Board of Public Utility Com Rs v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas
| Decision Date | 14 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 253,253 |
| Citation | 63 L.Ed. 687,249 U.S. 425,39 S.Ct. 332 |
| Parties | BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COM'RS v. COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edward S. Bailey and S. T. Ansell, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Mr. F. C. Fisher, of Manila, P. I., for appellee and defendant in error.
By a judgment rendered March 6, 1916, the court below annulled an order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the Philippine Islands requiring a corporate common carrier to report annually various matters pertaining to its finances and operations, the ground of the judgment being that section 16 (e) of Act 2307 of the local Legislature, under which the board acted, violated the organic law of the Philippines (32 Stat. 691, c. 1369), in that it confided to the board the determination of what the reports should contain and therefore amounted to a delegation of legislative power. 34 Phil. Rep. 136. The board brought the judgment here for review, and the carrier now suggests that through a change in the local statute the question on which the judgment turned has become merely a moot one.
After the case was brought here the Legislature, by Act 2694, so amended section 16 (e) as to cause the section itself to prescribe in detail what such reports should contain and thereby abrogated the provision on which the order was based and which the court held invalid. That provision therefore is no longer in force, and it is to the new provision that the board and carrier must give effect. Even if the original provision was valid, the order made under it became inoperative when the new provision was substituted in its place. Whether the order was based on a valid or an invalid statute consequently has become merely a moot question.
In this situation we are not called upon to consider the propriety of the judgment below, the proper course being as is shown by many precedents, to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with a direction that it be dismissed without costs to either party. United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103, 2 L. Ed. 49; New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U. S. 170, 16 Sup. Ct. 321, 40 L. Ed. 382, and 161 U. S. 101, 16 Sup. Ct. 492, 40 L. Ed. 632; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115, 22 Sup. Ct. 45, 46 L. Ed. 111; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeFunis v. Odegaard
...L.Ed. 387 (1916); Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441 (1917); Board of Pub. Util. Comm'rs v. Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U.S. 425, 39 S.Ct. 332, 63 L.Ed. 687 (1919); Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030 (1919); He......
-
Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, Florida
...new legislation permitting such commitment only of juveniles 13 and under); Board of Public Utility Comm'rs v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas, 249 U.S. 425, 426, 39 S.Ct. 332, 332, 63 L.Ed. 687 (1919) (challenge to statute alleged to constitute unlawful delegation of legislative p......
-
Finberg v. Sullivan
...L.Ed. 632 (1896). The turning point in the Supreme Court practice is generally taken to be Board of Pub. Util. Comm'rs v. Compania Gen. de Tabacos, 249 U.S. 425, 39 S.Ct. 332, 63 L.Ed. 687 (1919), where the Court identified vacation of judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss as the......
-
Howard v. Wilbur
...61 L.Ed. 441; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030; Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compania General, 249 U.S. 425, 39 S.Ct. 332, 63 L.Ed. 687; United States v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812, 49 S.Ct. 262, 73 L.Ed. 971; Joe Tin Lun v. Bond, 27......