People ex rel. Central Park, N.&E.R.R. Co. v. Willcox

• Decision Date: 23 February 1909
• Citation: 87 N.E. 517,194 N.Y. 383
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. CENTRAL PARK, N. & E. R. R. CO. v. WILLCOX et al., Public Service Commission. PEOPLE ex rel. JOLINE et al. v. SAME.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

194 N.Y. 383

87 N.E. 517

PEOPLE ex rel. CENTRAL PARK, N. & E. R. R. CO.

v.WILLCOX et al., Public Service Commission.

PEOPLE ex rel. JOLINE et al.

v.SAME.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 23, 1909.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Certiorari by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Adrian H. Joline and another, receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, and on the relation of the Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company, to review an order of W. R. Willcox and others, public service commissioners. From an order of the Appellate Division (113 N. Y. Supp. 861), denying motions of W. R. Willcox and others, public service commissioners, to vacate the order of the Special Term directing writs to issue and to supersede or quash the writs, W. R. Willcox and others, public service commissioners, appeal. Affirmed.

George S. Coleman and Oliver C. Semple, for appellants.

William N. Dykman and John G. Milburn, for respondents.

CULLEN, C. J.

We affirm the order appealed from upon the opinion of Patterson, P. J., in the court below, but, as a decision has recently been rendered by the Supreme Court of theUnited States in the case of Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 211 U. S. 210, 29 Sup. Ct. 67, 53 L. Ed. 150, which the learned counsel for the appellants urges as decisive of this appeal, it becomes necessary to add a brief comment on that case. A majority of the justices of the Supreme Court held in the case cited that the action of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, created by the Constitution of that state, in fixing future rates of transportation of passengers on railroads, was not judicial, but legislative, and, as we read the decision, that it could not be made otherwise even by the constitutional enactments of that state. To that decision, so far as the proposition determined relates to the control of the federal courts over rates established by the commissions created pursuant to either legislative or constitutional provisions, and in all respects where federal questions are concerned, we must bow and extend a loyal adherence. So far, however, as it relates to the administration of justice within this state and the powers and proceedings of our own tribunals, it is not controlling upon us, though, of course, the utmost respect should be paid to the deliberate opinion of so august and able a tribunal upon any legal question. With great reluctance we express our inability to accept the doctrine of the Supreme Court (of course, only within the sphere indicated), as it is opposed to the uniform current of judicial authority in this state, a full review of which, as well as of the action of both Constit...