Case ID: wash_117/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mackintosh, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 16595.
    Department Two.
    November 14, 1921.]
    The State of Washington, on the Relation of Willapa Electric Company, Respondent, v. The Public Service Commission et al., Appellants.
    
    Street Railroads (9-1) — Regulation—Extension of Car Line— Order of Public Service Commission — Arbitrariness. An order of the public service commission directing a street railway company to extend its line a distance of 900 feet is arbitrary and unreasonable, where its only purpose is to serve a lumber mill in the carriage of lumber cars, there being no other property to serve than the one mill, and that the cost of extension and operation for the mill service would cause an annual loss to the railway company.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Wright, J., entered April 18, 1921, reversing on certiorari an order of the public service commission, after a hearing before the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      The Attorney General and Raymond W. Clifford, Assistant (Fred M. Bond, of counsel), for appellants.
    
      Welsh & Welsh and Vance & Christensen, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 201 Pac. 749.
    
   Mackintosh, J.

A writ of review was taken to the superior, court from an order of the public service commission (now the department of public works) requiring the Willapa Electric Company to extend its street car line in the city of South Bend. The superior court, on the hearing of the writ, reversed the order, and the public service commission has appealed. The case presents only a question of fact as to whether the action of the public service commission was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The Willapa Electric Company owns the street car system of the city of South Bend, which is devoted almost entirely to the carriage of passengers. The rolling stock of the company-consists of three street cars, two of which are operated. On its capital invested, the company’s earnings and losses were:

1914 ................................ Profit 6.20%

1915 ................................ Profit 0.04%

1916 ................................ Loss 0.13%

1917 ................................ Loss 1.43%

1918 ................................ Profit 4.11%

1919 ................................ Profit 0.70%

1920 ................................ Loss 0.31%

This action before the public service commission was to compel the street car company to extend its line a distance of some 900 feet, to enable lumber to be hauled over the line to a connection with the Northern Pacific Railroad. This proposed extension was to serve a mill, proposed to be rebuilt on tidewater; the car line to be built on a street not yet constructed and for which the right of way had never been acquired by the city. This street was proposed to be built by the city around a big bluff, and the record shows that the city had no funds wherewith to make payment therefor. If extended, the car line would serve no other property than this one mill, which could guarantee no amount of business to the company, but held out the hope that it might furnish an average haul of thirty cars a month. The evidence shows that the cost of the extension to the street car company would be $21,-828.86. The greatest possible earning it could expect would be $2,700 a year, and this operation would result in a loss to the company each year of $995.04. In other words, a loss on the new capital invested of 4.56%. There is in the record no proof of a necessity for the extension, and no proof of any fact justifying the imposition on the utility of this unprofitable business. The only theory upon which the conclusion of the commission can be sustained is that the condition of the street railway is such that another little loss could not do it any harm.

The superior court was correct in holding, under these facts, that the order of the commission was arbitrary and unreasonable, and the judgment of. the superior court setting it aside is affirmed.

Parker, C. J., Main, Holcomb, and Hovey, JJ., concur.