the rate made by the corporation was submitted to and observed until it was declared by the commission to be unreasonable.
"It would be an injustice to the complainant as well as others who are required to pay the unreasonable rate to allow the matter to he taken to the courts upon appeal to be tried de novo and allow the old rate, which has been declared to be unreasonable, to remain in force, pending the judicial determination.
"To try the case anew in the courts, the old rate remaining in force meanwhile, and keep the complaint entangled in litigation, would not only be unjust to him, but would delay the equitable adjustment of rates by deterring others from making complaint, for the majority will submit to wrongs rather than engage in lengthy litigation with wealthy corporations.
"The complainant having won his case before the commission, should be relieved from further litigation and thereafter the state must defend the acts of the commission, for it is a matter of public concern. Therefore, let any party in interest who is dissatisfied with any order of the commission bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the commission as defendant to set aside any order made by it, fixing any rate, on the ground that the rate made by the commission is unlawful.
"In trials before the courts, if there is offered any new material evidence or any different evidence than that offered at the hearing before the commission, the court shall stay its proceedings for fifteen days and remand the case to the commission for rehearing. This procedure prevents the withholding of material evidence at the hearing before the commission for the purpose of introducing it at the court trial, thereby securing a reversal of the order and thus discrediting the commission, and it compels the submission of all testimony to the commission for consideration before its final action. At the hearing before the commission the question passed