Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Wallace

75 P.2d 942, 158 Or. 210, 1938 Ore. LEXIS 20
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 75 P.2d 942 (Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Wallace, 75 P.2d 942, 158 Or. 210, 1938 Ore. LEXIS 20 (Or. 1937).

Opinion

ROSSMAN, J.

The issues presented by this appeal concern the validity of that part of an order made by the Public Utilities Commissioner of this state, which lowers plaintiff’s charges for local or exchange telephone service. The order is challenged by the plaintiff in attacks upon the commissioner’s findings which fix the value of the plaintiff’s plant, and which determine the amount of its net income after the commissioner had readjusted its revenue and expenses.

On March 25, 1931, the Honorable Charles M. Thomas, who was then Public Utilities Commissioner of this state, instituted on his own motion a proceeding for an investigation before himself of the rates, charges, practices, etc., of the plaintiff, and also for the purpose of “making such findings and entering such order or orders as may be necessary to remove any unreasonableness, unjust discrimination or other unlawfulness which may be found.” We shall hereafter refer to the plaintiff as the company.

January 9, 1934, the presentation of testimony before the commissioner began. Before it had concluded on August 15, 1934, testimony had been taken which, as transcribed, covers 2,248 pages, and documentary evidence had been introduced which, later bound in volumes, constitute 26 volumes. In addition to these exhibits 28 other volumes somewhat smaller in size were introduced, two of which are publications of the Interstate Commerce Commission and 26 are the annual reports by the company to the commissioner. October 11,1934, the commissioner made the order which is now *216 under attack. By it lie directed the company (1) to reduce its local exchange rates, beginning November 1, 1934, approximately 8 per cent; and (2) to reduce its annual depreciation reserve charge to 3.995 per cent of its “depreciable telephone plant excluding general shop, store, stable and garage equipment and general tools and implements.” Had the rate reduction been applicable to the company’s 1933 business its net income would have been $314,177 less. Thirteen days after that order had been entered the company instituted the suit which is now before us on appeal by filing a complaint which, after alleging that the rates then in effect were “not compensatory,” averred that the rates prescribed by the commissioner would result in the confiscation of the company’s property, in violation of provisions of the federal and state constitutions. Pending the determination of the outcome, the circuit court restrained the enforcement of the commissioner’s order. In January, 1935, after the commissioner had filed an answer, testimony was taken before the circuit court which comprises 219 typewritten pages, and additional exhibits were received which now constitute another volume. The cause was then remanded to the commissioner, as required by law, for his further consideration. January 28, 1935, he reaffirmed the order of October 11, 1934, and returned the matter to the circuit court. June 4, 1936, the court entered its findings of fact and on the same day filed the decree which is the subject matter of this appeal. It held invalid that portion of the commissioner’s order which reduced the exchange rates, but approved the remainder of the order which prescribed an annual depreciation reserve charge of 3.995 per cent of the value of depreciable telephone plant. From that part of the circuit court’s order which disapproves the new exchange rates the *217 commissioner appealed. The company has taken no appeal; therefore, the sole issue before us concerns the validity of that part of the commissioner’s order which establishes the rates for exchange service. By exchange service we mean all telephone service rendered without resort to another exchange or long distance wires, and by toll service we mean long distance service. Another word for toll service is interexchange service. These technical terms are not ours — we have borrowed them from the record. The company renders four classes of service: (a) exchange, or local service; (b) intrastate toll service; (c) interstate toll service; and (d) teletype and other non-telephonic communication service. Only the exchange rates are affected by this proceeding.

After the commencement of the suit Commissioner Thomas was succeeded by Mr. Frank C. McColloeh, and the latter was succeeded by the present commissioner, Mr. N. Or. Wallace.

The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company, which was incorporated under the laws of the state of California December 31, 1906, and to which we have heretofore referred as the company, renders the service above summarized in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada. It does so, in part, directly and, in part, through other corporations which it controls through ownership of stock. The principal controlled corporations are the Home Telephone & Telegraph Company of Southern Oregon, the Bell Telephone Company of Nevada, the Home Telephone & Telegraph Company of Spokane, and the Southern California Telegraph Company. The plaintiff owns 99.04 per cent of the common stock of the first of these four companies and 100 per cent of the common stock of the other three. Throughout this decision, where dis *218 tinction is necessary, we shall refer to the company itself as the Pacific Company, and to the company plus its subsidiaries as the Pacific System. ■ According to uncontradicted data compiled by the plaintiff, 14.1 per cent of the Pacific Company’s investment in telephone property is in Oregon, and approximately 8.3 per cent of the Pacific System’s is in Oregon. The company claims that 83.4 per cent of its investment in Oregon is devoted to intrastate telephone use. The remainder renders interstate and non-telephone service. December 31,1933, the American Telephone & Telegraph Company, a New York corporation, owned 85.26 per cent of the plaintiff’s common and 78.17 per cent of the plaintiff’s preferred stock. At that time the plaintiff had outstanding $82,000,000 of preferred and $180,-500,000 of common stock. At the same time its bonded indebtedness aggregated $50,124,000. Its books indicate that its total assets at that time were worth $404,842,-766.62. The above, we hope, will render more understandable the controverted matters which we shall now mention.

The commissioner found that on December 31, 1933, “the fair value of the local exchange properties” of the company within this state, “used and useful for the convenience of the public,” was $15,900,000, and that the fair value of its intrastate toll properties at the same time was $4,925,000, or a total of $20,825,000. The circuit court found that on December. 31, 1933, the fair value of plaintiff’s Oregon local exchange property, used and useful in the public service, was $20,-790,000, and that its property devoted to intrastate toll business was fairly worth $5,481,000, totaling $26,271,-000. It also found that all of the plaintiff’s property in this state devoted to telephone service was fairly worth $31,500,000. Expressed in percentages, the commis *219 sioner found that 65.47 per cent of the property was devoted to exchange and 17.7 per cent to intrastate toll service. The remainder of the property was devoted to interstate use. The circuit court found that 66 per cent was devoted to exchange and 17.4 per cent to intrastate toll use.

The company’s 1933 Oregon gross revenue was $6,-857,187.42.

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

Related

American Studies Association v. Bronner
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2021
Gearhart v. Public Utility Commission
299 P.3d 533 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2013)
Citizens' Utility Board v. Public Utility Commission
962 P.2d 744 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1998)
State v. Davila
481 So. 2d 486 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Dickinson v. Davis
561 P.2d 1019 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1977)
People v. Stewart
242 N.W.2d 760 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1976)
Port of Coos Bay v. City of Coos Bay
541 P.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1975)
Binkowski v. Shelby Township
208 N.W.2d 243 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. General Telephone Co. of the Southeast
189 S.E.2d 705 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY
495 P.2d 751 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1972)
Public Utilities Commission v. Northwest Water Corp.
451 P.2d 266 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1969)
Idaho Underground Water Users Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co.
404 P.2d 859 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1965)
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Hill
367 P.2d 790 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1961)
Kennedy v. State Industrial Accident Commission
345 P.2d 801 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. McQuaid
152 A.2d 825 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1959)
Milwaukie Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Mullen
330 P.2d 5 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1958)
Dimitroff v. State Industrial Accident Commission
306 P.2d 398 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1957)
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Flagg
220 P.2d 522 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 P.2d 942, 158 Or. 210, 1938 Ore. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-telephone-telegraph-co-v-wallace-or-1937.