BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS
v.
COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

U.S. | 1919-04-14
No. 253
249 U.S. 425 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 687 · 39 S. Ct. 332 · SCDB 1918-129 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2098
Cited by 67 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Philippine Board of Public Utility Commissioners challenged a lower court judgment that had annulled its order requiring a corporate carrier to file detailed financial reports, on the ground that the statute delegated excessive legislative power to the board. After the case reached the Supreme Court, the Philippine legislature amended the statute to specify the required report contents directly, rendering the original dispute moot. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and ordered dismissal, holding that when intervening legislative action eliminates the legal issue in controversy, the case becomes moot and the Court need not address the merits.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Van Devanter

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion oi the court.

By a judgment rendered March 8, 1916, the court beloV annulled an order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the Philippine Islands requiring a corporate common carrier to report annually various matters pertaining to its finances and operations, the ground of the judgment being that § 16 (e) of Act 2307 of the local legislature, under which the board acted, violated the organic law of the Philippines, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691, in that it confided to the board the determination of what the reports should contain and therefore amounted to a delegation of legislative power. 34 Phil. Rep. 136. The board brought the judgment here for review, and the earner now suggests that through a change in the local statute the question on which the judgment turned has become merely a moot one.

After. the case was brought here the legislature, by Act 2694, so amended § 16 (e) as to cause the section itself to prescribe in detail what such reports should contain and thereby abrogated the provision on which the order Avas based and AA'hich the court held inválid.' That provision therefore is no longer in force, and it is to the new provision that the board and carrier must give effect. EA*en if the original provision was valid, the order made under it became inoperatiAre when the new provision was substituted in its place. Whether the order was based on a \ralid or an invalid statute consequently has become merely a moot question.

In this situation aa-o are not called upon to consider the propriety of the judgment below, the proper course being, as is shown by many precedents, to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with a direction that it be dismissed without costs to either party. United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103; New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U. S. 170, and 161 U. S. 101; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468.

Judgment reversed. Cause to be dismissed without costs to either party.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (30 total)

  • United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
    …ng 160 U. S. 170; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468; United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co., 242 U. S. 537; Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U. S. 425; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360; United States v. Alaska [*40] Steamship Co., 253 U. S. 113; Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U. S. 13; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216; Alejandrino v. Quezon,…
  • Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1923)
    …Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 699; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 475; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 470; Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U. S. 425; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360; Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359. It is urged that the permit was issued by the Inspector of Buildings only because he' believed it was Incumbent upon him to comply with the judgment of the Court…
  • Ne. Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1993)
    …ng parents to commit juveniles under 18 to mental hospital mooted, with respect to those over 13, by new legislation permitting such commitment only of juveniles 13 and under); Board of Pub. Util. Comm’rs v. Compañía General De Tabacos De Filipinas, 249 U. S. 425, 426 (1919) (challenge to statute alleged to constitute unlawful delegation of legislative power to regulatory board dismissed after statutory amendment detailed board’s responsibilities); Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 470 (1917) (suit to enjoin ma…

Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw