Court Opinion

ID: 7947919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 23:22:50.909743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:33:52.868550
License: Public Domain

Brooke, J.
(after stating the facts). It is clear that since the passage of Act No. 106, Pub. Acts 1909 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] §2932), complainant is subject to the control and supervision of the Michigan railroad commission. It is not questioned that, as required by the said commission, it has filed with the commission a schedule of its rates. This schedule is one which divides the users of the current into classes; there being a classification according to the various quantities used, both as to users of the cur*282rent for power and light. The commission itself has not so far apparently fixed or attempted to fix the rates demanded by complainant. Those rates, however, upon complaint from the proper parties, are, under the terms of the act creating the commission, subject to revision. We understand from the record that no such application has been made. To permit one user to take the current at its power voltage and transform a portion of it to the lighting voltage, and use it for lighting, paying for the whole at the power rate, would be to permit a discrimination against all other users of the power for lighting, because the rate charged for the current when used for lighting is considerably higher than that charged when it is used for power.
It should be noted that the reasonableness of the rates charged for both classes of service according to the schedule filed with the railroad commission is not in issue in this proceeding. The right of a public service corporation to charge a higher rate for the same commodity when used for one purpose than when used for another purpose is perhaps not directly involved, though questioned by defendant. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the question in this proceeding, as we are of opinion that the contention should in any event first be made before the railroad commission in a proper proceeding. Upon the question reference is had to the following authorities: Boerth v. Gas Co., 152 Mich. 654 (116 N. W. 628, 18 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1197) ; In re Investigation of Milwaukee Lighting Rates, 9 Wis. R. R. Com. R. 541; Silkman v. Board of Water Com’rs, 152 N. Y. 327 (46 N. E. 612, 37 L. R. A. 827). See, also, Principles and Methods of Municipal Trading, by Prof. Douglas Knoop, p. 224.
We are satisfied that the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed, and that, if defendant feels himself aggrieved by reason of excessive charges, his remedy *283is open through a proper application for relief to the railroad commission.
The decree is affirmed.
McAlvay, C. J., and Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, Bird, and Steere, JJ., concurred. Moore, J., did not sit.