Case ID: utah_58/html/0165-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FRICK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES FUEL CO. v. UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. et al.
    Nos. 3580, 3582, 3585, 3587, 3588, 3589, 3590, 3591, 3592, 3593, 3594, 3595, 3596, 3597, 3598, 3599, 3600.
    Decided May 4, 1921.
    (197 Pac. 912.)
    Application for writ of review by the United States Fuel Company against the Utah Power & Light Company and the Public Utilities Commission of Utah, with which were also heard separate applications by the Utah Copper Company, by the Standard Coal Company, by the Union Portland Cement Company, by the Ogden Portland Cement Company, by the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, by the Utah-Idaho Central Railroad, by the Bamberger Electric Railroad, by the Utah Steel Corporation, by the Silver King Coalition Mines Company, by the Judge Mining & Smelting Company, by the Utah Metal & Tunnel Company, by the Salt Lake & Utah Railroad Company, by the Salt Lake Terminal Company, by the Utah Hotel Company, by the Deseret News, and by Salt Lake City and others against the same defendants.
    Orders of the Utilities Commission sought to be reviewed AFFIRMED.
    
      
      Howat, Marshall, Macmillan & Grow, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs U. S. Smelting Refining & Milling Co. and U. S. Fuel Co.
    
      Dickson, Ellis, Lucas & Adamson, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Utab Copper Co.
    
      A. R. Barnes, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Standard Coal Co.
    
      H. H. Henderson, of Ogden, for plaintiff Union Portland Cement Co.
    
      Chas. Hollingsworth, of Ogden, for plaintiff- Ogden Portland Cement Co.
    
      Geo. H. Smith, 3no. V. Lyle, and 3. T. Hammond, 3r., all of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Oregon Short Line R. Co.
    
      De Vine, Hoivell Stine, Gwilliam, of Ogden, for plaintiffs Utah-Idaho Cent. R. Co. and Bamberger Electric R. R.
    
      B. L. Liberman, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Utah Steel Corporatiofi.
    
      Rawlins, Ray é Rawlins, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Silver King Co., and Judge Mining & Smelting Co.
    
      Dey, Hoppaugh & Mark, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Utah Metal & Tunnel Co.
    
      Van Cott, Riter & Farnsworth, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Salt Lake & U. R. Co., Salt Lake Terminal Co., Utah Hotel Co., and Deseret News.
    
      W. H. Folland, City Atty., of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Salt Lake City and others.
    
      
      John F. Mácheme and C. C. Parsons, both of Salt Lake City, for defendant Utah Power & Light Co.
    
      H. Van Dam, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for Public Utilities Commission.
   FRICK, J.

The foregoing 17 cases were all heard and submitted with the case of United States Smelting, Refining & M. Co. v. Utah Power & Light Co. and Public Utilities Commission of Utah, which has just been decided, and which is reported in 58 Utah 168, 197 Pac. 902.

The foregoing cases were all brought to this court for the purpose of having the orders of the Utilities Commission, which are set forth in the opinion in the case just referred to,- reviewed and annulled. The questions involved in these eases are the same as those that were involved in the Smelting Company Case just referred to. "While there are a few minor questions argued in some of these cases that were not presented in the Smelting Company Case, yet those questions are not of importance and of no controlling effect, and hence in no way affect the questions decided in that case. In view of that, it is unnecessary to now restate or review the propositions decided in the Smelting Company Case.

While in some of these cases the contracts in question were made before, and in some after, the Utilities Act was passed, yet, as pointed out in the Smelting Company Case, that is of no consequence.

Upon the authority, therefore, of the decision in the Smelting Company Case, all of the orders of the commission made, and which control in the foregoing eases, are affirmed, at the cost of plaintiff in each ease.

CORFMAN, C. J., and WEBER, GIDEON, and THURMAN, JJ., concur.