Page images
PDF
[merged small][table][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][table]

APPLICATIONS.

—Continued.

Action

May 1, 1916 Permission grunted for the construction of a crossing at grade across the tracks of Southern Pacific Co., provided an infrequently used crossing in the vicinity is closed to traffic.

May 13, 1916 Covered by another proceeding, dismissed.

June 5, 1916 Authorized to construct crossing at grade over tracks of Southern Pacific Co.

June 19, 1916 Crossing at grade across tracks of Western Pacific Railway authorized, provided an existing crossing in the vicinity is closed to traffic.

June 19, 1916 Term prescribed governing construction of a proposed high power transmission line of the city of Los Angeles across a high power transmission line of Pacific Light and Power Corp.

June 30, 1916

Permission granted for the construction of a crossing at grade across the tracks of Southern Pacific Co. at Davis.

June 30, 1916

Permission granted for the construction of a crossing at grade across the tracks of Santa Fe Railway.

June 30, 1916 , Construction of eleven crossings over roads and highways in Tuolumne County authorized, ten of such crossings to be at grade, the other at separated grades.

June 30, 1916 Proposed crossing not necessary, denied.

June 30, 1916 i Proposed crossing not necessary, denied.

June 30, 1916

Crossing at grade across tracks of Southern Pacific Co. authorizing such crossing to be protected by automatic flagman.

APPENDIX C.

COURT PROCEEDlNGS.

The following is a summary of the court proceedings since January 1, 1911, to which the Railroad Commission has been a party. This summary includes a reference to the decisions of the Railroad Commission reviewed by the courts, and also contains a brief statement of the important principles announced in the decisions of the courts:

1. Southern Pacific Company vs. Railroad Commission, 193 Fed. 699,

decided by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, on February 7, 1912.

In this case Judge Van Fleet refused to enjoin the enforcement of the order of the Commission in the San Pedro Rate case, wherein the Commission reduced and prescribed certain class and commodity rates on freight moving between the port of San Pedro and the city of Los Angeles, in the state of California (Vol. 1, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 45).

2. Palo Alto.Gas Company vs. J. M. Eshleman et al., decided by the

Superior Court of Santa Clara County on December 13, 1912.

In this case Judge Richards refused to restrain the Commission from assuming jurisdiction in the Palo Alto Gas Rate case. The company contended that under its franchise with the city an agreement had been reached as to the rates to be charged and the manner in which they should be fixed, which contract could not be affected by the Public Utilities Act. The court held that the Public Utilities Act superseded the agreement evidenced by the franchise.

After this decision was rendered, the Commission proceeded to hear and decide the Palo Alto Gas Rate case, the decision in which is reported in Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 300.

3. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company vs. John M. Eshleman

,-t al., 166 Cal. 640, decided by the California Supreme Court on

December 20, 1913.

This case is generally referred to as the Telephone case, and is the first case in which the Public Utilities Act with its grant of enlarged powers to the Railroad Commission came before the Supreme Court. The decision discusses at length sections 22 and 23 of Article XII of the Constitution of California as amended on October 10, 1911, and the Public Utilities Act passed thereunder. The constitutionality of the Public Utilities Act, together with the enlarged jurisdiction granted to the Railroad Commission and the limited review by the courts of the decisions of the Commission is upheld.

The particular order of the Commission before the court in that case was a telephone physical connection order, directing The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company to allow to be connected with it, for the purpose of long distance service, two local telephone systems in Glenn and Tehama counties. The order was annulled by the court on the ground that it amounted to "a taking of property" in violation of the federal constitution. The order is reported in Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 104.

4. Wilmington Transportation Company vs. Railroad Commission,

166 Cal. 741, decided by the California Supreme Court on December 29,1913.

5. Wilmington Transportation Company vs. Railroad Commission,

decided by the United States Supreme Court on February 1, 1915, and reported in 236 U. S. 151; 59 L. Ed. 508. These cases presented for the first time the question whether a state could regulate the rates for transportation by vessels plying the high seas on voyages between points within the state. The Commission contended that it had jurisdiction in such a case. (Vol. 3, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 42.) The contention of the Commission was upheld by both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.

6. Tyndale Palmer vs. Railroad Commission, 167 Cal. 163, decided

by the California Supreme Court on January 20, 1914. In this case the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Railroad Commission (Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 43), dismissing the complaint of certain residents in San Diego County, asking that the Commission direct the Southern California Mountain Water Company to supply them with water. The Commission found that there was not sufficient water to supply these complainants without prejudicing the supply of existing consumers, and on this ground dismissed the complaint.

7. Del Mar Water, Light and Power Company vs. John M. Eshleman

et al., 167 Cal. 666, decided by the California Supreme Court on April 11, 1914.

In this case the Supreme Court had before it for review a decision of the Commission directing the water company to lay a pipe and serve an individual living on the outskirts of Del Mar, San Diego County, California (Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 335). The company contended that it was not a public utility, but the Supreme Court declined to so hold. The order of the Commission was annulled, however, on one specific ground only— that the Commission did not make a finding that the individual to be served with water was within the territory to which the company had undertaken to furnish water service.

8. Southern Pacific Company vs. John M. Eshleman et al., 227

Fed. 928, decided by the Federal District Court for the Northern

District of California, on May 26, 1914.

This was a proceeding to restrain the Kailroad Commission from enforcing compliance with section 52 of the Public Utilities Act by the Southern Pacific Company, which contemplated issuing certain equipment trust certificates without the consent of the Commission. During the pendency of the proceeding the Southern Pacific Company applied to the Railroad Commission and received its consent to the issuance of these certificates (Vol. 3, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 562).

Accordingly, the bill of complaint was dismissed by Judge Van Fleet, solely on the ground that the controversy had become moot.

9. Title Guarantee and Trust Company vs. Railroad Commission, 168

Cal. 295, decided by the California Supreme Court on August 3,

1914.

In this case the Supreme Court had before it for review a decision of the Commission in the so-called Glendale cases (Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 989). In its decision the Commission ruled that it was the duty of a public utility water company to install meters and service connections at its own expense. This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the particular order before the court was annulled on the ground that at the time the decision of the Commission was rendered the city of Glendale and not the Railroad Commission had jurisdiction to enforce this principle as to utilities operating within the municipal limits.

10. Kern Trading and Oil Company vs. Associated Pipe Line Company et al., 217 Fed. 273, decided by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, on September 14, 1914. This was a proceeding to enjoin the defendant Associated Pipe Line Company from complying with the provisions of the so-called "Pipe Line Statutes," passed by the Legislature of California in 1913 (Chapters 285, 286 and 327), and to enjoin the Railroad Commission, its attorney and the Attorney General of California from enforcing any of the provisions of said statutes. The plaintiff claimed that these pipe line statutes violated the federal constitution. The Commission moved to dismiss the bill for lack of jurisdiction and lack of equity.

« PreviousContinue »