People of State of New York Consolidated Water Co of Utica v. Maltbie
| Decision Date | 14 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 380,380 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. OF UTICA, N.Y., v. MALTBIE et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Thayer Burgess and George H. Kenny, both of Utica, N.Y., for appellant.
Mr. Gay H. Brown, of Utica, N.Y., for appellees.
In a proceeding before the Public Service Commission of the State of New York relating to rates for water supplied by appellant to the City of Utica and adjacent communities, the Commission, on June 28, 1933, after full hearing and upon findings determining the fair value of the property of appellant used and useful in rendering service to its customers, the amount of annual operating income required to yield a 6 per cent. return upon such fair value, and the average operating income of the company for the years 1930 and 1931 (as adjusted to allow for additional expense), directed appellant to file a schedule of rates which should effect a reduction in its annual operating revenues of at least $120,000 per annum. The Commission denied a rehearing with premission to apply for an increase of rates if, after a reasonable time, it should appear that a definite change in prices had occurred.
In certiorari proceedings, appellant challenged these determinations and orders as unlawful and confiscatory, in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The appellate Division, Third Department, of the Supreme Court of the State, sustained the action of the Commission, 245 App.Div. 866, 282 N.Y.S. 412, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, 275 N.Y. 357, 9 N.E.2d 961. The case comes here on appeal which appellees move to dismiss for the want of jurisdiction upon the ground that no substantial federal question is involved.
1. Appellant contends that it is entitled to the exercise of the independent judgment of a court as to the law and the facts with respect to the issue of confiscation, and that such a review has not been accorded because of the limitations imposed by the state practice in certiorari proceedings. 275 N.Y. 357, at page 370, 9 N.E.2d 961. Appellant has no standing to raise this question as appellant itself sought review by certiorari and has not invoked the plenary jurisdiction of a court of equity and it does not appear that this remedy is not available under the state law. Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
...658, 78 L.Ed. 1182; People ex rel. Consol. Water Co. of Utica v. Maltibie, 275 N.Y. 357, 367--368, 9 N.E.2d 961, app. dism. 303 U.S. 158, 58 S.Ct. 506, 82 L.Ed. 724. 2. The case is remanded to the county court. An order is to be entered there directing (a) further consideration and decision......
-
Lewiston, Greene & Monmouth Telephone Co. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
...occurred. Spoffard, Pet'r. v. Bucksport & Bangor Railroad Company, 66 Me. 26 (1876); New York ex rel. Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie, 303 U.S. 158, 58 S.Ct. 506, 82 L.Ed. 724 (1938). See: Hamilton v. Caribou Water, Light & Power Company, 121 Me. 422, 426, 117 A. 582 (1922); S. D. Warren ......
-
In re Rumsey Mfg. Corp.
...in People ex rel. Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie, 275 N.Y. 357, at page 370, 9 N.E.2d 961, at page 965, appeal dismissed 303 U.S. 158, 58 S.Ct. 506, 82 L.Ed. 724, where Judge Lehman, writing for the court, said: ‘* * * where the state gives to an administrative body power to determine qu......
-
Lowell Gas Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
...241 U.S. 533, 538. Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331. Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co. 262 U.S. 43, 49. New York v. Maltbie, 303 U.S. 158, 160. Staten Island Edison Corp. v. Maltbie, 296 N.Y. Otherwise, the statute would not be broad enough for the enforcement of the rights ......