TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

PUBLIC UTIL. COMMRS. v. Compania General

Pub. Util. Commrs. v. Compania Gen., 249 U.S. 425 (1919)
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 14, 1919
Docket
No. 253
Judges
Van Devanter
Citations
249 U.S. 42539 S. Ct. 33263 L. Ed. 6871919 U.S. LEXIS 2098

Opinion

249 U.S. 425 (1919)

BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

v.

COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS.

No. 253.

Supreme Court of United States.

Submitted March 18, 1919. Decided April 14, 1919. APPEAL FROM AND ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

*426 Mr. Edward S. Bailey for appellant and plaintiff in error.

Mr. F.C. Fisher for appellee and defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the court.

By a judgment rendered March 8, 1916, the court below 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 carrier 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 was based and which the court held invalid. That provision therefore is no longer in force, and it is to the new provision that the board and carrier must give effect. Even if the original provision was valid, the order made under it became inoperative when the new provision was substituted in its place. Whether the order was based on a valid or an invalid statute consequently has become merely a moot question.

In this situation we are not called upon to consider the propriety of the judgment below, the proper course being, *427 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 21923: 11926: 21931: 11935: 11944: 11948: 11951: 11952: 11974: 11980: 11981: 119202026peak 1920 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Finberg v. Sullivan658 F.2d 93 (3d Cir. 1980)
  2. DeFunis v. Odegaard529 P.2d 438 (Wash. 1974)
  3. United States v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America190 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
  4. Howard v. Wilbur166 F.2d 884 (6th Cir. 1948)
  5. Cohen v. Williams16 F.2d 264 (1st Cir. 1926)
  6. Boylston Nat. Bank of Boston v. Wainhouse14 F.2d 385 (1st Cir. 1926) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Finberg v. Sullivan658 F.2d 93 (3d Cir. 1981)
  2. Finberg v. Sullivan658 F.2d 93 (3d Cir. 1980)
  3. DeFunis v. Odegaard529 P.2d 438 (Wash. 1974)
  4. Acheson v. Droesse197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
  5. United States v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America190 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
  6. Howard v. Wilbur166 F.2d 884 (6th Cir. 1948)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (1801) 661
United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (1916) 159
Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115 (1901) 42
Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468 (1917) 37
New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U.S. 170 (1895) 21
Bd. of Pub. Util. Comm'rs v. Compañia Gen. de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U.S. 425 (1919) 19
New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 161 U.S. 101 (1896) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list