An Act of New York, c. 899, (1923), prescribing a gas rate of
one dollar per thousand feet,
held confiscatory. P.
272 U. S. 581.
7 F.2d 19,
id. 628, modified and affirmed.
Page 272 U. S. 580
Appeals from decrees of the district court enjoining enforcement
of a New York rate-fixing statute in suits by the Brooklyn Union
Gas Company and the Kings County Lighting Company against the
Attorney General of the State and the New York Public Service
Commission.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Separate suits were begun by appellees in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against the Public
Service Commission and the Attorney General of that state. They
sought injunctions against enforcement of the Act of June 2, 1923,
c. 899, Laws of New York 1923, by which the legislature directed
that gas of 650 British thermal units should be sold at not more
than $1 per 1,000 feet. Prior to June 2, 1923, under orders of the
Commission, the Brooklyn Union Gas Company had been charging $1.15
and the Kings County Lighting Company $1.30 per 1,000 feet for gas
of 537 British thermal units.
The causes were referred to different masters. They took much
evidence, and each reported that the rate prescribed by the
legislature would yield less than 5 percentum upon the fair value
of the complainants' property devoted to public use. With some
exceptions not now
Page 272 U. S. 581
important, these reports were approved, and the court adjudged
the statute confiscatory, and therefore invalid; also that it was
unreasonable and invalid in respect of the standard of 650 British
thermal units.
Kings County Lighting Co. v.
Prendergast, 7 F.2d 192;
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Prendergast, 7 F.2d
628.
The Commission declined to ask for an appeal to this Court. The
Attorney General, upon petitions which allege
"that, in substance, the decree restrains the defendants from
enforcing in any way Chapter 899 of the Laws of 1923 of the State
of New York and declares that said statute violates or is in
contravention of § 10 of Article I and of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,"
sued out broad appeals and has presented many assignments of
error -- 107 in No. 358, and 21 in No. 365. But we find no reason
whatever advanced by him in brief or oral argument which would
justify reversal of either decree.
The statute was clearly confiscatory in effect, and there was no
necessity for the district court to consider any other objection
thereto. We have not done so.
The decrees will be modified by excluding therefrom such parts
as adjudge the statute invalid for any reason except conflict with
the Fourteenth Amendment because confiscatory in effect. Thus
modified, both are affirmed. All costs will be taxed against
appellant.
Affirmed as modified.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS concurs in the result.