Natatorium Co. v. Erb

Citation34 Idaho 209,200 P. 348
PartiesTHE NATATORIUM COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE E. ERB, E. M. SWEELEY and J. M. THOMPSON, Comprising the PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, Defendants, and BOISE CITY, a Municipal Corporation; JESSIE S. HURTT and EDWARD STEIN, Intervenors
Decision Date27 July 1921
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION-JURISDICTION-REMEDY BY APPEAL-ADEQUACY - COMMISSION AS INTERVENOR - WITHDRAWAL BEFORE JUDGMENT-COMMISSION NOT JUDICIAL BODY.

1. The adequacy of the remedy by appeal does not depend upon and is not to be tested merely by the delay, expense or inconvenience which may result to the party availing himself of such remedy.

2. Held, in the instant case, that the provisions of Const art. 5, sec. 9, as amended in 1920, and Sess. Laws, chap. 72 p. 141, passed by the legislature for the purpose of making effective said section as amended, afford plaintiff herein an adequate remedy by appeal from any order of the Public Utilities Commission to this court.

3. The Public Utilities Commission, in exercising the powers conferred upon it by the legislature, must in each instance first pass upon the question of its own jurisdiction, and in so doing it exercises a judicial function, but not a judicial power.

4. An intervenor in a case in court is not estopped by the judgment of that court where he withdrew from the case before judgment and his claim was not passed upon by such judgment.

5. Held, that the intervention of the Public Utilities Commission in an action in the district court where plaintiff herein was a party and the same question was involved as here presented raises no presumption that the commission as such entertains bias or prejudice against this plaintiff, but, on the contrary, the presumption is that in a proceeding before it the commission will be guided only by the evidence therein adduced.

6. The Public Utilities Commission is an arm of the legislative authority and not a court of justice within the meaning of Const., art. 1, sec. 18.

Original application for Writ of Prohibition. Denied.

Alternative writ quashed and the writ of prohibition denied. Costs awarded to defendants.

Richard H. Johnson and C. H. Nixon, for Plaintiff.

A Public Service Commission is without power to compel a hearing before it, of a private corporation, over which it has no jurisdiction. (Quinby v. Public Service Commission, 223 N.Y. 244, P. U. R. 1918D, 30, 3 A. L. R. 685, 119 N.E. 433, 22 R. C. L., p. 21, sec. 20.)

The question of whether or not plaintiff is a public utility is a judicial question. (Neil v. Public Utilities Commission, 32 Idaho 44, 178 P. 271.) In this case the question has been determined by a district court adversely to the defendants. In other words, the plaintiff's status at present is that it is not a public utility. This ground of itself would justify the overruling of the demurrer. (Chandler v. Railroad Commrs., 141 Mass. 208, 5 N.E. 509; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 485, 493, 9 N.W. 737; Oklahoma City v. Corporation Commission, 80 Okla. 194, 195 P. 498.)

The commission itself went on record in its verified petition and complaint in the case of Stoehr v. Natatorium Co., that plaintiff was a public utility.

To compel a litigant to submit to a judge who has already prejudged the matter would be manifestly farcical and wrong. (State ex rel. Barnard v. Board of Education, 19 Wash. 8, 67 Am. St. 706, 52 P. 317, 40 L. R. A. 317; State ex rel. McAllister v. Slate, 278 Mo. 570, 214 S.W. 85, 8 A. L. R. 1226, 1238.)

Roy L. Black, Attorney General, and A. H. Conner, Assistant, for Defendants.

An appeal may be taken to the supreme court from any order of the Public Utilities Commission. (Sec. 9, art. 5 (as amended in 1920); chap. 72, Laws 1921, p. 141.)

The adequacy of the remedy by appeal does not depend upon delay, expense or the convenience of the parties. (Olden v. Paxton, 27 Idaho 597, 150 P. 40; Blackwell Lumber Co. v. Flynn, 27 Idaho 632, 150 P. 42; Willman v. District Court, 4 Idaho 11, 35 P. 692; Fraser v. Davis, 29 Idaho 70, 156 P. 913, 158 P. 233; State ex rel. Board v. Superior Court, 73 Wash. 296, 131 P. 816; Chicago & N.W. R. R. Co. v. Dougherty, 39 S.D. 147, 163 N.W. 715, P. U. R. 1917F, 617; Lindley v. Superior Court, 141 Cal. 220, 74 P. 765; People v. District Court, 11 Colo. 574, 19 P. 541; State v. Superior Court, 20 Wash. 502, 55 P. 933; State ex rel. Carrau v. Superior Court, 30 Wash. 700, 71 P. 648; Agassiz v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. 101, 27 P. 49.)

Former adjudication is not binding on an intervenor or party who withdraws or abandons his claim. An intervenor, to be bound, must make himself actively and substantially a party. (Keane v. Pittsburg Lead Mining Co., 17 Idaho 179, 105 P. 60; Wilson v. Trowbridge, 71 Iowa 345, 32 N.W. 373; Guthrie v. Pierson (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S.W. 405; Lincoln Upholstering Co. v. Baker, 82 Neb. 592, 118 N.W. 321; 23 Cyc. 1243, 1249-1251; Deering & Co. v. Richardson Kimball Co., 109 Cal. 73, 41 P. 801; Singleton v. National Land Co., 183 Iowa 1108, 167 N.W. 97; Black on Judgments, 2d ed., sec. 576, p. 822.)

The estoppel of a former adjudication extends only to the facts that were in issue. Changed conditions of fact or law make former adjudication inapplicable. (23 Cyc. 1161, 1290, 1314; 10 Ency. U.S. S.Ct. Rep. 772; Black on Judgments, 2d ed., p. 925.)

The Public Utilities Commission exercises legislative powers and in doing so it has the right to reach conclusions and make decisions on questions which must ultimately be decided by the courts. It thus exercises judicial functions but not judicial powers. (Idaho Power & Light Co. v. Blomquist, 26 Idaho 222, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 282, 141 P. 1083; Neil v. Public Utilities Commission, 32 Idaho 44, 178 P. 271.)

J. M. Lampert, Davidson & Davidson and Kendrick Johnson, for Intervenors, file no brief.

BUDGE, J. Rice, C. J., and McCarthy, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

This is an original application for writ of prohibition to prohibit and restrain the Public Utilities Commission of Idaho from proceeding with the hearing of an order to show cause in the matter of rates charged by the Natatorium Company for hot-water service, or with any other matter relating to the regulating of the rates of said company for such service until final determination by the courts of the question whether plaintiff is a public utility. Upon the filing of plaintiff's affidavit, an alternative writ was issued by this court, and defendants have demurred to the affidavit and moved to quash the writ.

Plaintiff's affidavit discloses that on Oct. 28, 1920, the commission issued and served upon plaintiff an order to show cause why plaintiff should put into effect certain rates for its hot-water service other than those contained in the schedule of rates on file with the commission; that plaintiff appeared specially before the commission and moved to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that it was not a public utility as to its hot-water service; that on Dec. 27, 1920, plaintiff's attorney requested that the hearing before the commission on the show cause order be continued until the final determination of the case of Stoehr v. The Natatorium Company, then pending in the district court; that this request was denied, and that on April 16, 1921, the commission notified plaintiff that it would proceed with the hearing on the order to show cause.

It further appears from the affidavit that the case of Stoehr v. The Natatorium Company was commenced in the district court on Dec. 22, 1920, to procure a writ of mandate to compel the company, as a public utility, to furnish Stoehr with hot water for heating purposes; that the company filed its answer on the same day, denying that it was a public utility; that on Dec. 28, 1920, the commission intervened in the action, and filed its complaint in intervention, alleging that plaintiff was a public utility; that the commission with drew from the case by permission of the court on Feb. 12, 1921; that on Feb. 14, 1921, the court rendered its decision to the effect that the company was not a public utility; and that an appeal is now pending from that judgment to this court.

In support of its application, counsel for plaintiff makes four contentions:

1. That prohibition is the proper remedy in this case for the reason that the appeal from orders of the commission as provided by Const., art. 5, sec. 9, and Sess. Laws 1921, p. 141, is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, for the reason that it is not broader than the scope of review vested in this court under C. S., sec. 2504, and that should the commission decide adversely to plaintiff it would be confronted with two alternatives, either to appeal and incur the risk of having this court refuse to review the facts, or to ignore the commission's order and compel it to go into the district court to enforce its order and there again try out the issue which has already been tried and determined in the Stoehr case.

2. That the commission is without jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiff is a public utility, that being a judicial question, which has been decided in the negative by a court of competent jurisdiction.

3. That the commission ought not to pass upon that question for the reason that it intervened in the Stoehr case and alleged that plaintiff was a public utility, and

4. That the writ should issue in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of this court, since the same question was decided in the Stoehr case, now on appeal.

C S., sec. 7267, provides: "The writ of prohibition . . . . arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, when such proceedings...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Kouni, 6434
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1938
    ... ... powers upon executive tribunals in the exercise of the police ... power. ( In re Hinkle, 33 Idaho 605, 613, 196 P ... 1035; Lyon v. City of Payette, 38 Idaho 705, 224 P ... 793; Humbird Lumber Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 39 ... Idaho 505, 228 P. 271; Natatorium Co. v. Erb, 34 ... Idaho 209, 215, 200 P. 348.) ... Operator's ... license confers no vested right, only a mere privilege ... subject to revocation for the reasons and in the manner ... provided by law. ( Sleeper v. Woodmansee, 11 ... Cal.App.2d 595, 54 P.2d 519; Commonwealth v ... ...
  • Spivey v. District Court of Third Judicial District of State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1923
    ... ... jurisdiction to proceed with a new trial, prohibition does ... not lie, because there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy ... by appeal. (C. S., sec. 7268; Rust v. Stewart, 7 ... Idaho 558, 64 P. 222; Olden v. Paxton, 27 Idaho 597, ... 150 P. 40; Natatorium Co. v. Erb, 34 Idaho 209, 200 ... P. 348.) Much depends upon the facts of the individual case ... Where, as here, a district court has tried a case, entered ... judgment, denied a motion for a new trial, passing upon all ... questions, and now is about to try it again without any ... ...
  • Pfirman v. Probate Court of County of Shoshone, State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1937
    ... ... ( ... Stein v. Morrison, 9 Idaho 426, 75 P. 246; Olden ... v. Paxton, 27 Idaho 597, 150 P. 40; Fraser v ... Davis, 29 Idaho 70, 156 P. 913; Skeen v. District ... Court, 29 Idaho 331, 158 P. 1072; Little v ... Broxon, 31 Idaho 303, 170 P. 918; Natatorium Co. v ... Erb, 34 Idaho 209, 200 P. 348; Maxwell v ... Terrell, 37 Idaho 767, 220 P. 411; Spivey v ... District Court, 37 Idaho 774, 219 P. 203; Evans v ... District Court, 47 Idaho 267, 275 P. 99; Evans v ... District Court, 50 Idaho 60, 293 P. 323; State v ... Leonardson, 51 Idaho ... ...
  • McNeal v. Idaho Public Utilities Com'n
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 22, 2006
    ...is an arm of the legislative authority, and not a court of justice, within the meaning of Const. art. 1, § 18." Natatorium Co. v. Erb, 34 Idaho 209, 216, 200 P. 348, 350 (1921). The unambiguous language of I.C. § 28-2-302 specifies a situation in which a court — not the Commission — is to h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT