People v. Swena
| Decision Date | 09 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | 12562. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SWENA. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Frank McDonough, Sr., Judge.
Suit by the People of the State of Colorado against M. B. Swena.
From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Robert E. Winbourn, Atty. Gen., and Colin A Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Harry S. Class, of Denver, for defendant in error.
The Public Utilities Commission sued M. B. Swena to recover the amount of a fine imposed by it in a contempt proceeding. It is alleged in the complaint that the commission found that Swena was operating as a motor vehicle carrier without having obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity and ordered him to desist; that he violated such order and was adjudged by the commission to be in contempt; and that the commission fined him $200 for such contempt. The trial court dismissed the case, holding that the power to punish for contempt is a judicial power not within the province of the Commission.
Section 2975, C. L., provides that every person who shall fail to obey an order of the commission, except an order for the payment of money, 'shall be incontempt of the commission, and shall be punishable by the commission for contempt in the same manner and to the same extent as contempt is punished by courts of record.' It also provides: 'The remedy prescribed in this action [section] shall not be a bar to or affect any other remedy prescribed in this act, but shall be cumulative and in addition to such other remedy or remedies.' Section 2970, C. L., provides a penalty, not exceeding $2,000, for a failure to obey an order of the commission, and declares that in case of a continuing violation of such order, 'each day's continuance thereof shall be and be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense.' Section 2974, C. L., provides that actions to recover 'penalties' shall be brought in the district court in the name of the people of the state of Colorado, and that all 'fines and penalties' recovered in any such action shall be paid into the state treasury to the credit of the Public Utility Commission fund.
Article 3 of the Colorado Constitution is as follows: 'The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments,--the legislative, executive, executive and judicial; and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.' By section 1 of article 6 the judicial power of the state, 'except as in the constitution otherwise provided,' is vested in the courts. Section 12 of article 5 provides that each house of the General Assembly shall have power to punish its members or other persons for contempt in its presence, and to 'enforce obedience to its process.' In impeachment trials under article 13 the senate sits as a court and, of course, exercises judicial powers.
The Public Utilities Commission is not a court. Public Utilities Commission v. Colorado Title & Trust Co., 65 Colo. 472, 178 P. 6; Clark v. Public Utilities Commission, 78 Colo. 48, 239 P. 20. It is charged with the performance of certain executive and administrative duties. In the performance thereof, and as incidental thereto, it hears evidence, ascertains facts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Plaza Ford
...(Sup.Ct.1916), aff'd 89 N.J.L. 711, 99 A. 1070 (E. & A. 1916). 7 Cases in other states divide on the issue. Accord: People v. Swena, 88 Colo. 337, 296 P. 271 (Sup.Ct.1931); Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N.E. 190 (Sup.Ct.1892); In re Sims, 54 Kan. 1, 37 P. 135 (Sup.Ct. 1894); Robert......
-
Perry v. Perry
...belongs exclusively to the courts, except in cases where the Constitution confers such powers upon some other body." People v. Swena, 88 Colo. 337, 340, 296 P. 271 (1931). Similarly, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that "the Legislature cannot delegate to or confer upon mun......
-
Appalachian Power Co. v. Public Service Com'n of W.Va.
...of powers context have concluded that a direct contempt power cannot be delegated to an administrative agency. E.g., People v. Swena, 88 Colo. 337, 296 P. 271 (1931); Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N.E. 190 (1892); Roberts v. Hackney, 109 Ky. 265, 58 S.W. 810 (1900); Wright v. Plaza......
-
Sapero v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
... ... announcements [90 Colo. 571] have not been over two inches, ... which he said was the least he could do to bring his visits ... Before the people. It is unnecessary to quote the first ... advertisement. The last two read as follow: ... 'Dr ... K. C. Sapero is coming again to ... product of judicial legislation ... That ... which we said of the Public Utilities Commission in ... People v. Swena, 88 Colo. 337, 339, 340, 296 P. 271, ... 272, applies with equal force to the State Board of Medical ... Examiners. It is said in the above ... ...