State ex rel. Crawford v. Corp.
| Citation | 85 P.2d 288,1938 OK 455,184 Okla. 127 |
| Decision Date | 13 September 1938 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 28671 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CRAWFORD et al. v. CORPORATION COMMISSION et al |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 MANDAMUS--Writ Denied Where Adequate Remedy by Appeal.
Where litigant has complete and adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus will not issue (section 731, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. 1452).
Original action for mandamus by the State on relation of Sadie E. Crawford and others against Corporation Commission and the members thereof. Writ denied.
Phil W. Davis, Jr., for petitioners.
L. V. Reid, General Atty., and S. J. Gordon, Asst. Atty., for respondents.
¶1 This is in original action in mandamus brought in the name of the .state by Sadie E. Crawford and others for themselves and all other parties similarly situated, against the Corporation Commission and the individual members thereof, to require distribution of certain funds held by respondents for the benefit of petitioners and others.
¶2 The funds in question represent 10 per cent of the aggregate amount refunded to the commission by the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for their subscribers in the cities of Tulsa and Oklahoma City under certain orders of the commission affecting rates and charges for telephone service in said cities. The respondents retain 10 per cent of the refund under authority and for the purpose as expressed in section 3631, O. S. 1931, 17 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 164, which reads as follows:
"For all rebates or refunds made through the intervention or agency of the Corporation Commission, a fee of ten per cent on such rebates, or refunds shall be charged and deducted from such amount rebated or refunded through such intervention or agency of the Corporation Commission, and same shall be converted into file State Treasury as provided by law."
¶3 Petitioners say the section is unconstitutional and that the subscribers are entitled to the entire sum refunded. They contend that the aforesaid statute is violative of article 9, sec. 21, of the Constitution, and of certain other constitutional provisions, state and federal.
¶4 Said section 21, art. 9, dealing with refunds of this character, reads in part as follows:
"Upon the final decision of such appeal, all amounts which the appealing company may have collected, pending the appeal, in excess of that authorized by such final decision, shall be promptly refunded by the company to the parties entitled thereto, in such manner and through such methods of distribution as may be prescribed by the commission, or by law."
¶5 It is urged that this provision requires all the money representing the refunded overcharges to be paid to the subscribers without expense to them, and that the Legislature was without power to enact said section 3631. Petitioners say that section 3628, O. S. 1931, 17 Okla. St. Ann. see. 123, enacted in 1913, places the entire cost burden upon the telephone company in this case, and they charge, in effect, that there exists no legal reason or authority for assessing against petitioners 10 per cent of the recovery as additional costs or fees.
¶6 We have assumed jurisdiction of this proceeding for the primary reason that the questions involved are publici juris. Clark v. Warner, 85 Okla. 153, 204 P. 929. Whether the petitioners, under the above stated circumstances, have shown a clear legal right to the writ (State ex rel. Chaffin v. Excise Board, 172 Okla. 425, 45 P.2d 480) constitutes the basic question involved. Though they may have shown a threatened or actual abuse of their legal rights, if any other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available to petitioners, no clear legal right to the writ exists and the same will not issue. Reisinger v. Hurst, 163 Okla. 92, 20 P.2d 1040.
¶7 Respondents assort that the petitioners have their remedy by appeal. Section 3629. O. S. 1931, 17 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 124. Petitioners say that the disbursement of the fund is not a judicial matter, but is administrative, and therefore the right to appeal is not available. Section 1, art. 4, Const. They say, further, that to require each subscriber to appeal, in view of the smallness of the individual interests in the fund, would present a situation amounting to in unusual hardship upon the subscribers resulting in such denial of justice as would justify the issuance of the writ. Clark v. Warner, supra.
¶8 Section 3629, above, provides for appeal in such case, as follows:
"Any party in interest shall have a right to appeal from any action of the commission to determine the amount of refund due, or to whom such refund shall be made, or from any order or judgment rendered by the commission pertaining to the subject matter set forth in any of the above sections of this act, in the same manner as appeals are now taken from the Corporation Commission to the Supreme Court."
¶9 That section was enacted in 1913. If it is supported by constitutional authority, then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dutton v. City of Midwest City
...the questions involved are publici juris ” we will not issue a writ when an alternative adequate remedy exists. State ex rel. Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 1938 OK 455, 184 Okla. 127, 85 P.2d 288, 289. Cf. Muskogee Fair Haven Manor Phase I, Inc. v. Scott, 1998 OK 26, ¶¶ 1, 13, 957 P.2......
-
Crawford v. Corp.
...that plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law by appeal from the action of the Corporation Commission. State ex rel. Crawford et al. v. Corporation Commission, 184 Okla. 127, 85 P.2d 288. ¶5 Thereafter plaintiffs in error herein, acting for themselves, and purporting to act on behalf of all......
-
Crawford v. Corporation Com'n
...so collected. The writ was denied upon the ground that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law by appeal from the action of the Corporation Commission. State ex rel. Crawford et al. Corporation Commission, 184 Okl. 127, 85 P.2d 288. Thereafter plaintiffs in error herein acting for themselve......
- Smith v. Campbell