City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co of New York
| Decision Date | 01 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 566,566 |
| Citation | 253 U.S. 219,40 S.Ct. 511,64 L.Ed. 870 |
| Parties | CITY OF NEW YORK v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Vincent Victory, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. John A. Garver, of New York City, for appellees.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court by Mr. Justice DAY.
The Consolidated Gas Company of New York brought suit to enjoin the enforcement of the New York 80-cent gas law. The jurisdiction was invoked solely upon the ground that the rate was confiscatory and hence violated constitutional rights of the company. The city of New York applied for leave to intervene as a party defendant in the action. The District Judge denied the petition for intervention, stating that the Public Service Commission, the Attorney General, and the district attorney properly represented private consumers; that the city had no interest in the litigation as a consumer, was not the governmental body which had fixed the rate, and was not charged with the duty of enforcing it. From the order (Consolidated Gas Co. of New York v. Newton, 256 Fed. 238) denying the application to intervene, the city of New York prosecuted an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the latter court (260 Fed. 1022) affirmed the order of the District Court.
The application was addressed to the discretion of the District Court, and the order appealed from was not of that final character which furnished the basis for appeal. Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14, 22, 24 L. Ed. 49; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311, 315, 20 Sup. Ct. 636, 44 L. Ed. 782; Ex parte in the Matter or Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578, 581, 32 Sup. Ct. 833, 56 L. Ed. 323. As the jurisdiction of the District Court was based upon constitutional grounds only, the case was not appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals. But, an appeal having been taken and a final order made in the Circuit Court of Appeals, we have jurisdiction to review the question of jurisdiction of that court. Judicial Code, § 241 (Comp. St. § 1218); Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73, 23 Sup. Ct. 604, 47 L. Ed. 712.
The proper course is to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court, with directions to dismiss the appeal. Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Egg Product v. United States, 226 U. S. 172, 184, 33 Sup. Ct. 50, 57 L. Ed. 174; Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318, 36 Sup. Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of the State of California v. United States
...833, 56 L.Ed. 323; In re Engelhard & Sons Co., 1914, 231 U.S. 646, 34 S.Ct. 258, 58 L.Ed. 416; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 1920, 253 U.S. 219, 40 S. Ct. 511, 64 L.Ed. 870; New York City v. New York Tel. Co., 1923, 261 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 372, 67 L.Ed. 673; Palmer v. Guaranty Tr......
-
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Star Pub. Co.
...57 L. Ed. 1571; In re Engelhard, supra; Ex parte Young, supra; Mo. v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., supra; City of N. Y. v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U. S. 219, 40 S. Ct. 511, 64 L. Ed. 870. The court, in the case of New York v. New York Tel. Co., 261 U. S. 312, at page 315, 43 S. Ct. 372, 373 (67......
-
State of Washington v. United States
...Court, and the denial thereof was not a final decision from which an appeal may be prosecuted. New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U.S. 219, 221, 40 S.Ct. 511, 512, 64 L.Ed. 870; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U.S. 311, 314, 317, 20 S.Ct. 636, 44 L.Ed. 782; Guion v. Liverpo......
-
Bergen County v. Port of New York Authority
... ... Mulhern, Newark, attorney; Sidney Goldstein, Gen. Counsel to Port of New York Authority, New York City, and Isobel Muirhead, Linden, of counsel) ... The opinion of the court was delivered by ... WEINTRAUB, C.J ... Chicago, A. & E. Ry. Co., 3 Ill.App.2d 29, 120 N.E.2d 370 (App.Ct.1954); Consolidated Gas Co. v. Newton, 256 F. 238 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1919), affirmed 260 F. 1022 (2 Cir., 1919), reversed on procedural grounds 250 U.S. 219, 40 S.Ct. 511, 64 ... ...