The San Francisco call., 1909-01-12
Injunction Dissolved

Judge Peckham's mer1ora nd,lrn ex-
pressing the sentiment Of a unanimous
court. dissolved the injunction without
prejudice 1t contained u subdivisions.
disposing Of all issues that had arisen.
The first division cuts the franchise
value from S20.OO0,000. as claimed by
he company, and 1900. 600 allowed
by the New York court. 10 S7,7SI, 600.
:ahe sum named when the company was
p. organized In the second division this
: valuation is upheld IN the following
words
.-The estimated increase in the value
, .of these franchises as made by the
trial court at the time Of the COM
mencement Of this suit is only an esti-
mate and is not based upon evidence
sufficient to warrant the finding OF any
increase whatever over the amount
sgreed upon at the consolidation"
The third section casts doubt upon
the valuation in consequence of the
deduction for franchise. The fourth
division says in part:
-. a possible Increase in the consump-
. t5on Of gas would probably increase the
earnings OF the company without a
corresponding increase Of cost Under
al the circumstances the complainant
-llas failed to make out its case with
.ahat degree OF clearness necessary to
warrant the Interference Of court of
~ ity before an actual and bona fide
l.. test has been made under the practical
:. operation of supplying gas at the rates
'lneptioned in the statutes"
Sanction City's Act
p. frhe fifth section, applying specincal-
ly o the New York case, which is gov
car ed by special rule, says: THE COM
l-pns nant is entitled TO a return. IL Il is
%. s. bic, OF 6 per cent upon the fair
valuation OF its property actually used
in its business Of supplying gas"
In section sanction is given for
& lie charge TO the city Of 8 cents less
900 feet than TO the individual con-
sumers-
1T is provided in section that sfhe
rate proposed must be with reference
10 the value OF the property at the time
when the rate takes effect"
Sections g, and 10 deal with the
subject Of candlepower OF lights and
" IS pressure, which do not figure in
e local litigation. Subdivision IL fol-
This is not a case for the valuation
: Of good will The complainant has in
fact a substantial monopoly Of the gas
business in the city OF New York. and
those who wish to use gas must take
1t from complainant. In this case. as
there is no possibility of competition.
there should be no allowance for good
will"
In the final section the gas company
is given permission to renew its suit
after operating for a time under the
50 cent rate if It finds it to be con-
! hscstory
Will Make Test Case
The original Spring Valley injunc-
7 iion suit Of 1903 viii be used as the
test for the local application Of the
supreme court decision In that in
stance the city used a valuation of
is24673.212. Opposed to this is the
tcompany's claim Of a valuation above
ts5O. 600 600. Speaking Of the decision
yesterday Assistant City Attorney
i Haven took the view that il would act
Ito the advantage of the municipality.
For one thing, said Haven, 1T
Icuts out the sum always urged by
fSpring Valley for good VIII, or going
business as they termed it. The court
lis explicit on this. OF greater i'm
iporfance. however. is the doctrine that
RaIuation shall not be mere estimate
~ guess. but shall be actual and real.
fThis principle runs All the way through
HE decision 1t appears in measuring
-he value Of the franchise and again
NJ the requirement for the public serv-
sc corporatiOn to prove clearly the
u sIne it claims for its property.
II Under this decision, for instance, the
rourt could not accept such testimony
~ was offered in the Spring Valley
ease. by which an attempt was made
- establish the value or the Spring
NalIey plant b. comparing It with a