People ex rel. Joline v. Willcox

• Decision Date: 17 May 1910
• Citation: 198 N.Y. 433,91 N.E. 1102
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. JOLINE et al. v. WILLCOX et al., Public Service Com'rs.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

198 N.Y. 433

91 N.E. 1102

PEOPLE ex rel. JOLINE et al.

v.WILLCOX et al., Public Service Com'rs.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 17, 1910.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Application by the People, on the relation of Adrian H. Joline and another, as receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, for certiorari to William R. Willcox and others, constitution the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, First District, appointed under Laws 1907, c. 429. From an order of the Appellate Division, First Department (134 App. Div. 563,119 N. Y. Supp. 641), reversing an order of the Special Term denying a motion of the relators for a return to a writ of certiorari omitting certain schedules therein enumerated, and granting such motion, respondents appeal. Order of the Appellate Division reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed.

See, also, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1141, 1147.

George S. Coleman, for appellants.

John G. Milburn, Arthur H. Masten, and Robert C. Beatty, for respondents.

HAIGHT, J.

It appears that the Public Service Commission of the First District made an order known as No. 752 for a hearing to be had on the 2d day of October, 1908, for the purpose of determining whether Adrian H. Joline and Douglas Robinson, as receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company and the Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company, should establish through routes and joint rates over their respective roads for transportation of passengers. Upon this order a hearing was had, which resulted in a final order, No. 815, in which the respective companies were required to establish through routes and joint rates, the fare not to exceed five cents for each passenger for through transportation, and that of such rate the receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company were entitled to retain 3 3/4 cents and the Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company 1 1/4 cents thereof. An application was then made on behalf of the relators for a rehearing, and upon the conclusion of such rehearing a further order was made, No. 830, which confirmed the former final order, No. 815. Thereupon the relators procured a writ of certiorari to be issued, in which they demanded a return by the commissioners of all the proceedings had by them under and by virtue of their order No. 752 and of the proceedings upon the rehearing resulting in orders Nos. 815 and 830. A motion was then made on behalf of the commissioners to quash the writ, but this motion was denied upon the ground that the determination of the commission was of a quasi judicial character, and hence subject to review by certiorari. People ex rel. Joline v. Willcox, 129 App. Div. 267,113 N. Y. Supp. 861, affirmed, 194 N. Y. 383, 87 N. E. 517. A return was then filed by the commissioners of the proceedings had before them under order No. 752 and the order for rehearing, and, in addition thereto, certain other proceedings held under a resolution known as order No. 615, in which it was resolved by the commissioners that they ‘investigate and examine the general condition of each and every common carrier, railroad, street railroad, railroad corporation, street railroad corporation, and corporation controlling or operating any common carrier, railroad or street railroad within its jurisdiction, its capitalization, its franchises and the manner in which its lines owned, leased, controlled, or operated, are conducted and operated, including the adequacy, security and accommodation afforded by its service and with respect to its compliance with all provisions of law and its charter requirements.’

Upon the investigation instituted pursuant to such resolution many pages of testimony were taken with reference to the subjects embraced in the foregoing resolution, which was in the nature of an ex parte investigation, although counsel representing different witnesses and companies were permitted to be present but not to examine witnesses, except as a matter of courtesy they were allowed to suggest questions to the counsel for the commissioners, who was permitted to put the same in case he saw fit to do so. At the conclusion of such investigation, Mr. Milburn, as counsel for the relators, asked the commission as to whether this was to be regarded as a general investigation at which the companies had only the rights which courtesy extended to them, or as to whether it was to be regarded as a proceeding upon a hearing in which they could make an order affecting the revenues of the companies; that, if it was claimed that it was such a hearing, then he wanted an opportunity to introduce evidence on behalf of the relators. A lengthy discussion then took place between Mr. Milburn and the commissioners as to the nature and character of the investigation, and as...