The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-12-02
TH COMMISSION
Was SUSTAINED.
Supreme Court Decides 1inpor-'
tant Case Against N. and
P.yBclt Line.
lis AN IMPORTANT MATTER
Railroad Cannot Fix Charges
for Putting Car on
Scales.

fIle supreme SOuILs VI <AppetAiSs W
gillia yesterday handed down oil opinion
again sustaining the State Corporation
Commission Iii the case of tho n orfolk
and Portsinout TIL Belt Line Railroad Com
pany vs.. Il tho State Corporation Cofnrnls-
sion. The nlillpad company appealed
from an order OF tho commission fixing
tho cl,arge tor4placing cars in position TO
he weighed on consigne es' or shippers
Individual track scales located OF sidlngs
leading TO industries along the railroad
line.
THE railroad company had been tlnpos-
ine. a charge OF fifteen cents per car for
each cal. placed OH the scales until about
u year go, when the rate was increased
rntlroad complained to the State Cor
poartion Commission that the rate Wns
eSorbitnnt, and the commission. after
hearing tile case, en- tered all order fixlllS
twenty-tivc cents per car as the rate foi
e}servce rendered. M
q From this order tho railway company
appealed, and assigned these s roun g OF
error: IL ,,sss n VIZ a'
FIRST, that placing care .'cl, private
track scales III position L: 10 weighed is A
a matter OF private contra ct, Involving
4 ,,on-puplic service. which the state Cor 4
poration Commission cannot require a.
railroad company. to perform LOT custom
ers having switching connections with the
roads, and If therefore cannot in tho
charges therefor. 8s!ss
Second. that even II the commission la ;
jurisdiction over the subject. the. rate of
compensation fixed by It Is unr e ls pic DC
and unjust.
Neither Point Sustained.
Judge Stafford G. Tl,ittle, In a. care
Gfully prepared opinion. reviews tho ca se,s
ana does not sustain either exception, At
flrrnlng the order Of the commission. The II
court holds that the police power q me
State Is p governmental functlon, ing
exercise Of which neither the Legislature
MOI, anya subordinate agency thereof can
altcnate or surrender by grant, cont tract
or other delegation. The duties OF pub
lie service corporations and tho power Of
States over them are clearly established
from numerous court decisions ana that
the State Corporation Commission 10 the
cons tltu tionally established instrumental
ity through, which the State exercises us
governmental powers for<the regulation
and control Of public service corporations.
The section or tho. Constitution clothing
the commission with power Is quoted, and
the court holds that this affords ample
authority for the action OF the commission
IN tllis case. The court is OF opinion tlla.
SO int 1nately: connected with the public
service involved in tho carriaE and de-
livery. Of freight by the railroad com
panys to patrons along It's route as to con-
stitute a part OF such service, and consc-
auently Is subject to- governmental con
troll The court further holds that tho
second assignment OF error is likewise
without merit. and that evidence fully
slstnins the Judgment OF the commission
In that regat IA. 81
Berry vs.. Nc Ghee.
In, the case Of John y. I.anghorne VS.
". II. 5McGhee ct ul.s Judge John a. Buell.
| unan writes the opinion OF the court.&al-$t
| h,mjnr the Judgment OF the Circuit Court
Of Bedford county. This case Is one.
growing oft Of the partnership case OF.
iT..D. Berry and ". II. A1cl;hee, who
were Indebted to tie plaintiff on, Two nego-
| Table notes aggregatiilg s3,054lG, sincud-
Ing costs Of protest: They conveyed the
assets OF the concern to a trustee to Sc.
cure payment of the Indebtedness.
| FurthermOre, an agreement was entered
in%by and between McGhee and Berry, IN
witch it was rectted that The property
| conveyed was tho joint property OF de-
| PENDANTS, but that the relative rights
OF each 10 the partnership funds had not
been settled: that McGhee had executed
and delivered to plaintiff two negotiable
notes. payable \ four months after date,
and that the larger note had been given
as collateral and security for McGhees
| half Of the debt secured by deed Of trust,
ana that plaintiff had agreed TO the re-
newal OF these. notes for q maximum n,Ir
| period II Of $tWelve mon tbs. J t was further
| agreed that McGhees share of the assets
Of ,the firm or Berry s: N1cGhee+ sllohld be
| credited on The large note. The details OF
| tho settlement between McGllee and Berry
are traced, with the final result that NJ
! Chez was given 5000 as his share OF the
assets OF tile firm. Meanwhile Z nc had
paid $3.50 on. the note OF 81. $50, due plain
| tin. This showed that Meg hce was en- y
titled 10 the whole Of the proceeds Of ".
settlement Of Ills partnership with Berry.
| nnd as all This sum had gone 10 plaintiff
on the Joint note Of Berry and McGhee,
tho latter had paid more than his share
| OF the note. The trial court so found
ana the appellate, court safrms the judgT
| menr ofEtle Circuit Court, whlcl, Is in
favor Of the defendants 3ls s.t
SIXTH ANNIVERSARY.'
| tTtft. a5tlig