in equity, the reports of special arbitrators and appraisal commissioners appointed by the courts, the decisions of state railroad and public service commissions and the reports of appraisers appointed by local authority. As much of the material referred to is not available even in a wellequipped law library, the quotations made are very full, and sufficient additional information is given to permit the reader to use and cite the precedents referred to with assurance that he has a full and accurate statement of the essential facts. Even opinions from the published law reports are also quoted and annotated with unusual fullness. This serves several purposes: First, it facilitates the study of the subject by bringing the essential material together; second, many lawyers would not have all the state decisions referred to conveniently at hand; third, the book is also designed for use by public utility managers, accountants, engineers and others to whom the published law reports will not be available. Following the detailed study of specific cases, with full quotations, there is for each subject a brief summary of the law and precedents together with a statement or discussion of the economic principles involved. This method of treatment while something of an innovation, seems to possess decided advantages for a subject of this kind. The subject is new, and the precedents are diverse. The application of a particular precedent depends on the exact wording and context of the decision. No one vitally interested in a valuation problem can be much assisted by a descriptive digest of the findings and discussions of the various courts and commissions. It is almost as economical of space and very much more useful to have in a treatise of this kind the actual words of the courts, supplemented by the necessary explanatory notes. The questions as to what elements should be included in a valuation for any specific purpose are fundamentally economic. But though theories of valuation must be based on economic principles they can only be given legal authority through their acceptance by the courts and in the last analysis by the Supreme Court of the United States. As the entire question is still in a developmental stage and as many of the points involved may not receive final authoritative determination for many years, it has seemed particularly important to include a rather full statement or discussion of economic principles. The author realizes that the conclusions indicated by such discussion are purely tentative. The subject has, however, been approached with an earnest desire to contribute to just and scientific solutions. In viewing the general problem from its many sides and from the necessity in making generalizations of seeing whether the proposed rule can be applied with equal justice in all like cases, many prejudices are necessarily overcome. The test of whether the seemingly good rule will "work both ways" is an excellent corrective. In presenting this comprehensive view of the problems involved in determining fair value, it is hoped that not the least valuable feature will be the opportunity afforded the reader to think out the various problems with most of the factors in view and with an opportunity to test the correctness of his solution by applying it in turn to various actual cases. A full bibliography of valuation and depreciation is included as a final chapter. This is supplemented by a table of cases annotated so as to indicate the important topics of valuation treated in each case. Special care has been taken in the preparation of the index with a view to making it serve the varied needs of the users. ROBERT H. WHITTEN. Brooklyn, May, 1912. Preface... Table of Cases. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2. Valuation for public purchase. 3. Valuation for rate purposes. 4. Valuation dependent on purpose. 5. Same subject-Report of Committee National Association of Rail- 6. Same subject-Report to Massachusetts Joint Board on N. Y., 8. Tax and rate purpose-Nebraska Supreme Court in Bee Building 9. Tax and rate purpose-District Judge McPherson in St. Louis & 10. Tax and rate purpose-Arkansas Railroad Rate Cases, 1911. 21. Justice Brewer in Union Pacific Railway Cases, 1894-No hard and 22. Circuit Judge Ross in San Diego Land and Town Case, 1896- Present value, not cost, the true basis. 23. Circuit Judge Thayer in Kansas City Stock-Yards Case, 1897-Cost 24. Justice Harlan in Smyth v. Ames, 1898-Fair value of property used 25. Justice Harlan in San Diego Land and Town Case, 1899-Reasonable 26. Justice Holmes in San Diego Land and Town Case, 1903-Reasonable § 27. Circuit Judge Morrow in Spring Valley Water Case, 1903-Reason- 28. Justice Peckham in San Joaquin Irrigation Case, 1904-Present 29. Columbus, Ohio, Electricity Rate Case, 1906-Fair present value of tangible and intangible property. 30. Justice Peckham in Consolidated Gas Case, 1909-Fair value gener- 31. Iowa Supreme Court in Cedar Rapids Gas Case, 1909-Reproduction- cost-less-depreciation the controlling factor. 32. Oklahoma Supreme Court in Pioneer Telephone Case, 1911-Repro- duction-cost-less-depreciation the controlling factor. 33. District Judge Evans in Cumberland Telephone Company Case, 1911-Fair value not determined by construction cost. 34. Wisconsin Railroad Commission in Manitowoc Water Case, 1911- Elements of physical valuation. 35. District Judge Farrington in Spring Valley Water Rate Case, 1911- Elements of fair value reviewed. § 50. Usual meaning of market value. 51. Application to railroad valuation. 52. Use by Washington Railroad Commission. 53. Statement of theory by Henry Earle Riggs-Investment value. 54. Competition in its relation to market value theory. 55. Favorable location in its relation to market value theory. 57. Reasonable rates can not be based on market value. 58. The misplaced or partially obsolete plant. 59. Same subject-San Francisco Water Rate Case, 1911. 60. Market value the true standard-Justice Brewer in Reagan ". 61. Market value standard impracticable-California Supreme Court in 62. Value as a going business concern-Circuit Judge McCormick in Metropolitan Trust Co. v. H. & T. C. R. Co., 1898. 63. Value as a producing factor-Circuit Judge Simonton in Mathew ". Corporation Commissioners, 1901. 64. Market value-District Judge Trieber in Arkansas Rate Cases, 1911. |