Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co of New York Same v. New York Queens Gas Co Same v. Central Union Gas Co Same v. Northern Union Gas Co Same v. New York Mut Gaslight Co Same v. Standard Gaslight Co of City of New York Same v. New Amsterdam Gas Co Same v. East River Gas Co of Long Island City

• Citation: 259 U.S. 101,42 S.Ct. 438,66 L.Ed. 844
• Decision Date: 15 May 1922
• Docket Number: No. 751,No. 752,No. 750,No. 833,No. 844,No. 845,No. 753,No. 832,750,751,752,753,832,833,844,845
• Parties: NEWTON, Attorney General of New York, et al. v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK. SAME v. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO. SAME v. CENTRAL UNION GAS CO. SAME v. NORTHERN UNION GAS CO. SAME v. NEW YORK MUT. GASLIGHT CO. SAME v. STANDARD GASLIGHT CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK. SAME v. NEW AMSTERDAM GAS CO. SAME v. EAST RIVER GAS CO. OF LONG ISLAND CITY
• Court: United States Supreme Court

259 U.S. 101

42 S.Ct. 438

66 L.Ed. 844

NEWTON, Attorney General of New York, et al.

v CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK.

No. 750.

SAME

v NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO.

No. 751.

SAME

v CENTRAL UNION GAS CO.

No. 752.

SAME

v NORTHERN UNION GAS CO.

No. 753.

SAME

v. NEW YORK MUT. GASLIGHT CO.

No. 832.

SAME

v. STANDARD GASLIGHT CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK.

No. 833.

SAME

v. NEW AMSTERDAM GAS CO.

No. 844.

SAME

v. EAST RIVER GAS CO. OF LONG ISLAND CITY.

No. 845.

Argued April 28, 1922.

Decided May 15, 1922.

Mr. Harry Herzoff, of New York City, for appellants in Nos. 750 and 751.

Mr. Wm. Schuyler Jackson, of New York City, for appellants in Nos. 752 and 753.

Mr. Judson Hyatt, of New York City, for appellants in Nos. 832, 833, 844, and 845.

Messrs. John A. Garver, of New York City, and Wm. A. Ransome, for appellee.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are appeals in separate, but related, causes wherein the Consolidated Gas Company of New York and certain of its subsidiary and affiliated corporations alleged that the maximum selling rate for gas prescribed by chapter 125, Laws of New York 1906, was confiscatory, and asked that its enforcement be enjoined.

The principal issues between the original parties in Charles D. Newton, Attorney General, v. Consolidated Gas Co., and Charles D. Newton, Attorney General, v. New York & Queens Gas Co., were disposed of upon former appeals decided March 6, 1922. 258 U. S. 165, 42 Sup. Ct. 264, 66 L. Ed. . By supplemental decrees the court below undertook to fix the master's compensation. From them appeals Nos. 750 and 751 were taken. They are discussed below.

Appeals Nos. 752, 753, 832, 833, 844, and 845 bring up final decrees which declare the maximum rate prescribed by chapter 125, supra, confiscatory. Compensation allowed to the master is considered later. Concerning the merits little need be said. In each cause the controverted questions of fact were referred to a master, who took evidence and made reports supporting appellees' claims, and these were confirmed by the court. We are entirely satisfied with the ultimate conclusions, and none of the points relied upon are sufficient to justify general reversals. See Newton, Attorney General, v. Consolidated Gas Co., supra.

The Attorney General and the Public Service Commission of New York were defendants in the eight cases; the district attorney of New York county was defendant in Nos. 750, 832, 833, 844, and 845; the district attorney of the county of Bronx in Nos. 752, 753, and 833; and the district attorney of the county of Queens in Nos. 751 and 845.

By separate orders A. S. Gilbert, Esq., was appointed master in all of the causes and directed to take proof and report. His compensation and disbursements were determined and allowed by timely decrees entered in December, 1921, after all his reports had come in, and evidently upon a view of the whole litigation. It was also ordered that such sum 'shall be paid in the first instance by the complainant and shall be taxed as costs to be paid equally by the defendants.' The disbursements are not questioned, but the several allowances for compensation are challenged as excessive and unreasonable.

No appeal has been taken by the Public Service Commission or by any of the gas companies (complainants below) from the orders touching the matter of compensation.

Detailed statements filed by the master show the nature and responsibility of his duties, the number of hours occupied on specified dates in hearings, preparing opinions, etc., with the equivalent number of days, reckoned at 5 hours each. It appears: That he was appointed in Charles D. Newton et al. v. Consolidated Gas Co., May 16, 1919, and by subsequent decrees in the other causes; that 192 days (5 hours) were devoted to the cause wherein the Consolidated Gas Company was complainant (No. 750) and $57,500 allowed as compensation therefor; that 30 days were devoted to the cause wherein the New York & Queens Gas Company was complainant (No. 751), and $12,500 allowed as compensation; that 22 days were given to cause No. 752, and $12,500 allowed as compensation; 8 days to cause No. 753, and $7,500 allowed as compensation; 9 days to cause No. 832, and $11,500 allowed as compensation; 7 days to cause No. 833, and $7,500 allowed as compensation; 7 days to cause No. 844, and $4,500 allowed as compensation; and 7 days to cause No. 845, and $4,500 allowed as compensation. The eight causes occupied 282 'days of 5 hours each, based on the average court day in this district'; the total allowed compensation is $118,000. He began to hold hearings July 22, 1919; separate reports were submitted May 6, 1920, July 19, 1920, February 16, 1921, and (the final ones) July 29, 1921. The record in the Consolidated Gas Company Case (No. 750) is very large, 20,000 printed pages, in the New York & Queens Gas Company Case (No. 751) it is approximately 2,000 pages, and in the remaining six cases the records contain from 1,417 to 2,929 pages.

Equity rule 68 (33 Sup. Ct. xxxviii) provides:

'The District Court may * * * appoint a master pro hac vice in any particular case. ...