Comanche Light & Power Co. v. Turner

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Comanche Light & Power Co. v. Turner

1918 OK 252, 172 P. 792, 68 Okla. 151, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 324

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 30, 1918

Docket8905

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK 252 (Comanche Light & Power Co. v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comanche Light & Power Co. v. Turner, 1918 OK 252, 172 P. 792, 68 Okla. 151, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 324 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, J.

This is a-n appeal from an order of the Corporation Commision fixing the rates to be charged by the appellant for electric light and other electrical service in the city of Lawton. The only question presented on this appeal is the valuation placed by rhe commission on appellant’s electric plant and accessories, and whether the rates fixed allow a reasonable return upon the investment. The controversy is as to the facts found by the commission and the deductions drawn from same. The principal objections are made to the values fixed for depreciation, going concern value, contractor’s profits, and organization expenses.

Evidence was heard as to the value of all the property used in connection with the plant. It is urged on the part of the appellant that the finding as to the values is' against the weight of the evidence. The evidence taken is both voluminous and contradictory. That offered on the part of the appellant, if taken as true and without discount, would abundantly support much higher valuations. On the other hand, the evidence offered on part of the complainant before the commission reasonably tends to support the valuations found by the commission,

While the values are not the same, the Questions presented on this appeal are identical with the questions presented in the case of Mangum Electric Co. v. City of Mangum (No. 8904, decided this term, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 26) ; the witnesses in most part being the same. The questions presented here, as there, are questions of fact and the same rules of law govern. This order comes to us o-n appeal with the presumption, inder section 22, art. 9,of the Constitution, as being prima facie just, reasonable, and correct, and under the authorities referred to in the Mangum Case, since there is testimony in the record which reasonably tends to support the findings of fact made by the commission, the order must be affirmed. In *152 view of the evidence in support of the findings, we are unable to say the testimony offered on the part of the appellant is sufficient to overcome the constitutiona/1 presumption. In re Express Rates, 40 Okla. 237, 138 Pac. 382; S. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. Travelers’ Corp., 47 Okla. 347, 148 Pac. 166; Mangum Elec. Co. v. City of Mangum, supra.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except TISINGER, J., not participating.

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

OWEN, J.

This is a-n appeal from an order of the Corporation Commision fixing the rates to be charged by the appellant for electric light and other electrical service in the city of Lawton. The only question presented on this appeal is the valuation placed by rhe commission on appellant’s electric plant and accessories, and whether the rates fixed allow a reasonable return upon the investment. The controversy is as to the facts found by the commission and the deductions drawn from same. The principal objections are made to the values fixed for depreciation, going concern value, contractor’s profits, and organization expenses.

Evidence was heard as to the value of all the property used in connection with the plant. It is urged on the part of the appellant that the finding as to the values is' against the weight of the evidence. The evidence taken is both voluminous and contradictory. That offered on the part of the appellant, if taken as true and without discount, would abundantly support much higher valuations. On the other hand, the evidence offered on part of the complainant before the commission reasonably tends to support the valuations found by the commission,

While the values are not the same, the Questions presented on this appeal are identical with the questions presented in the case of Mangum Electric Co. v. City of Mangum (No. 8904, decided this term, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 26) ; the witnesses in most part being the same. The questions presented here, as there, are questions of fact and the same rules of law govern. This order comes to us o-n appeal with the presumption, inder section 22, art. 9,of the Constitution, as being prima facie just, reasonable, and correct, and under the authorities referred to in the Mangum Case, since there is testimony in the record which reasonably tends to support the findings of fact made by the commission, the order must be affirmed. In *152 view of the evidence in support of the findings, we are unable to say the testimony offered on the part of the appellant is sufficient to overcome the constitutiona/1 presumption. In re Express Rates, 40 Okla. 237, 138 Pac. 382; S. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. Travelers’ Corp., 47 Okla. 347, 148 Pac. 166; Mangum Elec. Co. v. City of Mangum, supra.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except TISINGER, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 252, 172 P. 792, 68 Okla. 151, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comanche-light-power-co-v-turner-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack