Columbia Baking Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.

The trial judge did not err in.finding for the defendant on count one. The contract provided that “no rate charged hereunder shall exceed the rate prescribed or approved therefor by the Commission.” As stated by the trial judge, the plaintiff does not contend that it paid more than the rate spe-' cifieally established or approved for the plaintiff or its class of consumers. This ruling is also correct for the reason stated in the following division of this opinion.

Count two seeks recovery on the ground that rule three of the Commission had the effect of fixing the lower rate for all…