In Re Intrastate Express Rates

1913 OK 572, 138 P. 382, 40 Okla. 237, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 1
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 7, 1913
Docket1272
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1913 OK 572 (In Re Intrastate Express Rates) 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
In Re Intrastate Express Rates, 1913 OK 572, 138 P. 382, 40 Okla. 237, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 1 (Okla. 1913).

Opinions

WILLIAMS, J.

On June 11, 1909, the Corporation Commission made an order to become effective on August 1, 1909, directed to the Wells Fargo & Co., Adams Express Company, Pacific Express Company, and United States Express Company, prescribing certain rules, regulations, classifications, and rates to be -observed and charged by said companies within the state. Prior to the entering of said order, notice had been given and appearance made and various objections interposed against the same.

On December 13, 1909, the supersedeas was granted by the Corporation Commission, and on the same date the appeal of appellants from said order was commenced in this court. On December 30, 1909, leave was obtained to have certain portions of the record printed. On May 12, 1910, such printed records were filed in this court, and the appellants allowed 60 days in which ü> prepare and file briefs, and the appellee 60 days to prepare and file briefs after the expiration of the time granted to appellants. Appellants filed a motion to have the cause remanded to the Commission for further hearing. The motion not being resisted by the Attorney General, the same was sus[239]*239tained. On October 25, 1911, the cause was set for hearing in this court. On October 26, 1911, the cause not being properly at issue, the same was stricken from the regular assignment. On December 19, 1911, additional time was allowed both the appellants and the appellee in which to file briefs. On December 29, 1911, additional evidence taken before the Corporation Commission was filed in this court. On March 13, 19.13, the cause was set for submission. On April 8, 1913, the cause was argued orally and submitted. On May 13, 1913, the cause was again remanded to the Corporation Commission, in order that certain tables of rates in force in other states might be incorporated in the record. On May 31, 1913, additional evidence, including the said tables of rates in force in other state, as certified by the Commission, were filed in this court. The appeal is nbw properly before us for final determination.

On July 26, 1911, the Corporation Commission, after said cause had been remanded to it for further hearing, made additional findings of fact and recommendations, said order being in haec verba:

“Order No. 553. Proposed Order No. 40. In re Proposed Order to All Express Companies Doing Business in Oklahoma, to Establish Express Rates. Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Rehearing.
“This case was remanded by the Supreme Court with instructions to the Commission to take additional evidence and ascertain by actual operations of the express companies the percentage of reduction caused by the rate promulgated by the Commission as compared with the rates now in force by the express companies in Oklahoma. Also to take such additional evidence as may be pertinent. The last requirement of the court was so general that, in order to comply with the same, the express companies were given opportunity to introduce any additional testimony they deemed proper.
“After various consultations as to a time when the express officials could come from New York, the case was finally set for hearing and again continued upon the inability of the express officials to be present.
“Upon the hearing, the testimony of the express companies was based upon reports made to the Commission, which purported to show the rates actually charged and the rates that would have been collected if the Commission’s rates had been [240]*240in force, and from this each express company made their estimate of the reduction imposed by the Commission’s rates.
“Upon investigation of these reports, the Commission found that they were wholly inaccurate. Some companies had filed the reports of the forwarding agent, which contained so many overcharges and irregularities that the percentage of reduction shown by these reports was in excess of the actual reduction. It was then agreed that an actual test should be made for one week in October and one week in November by the United States Express Compaq, which is now doing a very large business in Oklahoma. The test for November after it was completed and ready for shipment was destroyed by fire in the office of the company in New Jersey, hence we only have one week which was compiled by the express company. This shows a reduction of 23^4 per cent, instead of from 27 to 30 per cent, as shown by the evidence and exhibits introduced. The American Express Company, which formerly charged the highest local rate, and the United States Express Company filed exhibits, which purport to show a loss would have been sustained had their business been done on the rate the Commission prescribed. We need consider these exhibits no further than to explain the basis upon which the calculations were made.
“Exhibit 1, rehearing, filed by the American Express Company shows gross state earnings $83,585.67, _ which is 15 per cent, of the total earnings on state and interstate business in Oklahoma. Earnings on interstate business apportioned to Oklahoma $437,289.98, or 84.99 per cent, of the total business both state and interstate. They find that the total terminal expense accruing within the state of Oklahoma, both state and interstate according to this exhibit, was $76,970.52. The terminal expense accruing to the interstate business outside of Oklahoma was $84,295.11. Each interstate transaction has two términal expenses; one within the state and one without. The terminal expense out of Oklahoma was, according to this exhibit, $7,324.59 more than both the terminal expense on the same business in Oklahoma and of the terminal expense on the state business. They find that the terminal expense on all business outside of Oklahoma, both state and interstate, as there is no segregation made in their books between interstate business and the local business in other states, was 29.43 per cent. From this per cent, they deduct 11.87 per cent., which is termed the ratio of terminal expense in Oklahoma, which leaves 17.56 per cent., which they say is the ratio of terminal expenses to gross proceeds outside of Oklahoma, which is ascertained by taking 15.56 per cent, of [241]*241$480,041.51: This was the process by which they found that' the terminal expense outside of Oklahoma was $7,324.59 more •than both the state and interstate terminal expense within Oklahoma.
“The}' then add the terminal expense in Oklahoma, both state and interstate, which was $76,970.52, to what they find to be the terminal expense outside of Oklahoma, $84,295.11, makes a total terminal expense on all business done which had its origin or destination in Oklahoma, or both, or-$161,265.63. They then find that the revenue accruing on Oklahoma state business was 15.01 per cent, of the total business. They find that Oklahoma should pay 15.01 per cent, of the total $161,265.63, which would make the terminal expense on Oklahoma business $24,205.97. $24,205.97 is 28.31 per cent, of the gross proceeds on Oklahoma state business. This process of evolution, by series of percentages by which they charge Oklahoma state business with 28.31 per cent, of the total gross' business, is wholly unreliable- and fallacious. Why should Oklahoma intrastate business be charged with outside terminal expense of interstate?
“In the former hearing of this case, terminal expenses were gone into very fully and are explained in the opinion of the Commission.

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

Related

Choctaw Gas Company v. Corporation Commission
1956 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1956)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. State
1941 OK 316 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1941)
Lowden v. State
1940 OK 436 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Cleveland v. Mascho
1922 OK 163 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
City of Bartlesville v. Corporation Commission
1921 OK 223 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Muskogee Gas & Electric Co. v. State
1920 OK 6 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Mangum Electric Co. v. City of Mangum
1918 OK 258 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Comanche Light & Power Co. v. Turner
1918 OK 252 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
In Re Laing
1914 OK 476 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1913 OK 572, 138 P. 382, 40 Okla. 237, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-intrastate-express-rates-okla-1913.