Public Service Commission v. United Railways & Electric Co.

142 A. 870, 155 Md. 572, 1928 Md. LEXIS 149
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJuly 16, 1928
Docket[No. 52, April Term, 1928.]
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 142 A. 870 (Public Service Commission v. United Railways & Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Public Service Commission v. United Railways & Electric Co., 142 A. 870, 155 Md. 572, 1928 Md. LEXIS 149 (Md. 1928).

Opinions

Offutt, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United Railways & Electric Company of Baltimore came into existence on the fourth day of March, 1899, as the result of a merger of all the street railway lines operating in and near Baltimore, with a total authorized capitalization of $76,000,000, of which $38,000,000 was in bonds, $14,000,-000 in preferred stock, and $24,000,000 in common stock. The base fare at that time charged by its several constituent companies within the city limits was five cents, and by chapter 313 of the Acts of 1900, the consolidated corporation, hereinafter called the company, was specifically limited to a fare of five cents for the transportation of adults, and three cents for children, from any point on its lines within said city to any other point thereon which could be reached directly or by transfer at intersecting points, and that schedule it maintained until 1918.

In the meantime!, the State, moving with a growing trend throughout the country, had abandoned its traditional policy of regulating public service corporations by direct legislative action, and had by chapter 180 of the Acts of 1910 created the Public Service Commission of Maryland, hereinafter called the commission, to which it had committed plenary powers in respect to regulating the rates and service of public utilities, and had repealed existing legislation fixing rates for service furnished by such utilities, such repeal to' become effective when and as the commission determined in accordance with the law that such rates should be superseded by others. Gregg v. Public Serv. Commn., 121 Md. 30.

*576 And on July 19th, 1918, the company for the first time applied to the commission for its approval of a schedule of rates under which it would receive six cents for adults, and a uniform increase of one cent from children between four and twelve years of age and riders using’ commutation tickets. The commission was unable to hear the application immediately, and the company, on August 28th, 1918, with the assent of the commission, filed a revised schedule, which took effect October 1st, 1918, and remained in effect until January 7th, 1919, when it was formerly approved by the commission. °

On May 23rd, 1919, the company applied for a further increase from six to seven cents for cash fares, with four tokens for twenty-five cents, which it subsequently changed to a request that it be permitted to collect a cash fare of ten cents with two tokens for fifteen cents, and on September 30th, 1919, it was permitted to charge a cash fare of seven cents or six and one-half cents when tickets or other tokens were purchased. On December 26th, 1919, it again applied for an increase in its rate schedule, and the commission advanced the base fare from six and one-half cents to seven cents flat. On March 31st, 1921, at the company’s request, the commission authorized a further increase of the base fare to seven and one-half cents, and, on August 1st, 1927, it filed an application for permission to increase its base fare to ten cents, which was 100 per cent, more than it had charged prior to October 1st, 1918, and 33 1/3 per cent, more than it had been allowed to charge from March 31st, 1921, until it filed that application; and, in connection with that request, it alleged an apprehended financial crisis, and urged that it be allowed to put the increase in effect immediately as an emergency measure, pending any hearing that might be had on its application for a permanent increase of its base fare to ten cents. The application for an emergency rate was denied but, on February 10th, 1928, the commission passed an order which denied the application for an increase of the base fare to ten cents, but which permitted the company “to' charge and *577 collect for the transportation of persons over its several street railway lines, in Baltimore City and vicinity, a base rate faro of eight and one-third cents when tickets or fare cheeks- are purchased, or nine cents cash, for the conveyance of each passenger over twelve years of age, and five cents for each child between the ages of four and twelve years, between any of the points designated in the schedule of the said company filed with the commission pursuant to the requirements of the commission’s Order No. 8240 entered in Case No. 1682 on May 26th, 1924, or between intermediate points, in either direction, on any of such lines, except in so far as the zones on any of the said lines are hereinafter modified or changed. That the first fare zone on the Halethorpe line be and it is hereby extended to the terminus of the said line at Halethorpe, effective from and after midnight of February 12th, 1928.”

The company, being dissatisfied with that order, on March 13th, 1928, filed, in Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, a bill of complaint, in which it asked that that order be nullified in so- far as it or any previous order of the commission prevented it from charging a flat ten cent fare, or from continuing the first and second Halethorpe zones, and it further asked that the commission be enjoined from enforcing that order or any prior order limiting the company’s rates. The commission answered, the ease was set down, evidence offered by the commission, the company, and intervening persons interested in the matter, and after argument submitted for decree, and on May 11th, 1928, a decree was filed vacating the order in so far as the same purports to limit the rates of the plaintiff; except, however, as to that portion of said order which extended the first fare zone on the Halethorpe line to the terminus of said line at Halethorpe, as to1 which latter provision in said order “the bill of complaint is- hereby dismissed,” and enjoining the defendants from enforcing that or any other orders of the commission in so far as they limit o:r purport to limit the rates of fare to- be charged by the company. From that decree the company and the com *578 mission appealed, the company on the ground that the court erred in abolishing the second zone on the Halethorpe line, and the commission on the ground that the court erred in vacating so- much of its order as affected the rate of fare to be charged by the company, and in enjoining it from enforcing such order.

It may be noted that the relief granted in the decree is not precisely that prayed in the bill. The commission by its order did three things, it refused the company’s application for a ten cent fare, it fixed an eight and one-third cents fare, and it consolidated the two Halethorpe zones in one. The appellee, in its bill, asks thait all orders of the commission which limit its rates or prevent it from charging a ten cent fare be set aside, and that the commission be enjoined from enforcing any such orders. .The decree does not refer to a ten cent fare at all, but vacates all orders of the commission, so far as they purport to limit the-“rates of the plaintiff,” and it based that ruling upon the commission’s “election” not to have the case remanded to them.

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

Related

Md. Office of People's Counsel v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
192 A.3d 744 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2018)
Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Ass'n v. Maryland Public Service Commission
795 A.2d 160 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2002)
Office of People's Counsel v. Maryland Public Service Commission
733 A.2d 996 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1999)
C. & P. PHONE CO. v. Pub. Serv. Comm.
93 A.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1992)
PG DOCTORS'HOSP. v. HSCR Comm'n
486 A.2d 744 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Public Service Commission v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
329 A.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1974)
Public Service Commission v. Hahn Transportation, Inc.
253 A.2d 845 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. McQuaid
152 A.2d 825 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1959)
Balto. Trans. Co. v. Pub. Ser. Comm.
112 A.2d 687 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1955)
Baltimore Transit Co. v. Public Service Commission
112 A.2d 687 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1955)
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission
93 A.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1952)
Bosley v. Dorsey
60 A.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1948)
Mayor of Crisfield v. Public Service Commission
36 A.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1944)
City of Detroit v. Michigan Public Utilities Commission
286 N.W. 368 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
State Ex Rel. City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission
110 S.W.2d 749 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1937)
In Re United Railways & Electric Co.
11 F. Supp. 717 (D. Maryland, 1935)
Public Service Commission v. Tidewater Express Lines, Inc.
179 A. 176 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 A. 870, 155 Md. 572, 1928 Md. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-service-commission-v-united-railways-electric-co-md-1928.