John A. Roebling's Sons Co. of California v. Idaho Ry., Light & Power Co.

(dissenting). I dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court in this case, on the grounds stated in the dissenting opinion in Crane Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 238 Fed. 693 , — C. C. A. —.

(after stating the facts as above). [1,2] The appellant’s principal contention is that there was a wrongful diversion of income, and that, in view of the extensive system of properties owned and operated by the Railway Company, the work done constituted merely ordinary service extensions and improvement and repairs, and was properly chargeable to maintenance and operation. As set forth in the statement of the case, the Roebling’s Sons Company claim is in much the larger part for new wire for the transmission of electric power over newly constructed transmission lines, running from a central station to an irrigation transmission line and to a certain pumping station. When completed, these lines constituted substantial additions to the lines owned and operated by the Railway Company, or owned by the Idaho-Oregon Company, a separate corporation, the stock and bonds of which were principally owned by the Railway Company. The minor part of the claim, an item of $1,121.15, was for materials used “in connection with general service extensions of the Railway Company and its distributing systems” about and in the village of Eagle, Idaho. We are not advised just what “service extensions”…