J. P. Painter, Secretary."

It will be noted that this is a mere test order, and nothing more. It is a preliminary order to ascertain exact facts upon which a final rate order can be made that will do exact justice between the public utility and the public. The reasonableness of test-rate orders cannot be scrutinized as closely as are final orders.

There are a number of questions raised and for determination before we get to the merits of the case, if we get there at all. But even for this purpose a general outline of the case must be made, and we are sorry to say that it must be made by the court rather than the appellant upon whom the duty is imposed by rule of this court. The preliminary questions are two in number. First, the respondents, in motions to dismiss, challenge the sufficiency of appellant's statement of the case. They say there is no statement within the meaning of our rules. Secondly, each of the respondents has in said motions to dismiss the appeal, assigned several other reasons therein stated. These reasons can be noted in the disposition of the motions, so far as may be necessary under the views we have for the disposition of the case.

In this case appellant has a printed record of 695 pages, exclusive of seven pages of index. Going to the index we find the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (the applicant for increased rates on business telephones only in the St. Louis exchange) introduced fourteen witnesses and a mass of exhibits in evidence. The Public Service Commission introduced one witness. The city of St. Louis (Intervener) recalled one of the company's witnesses, and introduced one of its own -- an engineer. Besides the order, which we have set out, supra, the Public Service Commission made a report on all this evidence and its conclusions therefrom. On this report the order we have quoted is based. The report shows that the Commission had previously considered the properties of both the Kinloch and Bell Companies. It shows from evidence before it, that in cases of merger of two telephone systems there had to be an increase in rates, for a time at least. With all this record evidence, and the Commission's findings of the fact as to values and other matters, we find that appellant makes a statement within less than two printed pages. Here is the statement:

"Statement.

"This is an appeal by the city of St. Louis from the judgment order and decree of Honorable Franklin Miller, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, affirming, upon certiorari, the findings and order of the Public Service Commission of Missouri of June 6, 1925, wherein the fair present value of the property of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company was established as $ 24,700,000, and an increase in business rates only, approximating $ 900,000 annually, was granted for a period of thirteen months from July 1, 1925.

"The Commission, in 1922, authorized the consolidation of the Bell and Kinloch properties in the St. Louis exchange area, but denied the application of the company for certain increased rates at that time, pending actual unification of the properties. This order was accepted both by the company and the city of St....