Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

New York Ex Rel. Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie, 303 U.S. 158 (1938)

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1938 regarding a rate reduction ordered by the New York Public Service Commission for a water company. The Commission ordered a $120,000 annual reduction based on findings about the fair value of the company's property and required return. The company challenged the order as unconstitutional. The state courts upheld the Commission's action. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that no substantial federal question was presented because 1) the company did not invoke the state's plenary court jurisdiction and 2) the state courts' review was limited to questions of law, including whether evidence supported the Commission's findings.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views2 pages

New York Ex Rel. Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie, 303 U.S. 158 (1938)

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1938 regarding a rate reduction ordered by the New York Public Service Commission for a water company. The Commission ordered a $120,000 annual reduction based on findings about the fair value of the company's property and required return. The company challenged the order as unconstitutional. The state courts upheld the Commission's action. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that no substantial federal question was presented because 1) the company did not invoke the state's plenary court jurisdiction and 2) the state courts' review was limited to questions of law, including whether evidence supported the Commission's findings.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

303 U.S.

158
58 S.Ct. 506
82 L.Ed. 724

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel.


CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. OF UTICA, N.Y.,
v.
MALTBIE et al.
No. 380.
Argued Feb. 3, 4, 1938.
Decided Feb. 14, 1938.

Messrs. Thayer Burgess and George H. Kenny, both of Utica, N.Y., for
appellant.
Mr. Gay H. Brown, of Utica, N.Y., for appellees.
PER CURIAM.

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.
3

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 Service
Commission, 211 App.Div. 253, 256, 207 N.Y.S. 599; New Rochelle Water
Co. v. Maltbie, 248 App.Div. 66, 70, 289 N.Y.S. 388.

2. Upon the review of the Commission's orders by certiorari, only questions of


law were open under the state practice, including the question whether there
was evidence to sustain the findings of the Commission. 275 N.Y. 357, at page
366, 9 N.E.2d 961. In that view no substantial federal question is presented.
Cedar Rapids Gas Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 223 U.S. 655, 668670, 32 S.Ct. 389,
56 L.Ed. 594; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R.R.
Co., 227 U.S. 88, 91, 92, 33 S.Ct. 185, 57 L.Ed. 431; People ex rel. New York
& Queens Gas Co. v. McCall, 219 N.Y. 84, 8890, 113 N.E. 795,
Ann.Cas.1916E, 1042; People of State of New York ex rel. New York &
Queens Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U.S. 345, 348, 349, 38 S.Ct. 122, 62 L.Ed. 337.
The motion to dismiss is granted.

Dismissed.

Mr. Justice CARDOZO took no part in the consideration and decision of this
case.

You might also like