Artesia Alfalfa Grwrs' Ass'n. v. A.T. S.F. Ry.

270 P. 796, 33 N.M. 468
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 16, 1928
DocketNo. 3360.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 P. 796 (Artesia Alfalfa Grwrs' Ass'n. v. A.T. S.F. Ry.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Artesia Alfalfa Grwrs' Ass'n. v. A.T. S.F. Ry., 270 P. 796, 33 N.M. 468 (N.M. 1928).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

PARKER, C. J.

This is a case appealed from the

State Corporation Commission. The commission fixed certain maximum rates on coal from Northern and Western New Mexico mines to points in Eastern New Mexico, which were found by it to he reasonable and duly compensatory. We have not the benefit of briefs or argument by the railroads, there being simply the brief filed before the commission prior to its determination. If we understand this brief, it is to the effect that the rates established by the railroads are less than reasonable, and that while they are one dollar per ton higher than rates prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission from Colorado mines to Kansas points for like distances, this is proper oil account of operating conditions, density of traffic, and return movement of empty cars, which are sufficient to justify the rates. The railroads rely .upon Colorado & New Mexico Coal Operators’ Association v. D. & R. G. W. R. R. Co. et al., 98 I. C. C. 377, and Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 123 I. C. C. 203, 384. We find in these cases nothing contrary‘to the findings of the commission. The commission has simply adopted the short line rule in computing distances, as was done in Holmes & Hallowell Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. et al., 69 I. C. C. 11, and has considered all of the elements involved in determining a just and duly compensatory tariff for freight shipments between the points involved.

We therefore approve and affirm the findings of the State Corporation Commission and direct that the defendants forthwith put into effect the said rate, as in the said order of the State Corporation Commission they were commanded to do, and it is so ordered.

BICKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Corporation Com'n v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
270 P.2d 685 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1954)
Kemp Lumber Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
9 P.2d 387 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1932)
Gilliland Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
275 P. 93 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 P. 796, 33 N.M. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/artesia-alfalfa-grwrs-assn-v-at-sf-ry-nm-1928.