Court Opinion

ID: 9818128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:22:18.4147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:19.277722
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Counsel for the express companies refer to Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Westenhaver et al., 23 Okla. 226, 99 Pac. 1019, Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Westenhaver et al., 29 Okla. 429, 118 Pac. 354, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1209, Hine v. Wadlington, 33 Okla. 173, 124 Pac. 299, and Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 415, 121 Pac. 1069, as being against the comparison of rate theory. In these cases the comparison of rate rule was not invoked. • No evidence on that theory was offered. Therefore these cases cannot be considered as in point for such contention. As to Midland Valley R. Co. v. State, 24 Okla. 817, 104 Pac. 1086; K. C., M. & O. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 822, 104 Pac. 1091; A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 824, 104 Pac. 1090; St. L. & S. F. R. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 826, 104 Pac. 1088; St. L. & S. F. R. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 828, 104 Pac. 1087; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 830, 104 Pac. 1092; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 832, 104 Pac. 1089; A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 834, 104 Pac. 1089; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 24 Okla. 835, 104 Pac. 1092—the syllabus is as follows:
“By section 22, art. 9, of the Constitution (Bunn’s Ed. sec. 234), it becomes the duty of the Corporation Commission, upon hearing an order proposed to fix the rates to be charged by a railway company for services for hauling intrastate shipments, to make finding of facts upon which the order of tl)e Commission is based, and, on an appeal from such order, to certify the facts so found by it to this court.
“(a) When the Corporation Commission, .in making an order fixing rates which a railway company may charge for hauling intrastate freight, fails to make a finding of facts, a'nd to certify same' to the Supreme Court’ on appeal 'from such or*257der, such court may, under said section of the Constitution, remand the case to the Commission, witli directions to find the facts upon which the Commission based its order, and to certify same to the court before the appeal is, finally decided.”
In this jurisdiction the syllabus declares the law of the case, and the foregoing is all that was decided in said cases. The other cases referred to merely follow the rule announced in the Midland Valley Railroad Company case, in which only evidence as to comparative rates was introduced before the Commission. No evidence was received whatever as to the values of the property of the railroad company within the state, and the entire earnings within the state, both interstate and intrastate, freight, passenger, and miscellaneous, and also the entire expense of operation, including that for necessary repairs, etc. It was within the discretion of this court to remand that case for evidence to be introduced on that theory. It appears also from the opinion that the appeal was sought to be dismissed on motion of the state on the ground that no findings of fact were made by the Commission. We quote from the opinion in 24 Okla. at page 820, 104 Pac. 1087, where it says:
“It was the duty of the Commission to malte the findings of facts upon which this order is based, and, having failed so to do, it cannot be permitted for that reason to- have this court dismiss this appeal, and the motion is accordingly overruled.”
In that case we announced the rule that the Commission in fixing rates wherever it was practicable should receive evidence upon all issues or theories upon which the order might be justified. When such is done and upon any reasonable theory there is evidence before the Commission to sustain the order, and there is not evidence in the record to overcome and destroy the supporting evidence, the order must stand-before this court, because on review here the order of the Commission, if there is any evidence to sustain it, is prima facie reasonable and just. This is a direct proceeding by appeal in a legislative way to review the action of the Commission, but certain limitations are placed upon this court in the exercise of the power of review. That is that the order of the Commission is prima facie just and reasonable, and the burden is upon the party assailing the same to de*258stroy, and not only overcome that presumption, but also by evidence to show that the order is erroneous or unjust and unreasonable.
There are exceptions to the rule of “adequate return on investments” as to the fixing rates. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama et al. (D. C.) 208 Fed. 35. The fact that this court in exercising its discretion to have as complete a record as practicable for the purpose of determining as to the justness or reasonableness of the order complained of in remanding with directions that evidence be taken on the “adequate return on the investment” theorjr did not commit itself to the rule that an order of the Commission would not be sustained on the comparison of rate theory, when the evidence on that theory supported the order. However, we think that the record shows that the Commission has considered this case on all theories, not only on the “comparison of rate theory,” but also on the “adequate return on investment” theory, notwithstanding the difficulty presented as to the separation of interstate and intrastate business and expenses, etc. See, also, Wood et al. v. Vandalia Railroad Co., 231 U. S. 1, 34 Sup. Ct. 7, 58 L. Ed. —, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States October 20, 1913.
The petition for rehearing will be denied.
All the Justices concur.