People ex rel. New York & Queens Gas Co. v. McCall

• Decision Date: 03 October 1916
• Citation: 113 N.E. 795,219 N.Y. 84
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO. v. McCALL et al., Public Service Com'rs.

219 N.Y. 84

113 N.E. 795

PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO.

v.McCALL et al., Public Service Com'rs.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 3, 1916.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Certiorari by the People, on the relation of the New York & Queens Gas Company, to review an order of Edward E. McCall and others, commissioners, constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York for the First District, requiring the relator to extend its mains and service to Douglaston and Douglas Manor. From an order of the Appellate Division (171 App. Div. 580,157 N. Y. Supp. 707), sustaining the writ, and annuling its order, the commissioners appeal. Order reversed, and order of the Public Service Commission reinstated.

Certain residents and property owners of Douglaston and Douglas Manor in the Third ward of the borough of Queens, New York city, applied to the Public Servie Commission of the First District for an order requiring the relator in this proceeding, the New York & Queens Gas Company, to extend its gas mains and services in such manner as may be necessary reasonably to supply with gas the communities of Douglaston and Douglas Manor. On a review of the proceedings by the Supreme Court at the Appellate Division, the order of the Public Service Commission was annulled. From that determination the residents and property owners have appealed to this court.

Douglaston and Douglas Manor are situated in the northeast corner of the borough of Queens near Little Neck Bay. To the southeast of Douglaston and also within the third ward of the borough is Little Neck, which extends to the borough line. To the west are the communities of Bayside and Flushing which are separated from Douglaston by a salt marsh about half a mile or more wide, and extending a mile inland. Through the middle of the marsh runs a creek navigable for small boats and along each side of the marsh is a high hill. The relator is at present supplying gas to Flushing and Bayside, but its mains and pipes are not sufficient to meet the additional requirements of Douglastion and Douglas Manor. The company's gas plant is located in Flushing about six miles from Douglaston, and it will be necessary to lay a main from the plant to Bayside and carry it from there down the hill, over the marsh and up the hill on the other side to reach Douglaston.

Douglaston and Douglas Manor are supplied with electricity for lighting purposes, and gas is desired mainly for cooking during the summer months. The Appellate Division decided that upon the whole case it was unreasonable to require the relator to extend its services in compliance with the order of the public service commission. Further facts appear in the opinion.

Arthur Du Bois, of New York City, for appellants.

John A. Garver, of New York City, for respondent.

CUDDEBACK, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The Public Service Commissions are authorized by law--

‘to order reasonable improvements and extensions of the works, wires, poles, lines, conduits, ducts and other reasonable devices, apparatus and property of gas corporations, electrical corporations and municipalities.’ Pub. Serv. Comm. Law [Cons. Laws, c. 48] § 66.

Under the authority of this statute the Public Service Commission for the First District made the order requiring the relator to extend its gas mains and services to meet the reasonable requirements of Douglaston and Douglas Manor.

[1] In applying the provisions of this statute the court at the Appellate Division said:

‘We have no doubt that under this law the question remains for the court to determine upon the review of the determination of the Public Service Commission whether the extension ordered was a reasonable extension.’

This statement of the law is quite likely to create a misapprehension as to the power of the court. The court has no power to substitute its own judgment of what is reasonable in place of the determination of the Public Service Commission, and it can only annul the order of the Commission for the violation of some rule of law.

The Public Service Commissions were created by the Legislature to perform very important functions in the community, namely, to regulate the great public service corporations of the state in the conduct of their business, and compel those corporations adequately to discharge their duties to the public and not to exact therefor excessive charges. It was assumed perhaps, by the Legislature that the members of the Public Service Commissions would acquire special knowledge of the matters intrusted to them by experience and study, and that when the plan of their creation was fully developed they would prove efficient instrumentalities for dealing with the complex problems presented by the activities of these great corporations. It was not intended that the courts should interfere with the Commissions or review their determinations further than is necessary to keep them within the law and protect the constitutional rights of the corporations over which they were given control.

The law governing the Commissions is well expressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 130 Minn. 57, 153 N. W. 247. It is there said:

‘The order may be vacated as unreasonable if it is contrary to some provision of the federal or state Constitution or laws or if it is beyond the power granted to the Commission, or if it is based on some mistake of law, or if there is no evidence to support it, or if, having regard to the interests of both the public and the carrier, it is so arbitrary as to be beyond the exercise of a reasonable discretion and judgment.’

See, also, People ex rel. Town of Hempstead v. State Board of Tax Com'rs, 214 N. Y. 594, 108 N. E. 913;People ex rel. Morrissey v. Waldo, 212 N. Y. 174, 105 N. E. 829.

In Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 215 U. S. 452, 470, 30 Sup. Ct. 155, 160 (54 L. Ed. 280), the Chief Judge, after stating the power of the court, continued:

‘It is equally plain that such perennial powers lend no support whatever to the proposition that we may, under the guise of exerting judicial power, usurp merely administrative functions by setting aside a lawful administrative order upon our conception as to whether the administrative power has been wisely exercised. Power to make the order, and not the mere expediency or wisdom of having made it, is the question.’

The court at the Appellate Division did not therefore have the power to determine that the extension of the relator's gas mains and pipes ordered by the Public Service Commission was unreasonable in the...