64 Colo. 263 | Colo. | 1918
delivered the opinion of the court:
This action is to review an order of our Public Utilities Commission fixing divisions of through rates on coal to be shipped from points in northwestern Colorado, known as the Oak Hills district, on the road of the respondent, The Denvér & Salt Lake Railroad Company, called “the Moffat road,” to points in eastern Colorado, on the road of the petitioner, The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, called “the Rock Island.”
When before the Public Utilities Commission, this case was a part of our No. 8938, decided at this term. Both
In this case, it urges the consideration of facts in its favor which it claims distinguishes its position from that of the Union Pacific and Burlington, for which reasons different results should be reached concerning its divisions.
Regardless of the contention in the other case urged by the respondents other than the Rock Island, that we were without jurisdiction to consider these questions, etc., the Rock Island requests us in this case to not only assume jurisdiction, but to consider the evidence, to determine the evidentiary degree of certain testimony, to hold that the commission erred concerning it, to declare that its order is unjust and unreasonable, etc., to set aside its decision and make a finding from the testimony that its divisions should be in amounts as claimed by it. We can not subscribe to all of these contentions, but agree with those portions recognized as correct in the former opinion, viz, that is that it is our duty to examine the testimony in order to determine whether there is competent testimony to support the findings of the commission and whether the commission’s order is just and reasonable. This, the statute says, we shall do.
For the reasons stated in Case No. 8938, we find no substantial conflict in any material testimony concerning the questions under consideration. The commission held that, as between the Moffat, the Burlington and the Union Pacific roads, the divisions of the new lower rate fixed by it should be prorated in the same proportion as the former divisions, each bearing its proportional share of the reduction; that the divisions between the Moffat and the Rock Island for stations on the Rock Island line east of Limón should be on a parity with the divisions fixed for the Burlington and the Union Pacific out of Denver, although some
In presenting these contentions, the petitioner ignores the distance of the haul from the Oak Hills district, the serv
The Interstate Commerce Commission has fixed the same divisions for the Moffat road for interstate shipments from the Oak Hills district to points east of Colorado over the Rock Island, in both two and three-line hauls, as it has for similar shipments to points east of Colorado over the Burlington and the Union Pacific. For all of these reasons, as well as those stated in Case No. 8938, we can not agree with the petitioner that there is no testimony to sustain the commission in fixing these divisions upon the same basis as those for the Burlington and the Union Pacific through the Denver gateway, when they are ultimately established under correet principles of law.
The petitioner makes the further contention that, accepting the basis of the Union Pacific and the Burlington divisions as controlling upon its shipments through the Denver gateway, the order of the commission is still unjust, un
For the reasons herein stated, as well as those in Case No. 8938, the decision and order of the commission will be set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
Decision en banc.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Bailey not participating.