Court Opinion

ID: 9830891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:35:46.19155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.072865
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for a rehearing appel-lee makes the claim that the record does not sustain some of our findings of fact. Most of the asserted discrepancies relate to the valuation of the property used in the public service, or to alleged necessary operating expenses. We held that as a matter of law appellee failed to establish by clear and satisfactory evidence the ultimate fact issue, to wit: Whether the rate fixed by the commission was so low as not to afford a reasonable return on the fair value of the property used in the íexas public service. Appellee was afforded a seven months’ hearing before the commission and a three months’ trial on appeal to the court. It made no segregation as between its Texas and Oklahoma properties and operations; and did not prove the fair value of the property used in the Texas public service. The question of the value of such property determines the reasonableness of the rate, and probably, in the ultimate analysis, adequacy of service and principles of financing. Valuation of such public service property is in the main a matter of estimate or opinion, and closely resembles discretion as regards the finding of value by an administrative commission. In any event, a scientific or statutory standard of absolute value is unattainable; and because of this uncertainty of value, except where the evidence clearly shows gross over or under valuation, or mistake, inequality, or fraud in the appraisal, the finding of value by an administrative commission is generally given finality. Especially is this the rule in absence of an actual test under the new rate. In addition to- the authorities cited in the original opinion, see the following: People v. *507Board of Assessors, 39 N. Y. 81; Taylor v. L. & N. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 88 F. 350; Chicago v. Burtice, 24 Ill. 489; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 663; Hilton v. Merritt, 110 U. S. 97, 3 S. Ct. 548, 28 L. Ed. 83; People v. State Board of Tax Com’rs, 196 N. Y. 39, 89 N. E. 581.
Motion overruled.