Summary
In Philadelphia Transportation Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissions, et al., 350 Pa. 373, 39 A.2d 372 (1944), the Philadelphia Transportation Co. had filed rates with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. The City of Philadelphia filed objections.
Summary of this case from P.P. L. v. P.U.C. Sec. of DefenseOpinion
September 27, 1944.
Appeals — Allocatur — Refusal — Moot question.
In a proceeding to determine the propriety of a proposed increase in the rates of a transportation company, in which the Public Utility Commission and a city sought to appeal from the decision of the Superior Court raising the valuation of the company's property and the rate of allowable earnings thereon, and in which it appeared that the company's earnings had so increased that it did not seek to increase its rates, it was Held that the appeals should be refused as raising a moot question.
Petitions, of City of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, for allowance of appeals from judgment of Superior Court, Nos. 7 and 8, October T., 1943, in case of Philadelphia Transportation Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and City of Philadelphia, intervenor. Appeals refused.
Same case in Superior Court: 155 Pa. Super. 9.
Frederic L. Ballard, Allen Hunter White, John C. Phillips and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews Ingersoll, for Philadelphia Transportation Co.
Samuel Graff Miller, Harold A. Scragg and Frederick L. Kiger, for Pa. Public Utility Commission.
Frank F. Truscott, City Solicitor, and G. Coe Farrier, Assistant City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia, intervenor.
On July 31, 1941, the Philadelphia Transportation Company filed tariffs increasing rates. The City of Philadelphia filed objections to the tariffs. The Commission suspended the tariffs and proceeded to inquire whether the proposed rates were just and reasonable. It concluded that the existing rates were just and reasonable and should remain in effect. The Transportation Company appealed to the Superior Court. That court holding on April 18, 1944, that the Commission had valued the company's property inadequately, raised the valuation and also the rate of earnings allowable thereon. The City and the Commission now complain of this action. There has been no change in the rates which the Commission found to be reasonable.
We understand from the Commission's petition that the Transportation Company's earnings have so increased during and since the period of the proceeding before the Commission that the company, after that increase became manifest, did not seek an increase in its rates.
With the existing rates remaining in effect, it is of no legal consequence in this proceeding, that the Commission and the learned court differed in their valuations or in the permissible rate of earnings thereon. No useful purpose can be served by allowing the appeal for the discussion of these subjects. If in the future, increased rates are proposed, such matters may become relevant; a review now would be merely academic.
Appeals refused.