City of Winona v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Co.

276 F. 996, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1016
CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota
DecidedMarch 5, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 276 F. 996 (City of Winona v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Winona v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Co., 276 F. 996, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1016 (mnd 1921).

Opinion

BOOTH, District Judge.

This cause came on for hearing upon exceptions to the report of the special master heretofore appointed in the cause, to take and report to the court the evidence in the case, to examine the evidence, make the necessary computations, find and state the facts, and make a report to the court of the facts as found and of the results of such computations, and to recommend to the court in ihe report a form of proper decree.

The exceptions are voluminous and cover practically the whole range, of the master’s findings. It will not, however, be necessary to take them up and discuss them in detail. Among the master’s findings the following appear:

"That the ordinance, a copy of which is Exhibit E, attached to the complaint, entitled ‘An ordinance to amend an ordinance entitled “An ordinance relative to lighting the city with gas,” ’ passed August 1, 1870, and the ordinances amendatory thereof, are violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore void and of no effect; and I would further find that the price and rate for gas as fixed [998]*998in said ordinances, i. e., $1.45 per thousand cubic feet, is unreasonable, confiscatory, and void.”
“The ordinance, a copy of which is Exhibit F attached to the complaint, entitled ‘An ordinance establishing maximum charges to be made for gas in Winona,’ passed January 24, 1920, was passed without authority; that the same is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is therefore null and void; and that the rate therein prescribed, namely, $1.45 per thousand cubic feet for gas, is unreasonable, confiscatory, and void.”

These findings are approved.

In reference to operating expenses of the company, valuation of its property, and the rate of return;

The master found that a proper allowance for operating expenses of the company for the ensuing year was $105,-
373.97, which would be equivalent to . $1,463 per thousand cubic feet of gas sold;
That the excess leakage in the system amounted to.046 Per M cu. ft.
per thousand cubic feet, which deducted as a penalty from the operating expenses left ... as net operating cost. $1,417
The master found that an amount should be set aside for depreciation reserve equivalent to... of gas sold. .13
He further found that the rate of return which would be reasonable was 8 per cent., and he found that the valuation upon which the return should be computed was $577,043, equivalent to. of gas sold. .60
Total rate recommended as reasonable. $2.15.

As to the operating expense: After examination of the evidence I am of opinion that the master’s findings are in the main sustained, and with minor corrections made as suggested by counsel, the operating expenses are allowed at $1.41 per M cubic feet of gas sold.

The method adopted by the master of handling the city contract for gas appears to be justified, and is approved.

As to depreciation reserve: The rate allowed by the master was 2% per cent, on the value of physical property depreciated, less the value of land and of benches. This in figures was 2% per cent, on $386,225, making $9,655, equivalent to 13 cents per thousand cu. ft. of gas sold.

After examination of the evidence I am of opinion that the rate of allowance • for depreciation reserve was justified by the evidence, and was fair and reasonable. But inasmuch as the valuation made by the master should in my judgment be revised, the resultant figures as to depreciation reserve will be changed, and will be given later on. As pointed out by the master, this general depreciation reserve is exclusive of a special depreciation reserve for relining benches, which latter is included in operating expenses.

As to the rate of return: The evidence in my opinion justifies fully the rate, adopted by the master, of 8 per cent.

As to valuation of the property: The master adopted the method of cost of reproduction new less depreciation. Four estimates were submitted for consideration, as appears from the evidence:

[999]

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

Related

State Ex Rel. City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission
110 S.W.2d 749 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1937)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey
125 So. 403 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
New York Telephone Co. v. Prendergast
36 F.2d 54 (S.D. New York, 1929)
Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. City of Columbus
17 F.2d 630 (S.D. Ohio, 1927)
McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co.
272 U.S. 400 (Supreme Court, 1926)
Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. Southern Pacific Co.
268 U.S. 146 (Supreme Court, 1925)
City of Minneapolis v. Rand
285 F. 818 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 F. 996, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-winona-v-wisconsin-minnesota-light-power-co-mnd-1921.