Neil v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Idaho

Citation32 Idaho 44,178 P. 271
PartiesJ. M. NEIL and CHARLES ORR, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, JOHN W. GRAHAM, A. L. FREEHAFER and GEORGE E. ERB, as Members of said Commission, Defendants
Decision Date17 January 1919
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT-CERTIORARI-MATTERS ARISING BEFORE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.

1. The original jurisdiction of this court is fixed by the constitution and cannot be broadened or extended by the legislature.

2. When the constitution was adopted and ratified, jurisdiction was therein granted to this court to issue the writ of certiorari then known and in use in the territory of Idaho, and none other.

3. The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court is limited by the constitution to the review of decisions of the district courts, or the judges thereof, and it cannot entertain an appeal directly from the public utilities commission.

Original proceeding to procure a writ of review directed to the public utilities commission. Dismissed.

Case dismissed. No Costs awarded.

B. W Oppenheim and J. M. Lampert, for Plaintiffs.

"Where the judicial power of courts, either original or appellate is fixed by constitutional provisions, the legislature cannot either limit or extend that jurisdiction." (Chinn v Superior Court, 156 Cal. 478, 105 P. 580; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (U. S.) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes.)

The legislature cannot impair the jurisdiction of a constitutional court either by preventing its exercise or creating a co-ordinate authority. (Flanigan v. Guggenheim Smelting Co., 63 N.J.L. 647, 650, 44 A. 762; Smith v. Livesey, 67 N.J.L. 269, 51 A. 453; Ex parte Thompson, 85 N.J. Eq. 221, 96 A. 102, 106; Public Service Electric Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commrs., 88 N.J.L. 603, 96 A. 1013.)

The jurisdiction of the courts as established by the constitution cannot be altered by the legislature. (Thompson v. Williams, 6 Cal. 88; Hicks v. Bell, 3 Cal. 219; Burgoyne v. Supervisors, 5 Cal. 9; Parsons v. Tuolumne County Water Co., 5 Cal. 43, 63 Am. Dec. 76; People v. Applegate, 5 Cal. 295; Fitzgerald v. Urton, 4 Cal. 235; Wilson v. Roach, 4 Cal. 362; Zander v. Coe, 5 Cal. 230; Haight v. Gay, 8 Cal. 297, 68 Am. Dec. 323; People v. Peralta, 3 Cal. 379; Caulfield v. Hudson, 3 Cal. 389; People v. Day, 15 Cal. 91; In re Jessup, 81 Cal. 408, 21 P. 976, 22 P. 742, 1028, 6 L. R. A. 594.)

"Since the right of appeal in the absence of some constitutional authorization is purely of statutory origin, it exists only where expressly given, and cannot be extended to cases which do not come within the statute." (2 Cyc. 519.)

There can be no appeal from the decisions of a railroad commission to the courts except pursuant to express constitutional or valid statutory provision. (State ex rel. Railroad Com. v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 122 N.C. 877, 29 S.E. 334.)

The legislature cannot enlarge the scope of a writ beyond what it had at the time the constitution was adopted. (Camron v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 550.)

The writ of certiorari lies only when there is a want or excess of jurisdiction in the proceeding complained of. (11 Corpus Juris, 103.) This is the limit and scope of the writ in this state. (Utah Assn. of Credit Men v. Budge, 16 Idaho 751, 102 P. 390, 691; Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Wood, 13 Idaho 794, 93 P. 257; McConnell v. State Board of Equalization, 11 Idaho 652, 83 P. 494.)

California, having the same statute, also has an unbroken line of decisions to the same effect. (Gwinn v. Hamilton (Cal.), 7 P. 837; Sherer v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. 653, 31 P. 565; In re Tinn, 148 Cal. 773, 113 Am. St. 354, 84 P. 152; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 15 Cal.App. 515, 115 P. 248; Karry v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County, 162 Cal. 281, 122 P. 475, 128 P. 760.)

The writ is not issued for the purpose of reviewing or determining the "lawfulness" or the effect of an order or decision made by the inferior tribunal, but merely to ascertain and determine whether in making such order or decision the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the rules prescribed for its action. (Murphy v. Board of Equalization, 6 Idaho 745, 59 P. 715; Coeur d'Alene Min. Co. v. Woods, 15 Idaho 26, 96 P. 210; Gunderson v. District Court, 14 Idaho 478, 94 P. 166; Lansdon v. State Board of Canvassers, 18 Idaho 596, 111 P. 133; People v. Dwinelle, 29 Cal. 632.)

"The officer or tribunal to whom the writ of certiorari is issued must be an inferior officer or tribunal, exercising judicial function, and the proceeding brought up for review must be a judicial proceeding." (People v. Bush, 40 Cal. 344, 346; Quinchard v. Alameda Board of Trustees, 113 Cal. 664, 45 P. 856; Cook v. Civil Service Commission, 160 Cal. 589, 117 P. 663.)

If upon the return to the writ it appears that the tribunal, in making the order, acted within its jurisdiction, the only action for the court is to discharge the writ and dismiss the proceeding. It has no jurisdiction, either to examine the validity of the order or determine its effect upon the rights of the petitioner. (Central P. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization of Placer County, 46 Cal. 667. 671; Spring Valley Water Works v. Bryant, 52 Cal. 133, 138; Sherer v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. 653, 654, 31 P. 565; 11 Corpus Juris, 103.)

If the order made by the tribunal while acting within its authority violates any constitutional right of the petitioner or invades any right of property, the remedy therefor must be sought in the court of original jurisdiction which has been provided therefor by the constitution. (Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commrs., 87 N.J.L. 597, 92 A. 606, 94 A. 634, 95 A. 1079, L. R. A. 1918A, 421.)

In making the order complained of herein, the public utilities commission was not, nor could it be, exercising any judicial function. (Public Utilities Reports 1917F, 617; People v. Board of Supervisors, 122 Cal. 421, 423, 55 P. 131; State v. Dunn, 86 Minn. 301, 304, 90 N.W. 772; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L.Ed. 150, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes.)

Sec. 20, art. 5, of the constitution confers upon the district courts original jurisdiction in all cases both at law and in equity, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be conferred by law. If the order made by the public utilities commission cannot be a judgment or decree, then said order, if violating any constitutional right of these plaintiffs or if it would cause any injury to their property, may be prevented upon an application to the proper district court. (State ex rel. Railroad Commrs. v. Florida East Coast R. R. Co., 58 Fla. 524, 50 So. 425; Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483, 105 P. 582.)

T. A. Walters, Attorney General, and J. P. Pope, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendants, rely on authorities cited in their brief in Humbird Lumber Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, post, p. 80, 178 P. 284.

MORGAN, C. J. RICE, J., Concurring. BUDGE, J., Dissenting.

OPINION

MORGAN, C. J.

On December 11, 1917, the attorney general filed with the public utilities commission a complaint against plaintiffs herein in which it was alleged that they were common carriers engaged in operating a ferry upon the waters of Snake River for the transportation of persons and property for compensation, and that they had failed and refused, and were failing and refusing, to furnish facilities and to serve the public in the use thereof.

The plaintiffs above named answered the complaint of the attorney general and denied that they were common carriers and admitted that they had failed and refused, and were failing and refusing, to furnish facilities to serve the public in the use of the ferry. By way of separate answer they alleged that the ferry operated by them had always been operated as a private means of transportation; that it would be impossible and unlawful for them to operate a public ferry at the place where they cross Snake River; that there is no public approach thereto, there being no public highway leading to the landing; also that an order compelling them to operate a public ferry at the place in question would amount to a confiscation of their property because there is not sufficient business to warrant the necessary expenditure involved in doing so.

Testimony was taken before the commission and it made and filed a decision consisting of findings of fact and an order, the latter being as follows:

"It is therefore ordered, That the defendants, J. M. Neil and Charles Orr, doing business under a partnership, or jointly or severally as owner, or owners, of that certain ferry across the Snake River, in the State of Idaho, commonly known and called 'Clark's Ferry,' be required to furnish such facilities and perform such services as may be requisite and necessary to meet all just and reasonable demands which may be made in the use of said ferry, and forthwith to file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Idaho a schedule of rates and charges for the transportation of persons and property thereon."

This action is brought for the purpose of procuring a review, by this court, of that decision and order in the manner provided for in sec. 63 (a) of the Public Utilities Act.

Since the arguments were heard grave constitutional questions have arisen causing this court to doubt its jurisdiction to dispose of the matter, as presented, and counsel in this case, as well as in Humbird Lumber Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, post, p. 80, 178 P. 284, which was pending at the same time and involved the same constitutional questions, were invited to submit, and they have submitted, briefs thereon.

Sess Laws 1913, chap. 61, sec. 56, p. 282, provides...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Codd v. McGoldrick Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 7 May 1928
    ... 267 P. 439 46 Idaho 256 AMBROSE W. CODD and JOHN V. ALLEN, a ... plaintiffs state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of ... Great Southern R. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Com., ... 210 Ala. 151, P. U. R. 1924A, ... Railroad Com., 194 Cal. 757, 230 P. 661; Neil v ... Public Utilities Com., 32 Idaho 44, 178 ... courts, though the utilities commission may, and at times ... must, in the orderly ... ...
  • Capital Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 29 November 1926
    ... 262 P. 863 44 Idaho 1 CAPITAL WATER COMPANY, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, and CITY OF BOISE and J. F. KOELSCH, Respondents No ... The ... commission had the right to determine what property was used ... and useful in the public service. (C. S., sec. 2471; Neil ... v. Public Utilities Com., 32 Idaho 44, 178 P. 271.) ... The ... commission correctly ruled that the instrument upon which ... ...
  • Petition of Idaho State Federation of Labor, 8160
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 30 June 1954
    ...and judicial departments of the state government, than that applied to the legislative department. The case of Neil v. Public Utilities Commission, 32 Idaho 44, 178 P. 271, in holding that the jurisdiction of this court is limited within the confines of Sec. 9, Art. 5, of our constitution, ......
  • Wright v. Callahan
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 3 February 1940
    ... 99 P.2d 961 61 Idaho 167 CALVIN E. WRIGHT, State Auditor of the State ... therefore, disregarded. ( Neil v. Public Utilities ... Com., 32 Idaho 44, 178 ... ...
  • 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