Court Opinion

ID: 9743560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:36:27.145788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.021805
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Gilkison, J.
I cannot agree with the majority in this case. I think the complaint for review should have been filed and the appeal should have been taken agreeable with §55-112 Burns’ 1951 Replacement, Acts 1913, ch. 306, §1, p. 820. Since the grade crossing matter involved, has to do only with a railroad company and has nothing to do with any utility, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission only by the transfer of the duties of the Railroad Commission to the Public Service Commission by §54-107 Burns’ 1951 Replacement, Acts 1913, ch. 76, §4, p. 167, which provides that the powers so transferred “shall be held and exercised by them under the laws heretofore in force.” *100§55-112 Burns’ 1951 Replacement, swpra, was enacted at the same session of the legislature as the act transferring the duties of the Railroad Commission to the Public Service Commission, and the two acts are necessarily pari materia.
Section 54-429 Burns’ 1951 Replacement was enacted at the 1929 session of the legislature (Ch. 169, §1, p. 530) and by its terms is limited to the Public Service Commission’s “utility” jurisdiction. As I view it, this statute just cannot apply to appeals from the Public Service Commission in its jurisdiction of matters under the Railroad Commission laws. As to matters arising under this jurisdiction, appeals must be taken under §55-112 Burns’ 1951 Replacement, supra.
I would reverse the judgment for this error.
Note. — Reported in 111 N. E. 2d 719.