I. In general, 1, 2.
II. What are, 3, 4.
See AUTOMOBILES; COACH COMPANIES; ELECTRICITY; GAS; INTER-
URBAN RAILWAY; MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES; RAIL
ROADS; STREET RAILWAYS: TELEPHONES; TRANSFER COM-
PANIES; WATER.
See also APPORTIONMENT; DEPRECIATION; DISCRIMINATION; Mo-
NOPOLY AND COMPETITION; RATES; SECURITY ISSUES; SEBV-
ICE; VALUATION.
Duty to provide service, see SERVICE.
1. The Illinois Public Utility act does not define or create busi-
nesses or industries, public utilities that were not recognized as such
before the act was passed, but merely designates the classes of public
utilities that are to be held embraced within the meaning of the act
and subject to the meaning of its provision. State Public Utilities
Commission v. Monarch Refrigerating Co. (Ill.) 119.
2. The application of a New York corporation duly licensed to con-
duct manufacturing and mercantile business in the state of Michigan
for permission to become an active public utility and to carry on, in
the state of Michigan, the business of generating and distributing elec-
tricity for lighting and power purposes, for public and private use,
and steam heat for public and private use, was granted by the Michi-
gan Commission, the corporation having applied to the secretary of
state for authority to change its corporate purposes, and that official
having required the corporation to obtain an order from the Commis-
sion authorizing and consenting to the proposed changes. Re Detroit
Edison Co. (Mich.) 266.
3. A company operating a plant equipped and used to produce and
furnish cold storage for fruit, vegetable, and dairy products, and de-
voted to the full limit of its capacity to receiving, storing, and pre-
serving such merchandise for all who see fit to use it, is a public
utility within the Illinois Public Utility act (Laws 1913, p. 460).
State Public Utilities Commission v. Monarch Refrigerating Co. (Ill.)
119.
4. A mutual telephone company, rendering service to its members
at cost, and having connection with other telephone companies upon
the basis of a mutual exchange of free service, operates and manages
its plant for a public use so as to make it a public utility within § 10
of the Illinois Public Utility act, where its franchise to use the streets
of the village in which it is located is given upon express condition that
no person, firm, or corporation except commercial telephone companies
shall be barred from membership and from the service to be rendered
by the company; and it is immaterial that the company does not fur-
PUBLIC UTILITIES-continued.
nish as complete service as is supplied by most commercial companies.
State Public Utilities Commission ex rel. Noble Teleph. Co. v. Noble
Mut. Teleph. Co. (Ill.) 770.
Seats to be provided for passengers in, if necessary, see SERVICE,
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY.
Security issue for, see SECURITY ISSUES, 12.
Of security issues, see SECURITY ISSUES, 6-14.
Amount of valuation as affected by purpose for which valuation is
made, see VALUATION, 9.
Finding of trial court as to value as original question of fact,
see APPEAL AND REVIEW, 2.
Right to appeal to the courts from order of the commissioners
denying an application to be relieved from running daily
passenger service by installing mixed passenger and freight
service, see APPEAL AND REVIEW, 3, 4.
As to crossings, see CROSSINGS.
As to authority of Railroad Commission in passing upon sufficiency
of safety devices at railroad crossings, see COMMISSIONS, 3.
As to consolidation of railroads, see CONSOLIDATION, MERGER AND
SALE, 3, 4.
Making of rates as regulation of business or property of, see CON-
STITUTIONAL LAW, 2.
Discrimination in baggage transfer privileges, see DISCRIMINA-
TION, 23.
Approval by Commission of railroad leases, see LEASES, 1.
Entry in field where existing company is rendering adequate serv-
ice, see MONOPOLY AND COMPETITION, 8.
Rates on, see RATES, 49-60.
Duty to disinfect stock cars and yards, at its own cost, see RATES,
Through route and joint rates by, with automobile stage lines, see
SERVICE, 17.
Side track agreements, see SERVICE, 26-29.
Facilities for loading and unloading freight, see SERVICE, 30.
Security issues, see SECURITY ISSUES.
1. The construction, maintenance, and operation of tracks and other
terminal facilities at stockyards for the receiving and handling of stock
for the shipper is a service imposed upon railroads transporting stock
in their capacity as common carriers, and is not a plant facility of the
stockyards company. Re Kansas City Connecting R. Co. (Mo.) 661.
2. A certificate of public convenience and necessity was granted for
the construction of terminal transportation facilities at stockyards to
a new and independent company, where it appeared that such facilities
were greatly needed by the shippers of stock, and the plan proposed by
an existing terminal company contemplated the construction of tracks
and facilities across the state line and beyond the jurisdiction of the
Commission. Re Kansas City Connecting R. Co. (Mo.) 661.
3. The New Jersey Commission will not, upon the complaint of
shippers against a single railroad, pass upon the justice and reason-
ableness of a provision in a bill of lading requiring claims for loss,
damage, or delay to be made in writing to the carrier within four
months after the delivery of the property, where such provision is con-
tained in the uniform bill of lading, and employed by all railroad car-
riers engaged in carrying intrastate shipments within the state, and no
effective determination could be made except after hearing upon notice
to all of the carriers within the state engaged in carrying intrastate
shipments. Nixon Piano Co. v. Central R. Co. (N. J.) 297.
4. Railroads operating in the state of Louisiana are prohibited from
requiring, in their bills of lading, that notice of claims for loss, dam-
age, or injury to shipments lost or damaged in transit or while in the
railroad's possession as a common carrier, be made or filed within a
period less than two years from the date of shipment. Railroad Com-
mission v. Railroads (La.) 158.
II. Jurisdiction, powers and functions of Commission, 6–16.
III. Powers of courts, 17-20.
IV. Reasonableness; factors to be considered, 21–31.
a. In general, 21-28.
b. Comparison of rates, 29.
c. Voluntary rates, 30, 31.
V. Discrimination.
VI. Rates of particular utilities, 32-83.
a. Coach companies, 32.
b. Electricity, 33–40.
1. In general, 33–36.
2. Reasonableness of particular rates, 37–40.
d. Interurban railways, 44-48.
1. In general, 44, 45.
2. Commutation rates, 46-48.
e. Railroads, 49–60.
1. In general, 49, 50.
2. Coupon books and commutation tickets, 51.
3. Excess train fares, 52–54.
4. Charges for particular service, 55–59.
(a) Disinfecting cars, 55–57.
(b) Switching, 58, 59.
5. Reasonableness of particular rates, 60.
f. Street railway, 61.
g. Telephones, 62–79.
1. In general, 62–64.
2. Metallic or grounded system, 65.
3. Business or residence rates, 66.
4. Extension service, 67, 68.
5. Locality rates, 69, 70.
6. Party lines, 71.
7. Reasonableness of particular rates, 72–79.
h. Water, 80-83.
1. In general, 80.
2. Minimum charge-meter rental, 81, 82.
3. Fee for tapping mains, 83.
Making of rates as regulation of the property or business, see Cov
STITUTIONAL LAW, 2.
Regulation of rates fixed by prior franchise as impairment of contract,
see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10-12.
Effect of injunction on statutory rates, see INJUNCTION, 1.
Power of legislature to reduce rates fixed by municipal ordinance.
estoppel, see Legislature, 1.
Rates and discounts to be plainly stated in bills for service, see PAY-
MENT,
1. A complaint for violating the Public Service Commission law
§ 88, in not filing telephone rate schedules with the Commission, was
dismissed where the neglect was due to ignorance of the requirement
of the law, and the schedule was filed after the complaint was made.
Crider v. Waters (Mo.) 1044.
2. A Missouri telephone company cannot discontinue the service of
a subscriber on the ground that he refuses to pay an increased rate
for the service, where such rate was put into effect after the effective
date of the Public Service law, without filing a new schedule with the
Commission as required by § 88, paragraph 2; since failure to file such
schedule continues the rate charged on the effective date of the law in
force until changed in the manner provided by statute. Crider v.
Waters (Mo.) 1044.
3. The Commission, by merely issuing an order requiring a public
utility to file its schedule of rates and charges, does not in any way
fix the rates to be charged by the public utility, although such order
may be preliminary to an order fixing rates. State Public Utilities
Commission v. Monarch Refrigerating Co. (Ill.) 119.
4. An advance of the rates of a public utility may be made al-
though the franchise ordinance provides, among other things, that the
municipality shall have the right to purchase the utility at specified
times, and that the annual rates to private consumers shall not exceed
those specified therein, since, in this form, the contract is indetermi-
nate and uncertain in length of time, so that the company is not
bound to maintain the rates therein provided for. Mt. Union v. Mt.
Union Water Co. (Pa.) 1.
5 The city council of the city of St. Paul is vested with authority
to fix a maximum price which may be charged by defendant, a public
service corporation, having the franchise to supply electric current with-
in the city. St. Paul Book & Stationery Co. v. St. Paul Gaslight Co.
(Minn.) 474.
II. Jurisdiction, powers, and functions of Commission.
Conferring upon Commissions authority to make reasonable and just
rates, to be charged by a railroad instead of merely conferring
authority to supervise and regulate rates as depriving the carrier
of property without due process of law, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
3.
Power of Commission to prescribe a charge to be paid by municipality
for water for fire protection where the franchise ordinance pro-
vided for free service, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 13.
Review of orders of Commissions as to rates, see APPEAL AND REVIEW,
7-10.
6. The legislature has delegated to the Commission the power to
fix rates by article 4, § 33, of the Illinois statute (Laws 1913, p. 460),
which provides that every public utility shall file its schedule of rates
and all rules, regulations, privileges, and contracts that in any man-
ner affect the rates charged or to be charged for any service, that the
rates shall not without the consent of the Commission exceed the rates
in effect on July 1, 1913, and that nothing in the section should prevent
the Commission from approving or fixing rates or other charges or
classification from time to time in excess of or less than those shown
by the schedule. State Public Utilities Commission v. Monarch Re-
frigerating Co. (Ill.) 1191.
7. Proposed rates not resulting in increases may become effective
without an investigation or order of approval of the Arizona Commis-
sion. Re Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Ariz.) 715.
8. In holding that a certificate of public convenience and necessity,
for the construction of an electric plant, is not required of a municipal-
ity in Missouri, the Commission stated that §§ 68-71 of the Public
Service Commission law authorize the Commission to regulate the rates
and service of municipal plants. Missouri Public Utilities Co. v. Pop-
lar Bluff (Mo.) 974.
9. A Commission does not exceed its statutory powers to reduce
rates only when found to be unreasonable, by reducing rates which it
found to yield an unreasonably large return per annum on the fair value
|