Pullman Co. v. Public Service Commission
| Decision Date | 30 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 17527,17527 |
| Citation | 234 S.C. 365,108 S.E.2d 571 |
| Parties | , 29 P.U.R.3d 111 PULLMAN COMPANY, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of South Carolina, and Charles A. Rice, Chairman, et al., and Daniel R. McLeod, as Attorney General of South Carolina, and Irvine F. Belser, Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Martin J. Rock, Chicago, Ill., McKay, McKay, Black & Walker, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Irvine F. Belser, for respondent.
Appellant petitioned the Public Service Commission for an order vacating its rule No. 20 which was promulgated in 1937 or before. It follows:
'No sleeping car, chair car, parlor car, dining car, or buffet car shall be operated on any line of railroad in South Carolina, when occupied by regular passengers holding proper transportation for the occupancy of such cars, unless such cars are continuously in charge of an employee or an authorized agent of the firm or corporation owning or operating same, having the rank and position of conductor.' 7 Code of 1952, p. 753.
Hearing upon the petition was held by the Commission on December 11, 1956 and evidence was introduced. There was delay in decision, the reason for which is in dispute between counsel. Before decision by the Commission this action was commenced by appellant in November 1957 for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the order as to it.
On March 5, 1958 the Commission fixed March 26 following for final arguments upon the proceeding pending before it. On March 28th it issued its order denying the petition of appellant.
Meanwhile, motion of respondents was heard in the present action on March 12th that it be dismissed upon the ground, in substance, that appellant should be required to exhaust its remedy before the Public Service Commission before resorting to the Court. Thereafter, by order dated May 6, 1958, the court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that, quoting from the order, 'the plaintiff (appellant here) should first exhaust its administrative remedies, and the plaintiff shall, of course, have full right to raise the issues sought to be determined in this case before the Public Service Commission and/or an appeal therefrom.'
Subsequently appellant commenced a second action in the Court of Common Pleas, now pending, challenging the Commission's order of March 28th (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. Lindsay
...decision of the Respondent. See Lominick v. City of Aiken, 244 S.C. 32, 135 S.E.2d 305, 310 (1964) and Pullman Company v. Public Service Commission, 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d 571 (1959) in connection with the exhaustion of administrative remedies by a party before he can seek redress in the ......
-
Ward v. State
...performance of administrative functions, we have recognized that it is not an invariable rule. For example, in Pullman Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d 571, the application of the doctrine was approved as a "proper exercise of the discretion of the court." The adoption o......
-
Petroleum Transp., Inc. v. Public Service Commission
...the court acquired jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter for such purpose. In fact, as stated in Pullman Co. v. Public Service Commission, 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d 571, an action of the present kind 'is the approved method to obtain judicial review of decisions of the Commissio......
-
Stanley v. Gary, 1
...to entertain jurisdiction of this action before the appellants had exhausted their administrative remedies. Pullman Co. v. Public Service Commission, 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d 571. DePass v. City of Spartanburg et al., 234 S.C. 198, 107 S.E.2d 350, 351. In the last cited case, this Court 'Th......