CITY OF NEW YORK
v.
CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
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.
The Consolidated Gas Company of New York sought to enjoin enforcement of a state gas rate law as confiscatory and unconstitutional, and the City of New York appealed after being denied permission to intervene as a defendant. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the City's appeal because the order denying intervention was discretionary and not final in character, and remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by
Mr. Justice Day.
The Consolidated Gas Company of New York brought suit to enjoin the enforcement of the New York eighty-cent gas law. The jurisdiction was invoked solely upon the ground that the rate was confiscatory and hence violated constitutional rights of the company. The City of New York applied for leave to intervene as a party defendant in the action. The District Judge denied the petition for Nterventior stating that the Public Service Commission, the Attorney General and the District Attorney properly' re^-esented private consumers; that the City had noninterest in the litigation as a consumer; w;as not the governmental body which had fixed the rate, and was not charged with the duty of enforcing it. From the order denying the application to intervene the City of New York prosecuted an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the latter court affirmed the order of the District Court.
The application was addressed to the discretion of the District Court, and the order appealed from was not of that final character which furnished the basis for appeal. Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14, 22; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311, 315; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578, 581. As the jurisdiction of the District Court was based upon constitutional grounds only, the case was not appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals. But, an appeal having been taken and a final order made in the Circuit Court of Appeals, we have jurisdiction to review the question of jurisdiction of that court. (Judicial Code, § 241.) Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73.
The proper course is to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court with directions to dismiss the appeal. Four hundred and forty-three Cans of Egg Product v. United States, 226 U. S. 172, 184; Carolina Glass Company v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1947)…, 49 U. S. C. § 17 (11). See also Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578; In re Engelhard, 231 U. S. 646; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U. S. 219; New York City v. New York Telephone Co., 261 U. S. 312. As it appears in the United States Code, 49 U. S. C. § 17 (11), this paragraph reads: “Representatives of employees of a carrier, duly designated as such, may intervene and be heard in any pr…
-
Stratton v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 282 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1930)…that court for want of jurisdiction. Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73-74; 443 Cans of Egg Product v. United States, supra; Carolina Glass Company v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Company, 253 U. S. 219, 221; The Carlo Poma, 255 U. S. 219, 221. Decree reversed and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with directions to dismiss• the appeal to that court'for want of jurisdiction. * The Act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 220, U…
-
United States v. California Coöperative Canneries, 279 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1929)…to intervene is not appealable, In re Cutting, 94 U. S. 15; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U. S. 578, 581; In re Engelhard, 231 U. S. 646; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U. S. 219; New York v. New York Telephone Co., 261 U. S. 312, except where he who seeks to intervene has a direct and immediate interest in a res which is the subject of the suit, compare French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 524-526; Smith v. Gale, 144 U. S. 509;…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1900)
- Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1903)
- Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1876)
- Ex parte in the Matter of Leaf Tobacco Bd. of Trade of the City of N.Y., 222 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1911)
- Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States, 226 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1912)
- Carolina Glass Co. v. State of S.C., 240 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1916)