ABANDONED PROPERTY.
Valuation of, see VALUATION, 29-31.
Cost of, as proper charge to operating expenses, see RETURN, 16.
ACCOUNTING.
See also RECORDS.
1. Expenses in connection with the issuance of funded debt or sale
of stock are not properly chargeable to plant account in Oregon, but,
under the Commission's classification of accounts for electric and gas
utilities, must be charged to the accounts Amortization of Debt Dis-
count and Expense, or Unextinguished Discount on Capital Stock, and
not to Fixed Capital accounts. La Grande Commercial Club v. East-
ern Oregon Light & P. Co. (Or.) 909.
Minimum charge to cover expense of carrying, see RATES, 81.
ACCRUED DEPRECIATION.
See DEPRECIATION, 11-13.
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.
Allowance in valuation, of cost of acquiring railroad lands, see
VALUATION, 39.
Municipal rate ordinance not enjoined before, see APPEAL AND
REVIEW, 8.
Test of reasonableness of order fixing rates by, see RETURN, 2.
Collection of, from passenger boarding train without ticket, see
RATES, 52-54.
Of service generally, see SERVICE.
Of passenger service, see SERVICE, 20-23.
Of telephone service furnished free of charge, see SERVICE, 52.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
Consideration to be given by Commission to complaints of, as to
noises caused by ringing of automatic bell at crossing, see
COMMISSIONS, 3.
ADVANCE PAYMENT.
See PREPAYMENT.
At grade crossing, see CROSSINGS, 7.
Reserved right to amend corporate charters, see CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW, 1.
Right to disregard in valuing the property of a street railway
company, see VALUATION, 27.
ANNUAL DEPRECIATION.
See DEPRECIATION.
ANTIMONOPOLY STATUTE.
Application of, to public service corporations, see MONOPOLY AND
COMPETITION, 3.
Free telephone service as violation of South Dakota anti-pass law,
see DISCRIMINATION, 21.
I. In general, 1, 2.
II. Right to appeal to courts, 3, 4.
III. Scope of review, 5–15.
a. In general, 5.
b. Conclusiveness of Commission's orders, 6-18.
c. Points not made below, 14, 15.
Review of findings of Interstate Commerce Commission, see EVIDENCE,
1. A mistake made by the Railroad Commission in considering im-
proper evidence does not furnish any ground for a reversal of the judg-
ment of the circuit court based on the evidence taken in that court,
where, upon an appeal from the Commission, the proceedings before
the circuit court constitute a trial de novo. Duluth Street R. Co. v.
Railroad Commission (Wis.) 192.
2. In an action to set aside an order of a Railroad Commission
APPEAL AND REVIEW-continued.
fixing the compensation to be paid by a city for a waterworks system,
the trial court passes upon the question of value as an original question
of fact, where it finds "that the compensation so fixed by the Commis-
sion is lawful." Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. Railroad Commission
II. Right to appeal to courts.
3. A railroad company has the right to appeal to the courts from
an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners denying its applica-
tion to be relieved under chapter 200, laws 1907, from running a
daily passenger service, by installing a mixed passenger and freight
service, although such statute does not expressly grant the right of an
appeal to the courts, where it is in pari materia with similar earlier
statutes in themselves granting and contemplating generally an appeal
to the courts. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. State Bd. of
R. Comrs. (N. D. ) 434.
4. That the right of the railroad to apply to the Commission to be
relieved from maintaining a separate daily passenger service (by in-
stallation of a daily mixed passenger and freight service on branch
lines) is permissive in language, and not a positive direction to the
board, and vests in it a discretion, does not negative a right of appeal.
Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. State Bd. of R. Comrs.
(N. D.) 434.
5. Under our statute the district court, on appeal from an order
of the Commission, does not put itself in the place of the Commission
and substitute its findings for those of the Commission, nor does it
set aside such an order on its own conception of its wisdom. The
court reviews the order only so far as to determine whether or not it
is unlawful and unreasonable. State v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.)
467.
b. Conclusiveness of Commission's orders.
6. The finding of the Commission allowing 12 per cent for engi-
neering expenses, which finding was approved by the trial court, will
not be disturbed upon review by the supreme court. Duluth Street
R. Co. v. Railroad Commission (Wis.) 192.
7. The supreme court cannot disturb a finding of the Commission
as to the reasonableness of rates charged by a public utility which find-
ing has been approved by the trial court, unless it appears that the
decision is clearly wrong. Duluth Street R. Co. v. Railroad Commis-
sion (Wis.) 192.
8. The refusal of a court to enjoin the enforcement of gas rates
fixed by municipal ordinance upon the conclusion reached that a re-
turn of 6 per cent per annum on the valuation of the gas company's
APPEAL AND REVIEW-continued.
property would not be confiscatory will not be disturbed on appeal,—
especially where the ordinance was attacked before an opportunity was
afforded to test its results by actual experience. Des Moines Gas Co
v. Des Moines (U. S.) 577.
9. A finding of the Corporation Commission that the rates charged
by certain railway companies on shipments of live stock between points
within the state are so unreasonably high compared to charges made
for similar service in other states where competing markets are located
and for similar service on interstate shipments to such competing mar-
kets, as to result in an unjust discrimination against industries and
markets located within the state, will not be disturbed on appeal to
this court, where there is evidence reasonably tending to support such
finding. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. State (Okla.) 24.
10. An order of the Corporation Commission prescribing a schedule
of rates to be charged on shipments of live stock suitable for packing-
house purposes will not be set aside on appeal as unreasonable, unjust,
and confiscatory, where the evidence fails to show the cost of service
for which the rates are to be charged, or the capital invested by the
carriers and used in rendering such service, and fails to show that said
rates will not yield a sufficient revenue to pay the cost of service
for which they are charged, and to enable the class of traffic on which
they are charged to contribute its fair and just share of the revenue
necessary in addition to paying the expenses of service and general
maintenance of the carrier's road, to enable the carrier to receive a
reasonable dividend upon the value of the investment used in main-
taining such service. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. State (Okla.) 24.
11. The court cannot interfere with an order of the Commission
which has a substantial basis in the evidence produced before the Com-
mission. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Com-
mission (Ill.) 133.
12. The valuation of the property of a public service corporation
by a Commission cannot be set aside unless grave errors in arriving at
it, which seriously affect the final result, are shown. Oshkosh Water-
works Co. v. Railroad Commission (Wis.) 336.
13. The Wisconsin statute (§§ 1797m84 and 1797m70) requires some-
thing more than a mere preponderance of the evidence to overthrow
the findings of the Railroad Commission, since it requires that the
evidence of error must be "clear and satisfactory," or error must be
established "to the full satisfaction of the court," in order to war-
rant the court to declare the findings unlawful. Oshkosh Waterworks
Co. v. Railroad Commission (Wis.) 336.
c. Points not made below.
14. An objection to admitting the reports of the Interstate Commerce
Commission in evidence in an action brought under the act of February
4, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 379, chap. 104, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8563), § 16,
as amended by the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat at L. 584, chap. 3591,
Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8563), to recover from a carrier damages alleged
to have been sustained by a shipper and awarded by the Interstate Com-
|