Document: 366 U.S. 656 81 S.Ct. 1303 6 L.Ed.2d 584 PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY et al. TEXACO, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR Nos. 80, 81. Argued April 18, and 19, 1961. Decided May 29, Mr. Byron M. Gray, Topeka, Kan., for petitioner in No. 80. Paul F. Schlicher, New York City, Charles V. Wheeler, Oklahoma Okl., respondent, Cities Service Gas Co. both cases. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents review judgment Supreme Court Delaware denying a petition writ prohibition to prevent further proceedings before Superior Delaware, Castle County, actions by Company against petitioners involving contracts sale natural gas Service. The claim is that Natural Act, 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 717 seq., U.S.C.A. has deprived state courts jurisdiction over subject matter these sole question, below here, whether had jurisdiction.1 importance problems thereby raised justified their disposition so we granted certiorari. 363 818, 80 1258, 4 1516. 2 pipeline company. Petitioners are producers gas. purchases from transports it through its pipelines, interstate commerce, local distributing companies. During period 1949—1951 entered into purchase produced Hugoton field Kansas. In each instance price agreed upon was less than eleven cents per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) measured on pressure base 14.65 pounds square inch absolute (psia). 3 On December 2, 1953, Corporation Commission Kansas promulgated an order, take effect January 1, 1954, fixing minimum Mcf psia taken Field. this order require pay at higher rate those specified pre-existing contracts. brought suit obtain judicial order. 21, advised letter minimum-rate adding following: 5 'Pending final determination said Order beginning intends all purchased Field strict compliance with terms conditions Order. Such Company, however, made avoid penalties provided statutes violation thereof, payments you pending be considered accepted involuntary our part, without prj udice rights litigation, no event acquiescence us validity 7 'In finally judicially modified or declared invalid whole result which have been overpaid during interim aforesaid, will expect refund amount overpayment.' 8 Thereafter, voucher check sent payment bore notation stating tendered 'subject provisions' letter. cashed checks objection tender. Petitioner Pan American Petroleum (formerly Stanolind) wrote reply 21: 9 'We construe last paragraph mean Stanolind over-payments, if any, any interest thereon should 1953 part adjudication would binding controlling Stanolind. We will, therefore, accept basis.' 10 Texaco, Inc., acknowledged receipt Service's February 25, dated March payment. 11 June 7, Court, Phillips Wisconsin, 347 672, 74 794, 98 L.Ed. 1035, held Federal Power extended 'the rates wholesales company not occurring before, during, after transmission company.' page 682, 799. Following decision, Commission, accordance provisions July 16, issued requiring independent file schedules setting forth service charges transportation sales effective 1954. 'Rate schedule' defined basic contract supplements agreements amendatory applicable 1954 * *.' 18 CFR, 1960 Cum.Supp., 154.93. Commission's directive, Texaco filed between Service, letter, sample billing statements, number supplemental letters (not including 1954), billing, With reference explained upheld court competent therefore 'in effect' 'amended thereby.' 12 8, 1956, sustained Comm., 180 Kan. 454, 304 P.2d 528, but 20, 1958, decision reversed 355 391, 78 381, 355. 13 complaints set original parties, bearing contractually determined prices, checks, other relevant correspondence, Court's reversal upholding order's validity. basis allegations sued overcharges sum $412,995.95 $10,324,468.67, paid under compulsion stipulated contract. After intermediate procedural steps, defendants moved summary judgments, were denied. There followed prohibition, attacking entertain 14 causes, claims 'are founded liability created private deriving force law.' (Emphasis original.) Columbian Fuel Corp. Del. —-, 158 A.2d 478, 482. 'It certainly true does entail examination regulations federal decisions. But cases way defense which, face, based nothing more amounts 'filed' fixed general rule such plaintiff's one arising law. *' 483. 16 argument conclusion runs follows. Under Act prices sold wholesale commerce must Commission. Since suits instituted involve filed, they either enforce challenge rate. If former, 22 provides, present purposes, 'The District Courts United States shall exclusive violations (statute) rules, regulations, orders thereunder, equity law duty by, enjoin of, rule, regulation, thereunder.' 833, 717u, 717u. latter, lie within purview 19 provides Appeals. 831, 717r, 717r. case, jurisdiction. 17 questions ouster are, existing jurisdictional legislation, ultimate substantive issues answers depend particular suitor makes court—on how he casts his action. party who brings master decide what rely upon,' Fair Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 22, 33 410, 411, 57 716, determine nature it. Their operative paragraphs demand recovery alleged overpayments finding invalid, restitution allegedly unjustly enriched No right asserted Act. thus state, federal, It settled doctrine cognizable trial court, absence diversity citizenship, unless appears face complaint depends question See, e.g., Skelly Oil 339 667, 70 876, 879, 94 1194, cited. Apart jurisdiction, 'a immunity Constitution laws element, essential one, cause ** controversy disclosed complaint, unaided answer removal. Gully First National Bank, 299 109, 112—113, 96, 97, 70. For requirement substitute defendant almost certain raise defense. See Petroleum, supra; supra, authorities cited Equally immaterial plaintiff could elected proceed ground. Henry A. B. Dick 224 14—17, 32 364, 366—367, 56 645. decides invoke right, belongs court. 20 traditional common-law claims. They do lose character because common knowledge there exists scheme regulation What 116, 99, apposite: 21 recur test announced Puerto Rico Russell (288 476, 53 447, 77 903), supra: established decisive—not source authority establish it.' Here state. so, unimportant consent authority. To reach underlying travel back far. By unimpeachable authority, statute arise act Congress prohibited thereby. Louisville Nashville R. Mottley (211 149, 29 42, 126), supra. greater reason can thereunder permitted called extent reinforces abrogates here controversy. fact sues quasicontract, arguments, decisive. 23 Nor help petitioners. 'Exclusive jurisdiction' given 'exclusive' only may courts. Exclusiveness consequence having generator excluded. long ago Pratt Paris Gaslight Coke 168 255, 62, 42 458, grant patent laws. Suit claim. contained mention patent, invalidity patents up response said: 24 'Section 711 (the provision) deprive power laws, assuming 'cases' clear distinction former arises when opening pleading—be bill, declaration—sets ground recovery. Of latter appear plea testimony. beyond competency tribunals.' 259, 64.2 25 contend permit jeopardize uniform system considerations dispel fears, remembered route open parties aggrieved adverse state-court decisions questions. Great Northern Merchants Elevator 259 285, 477, 66 943, merely tariff prior consideration disputed construction Interstate Commerce argued entry courts, initial resort destroy uniformity. Brandeis, speaking applies here: 26 'This unsound. uniformity paramount purpose attained preliminary settle dispute. Every deemed law; where concerns properly preserve rights, ultimately reviewed error certiorari; secured. Hence, attainment every dispute, Commission.' pages 290—291, 478. 27 hold hear formulated. 28 Affirmed. apparent decided there. also Clendaniel Conrad, Boyce 549, 598, 83 1036, 1052. superior inferior tribunal judge, keeping limits That writ.' Accord, Knight Haley, W.W.Harr. 366, 374, 36 176 461, 464; Canaday Terry 332, 338 339, 49 338—339, 116 678, 681—682. foregoing conclusions affected want explicit limitation 'arising under' clearly implied, authoritative Committee Reports indicate. section (referring 22) imposes appropriate ars ing act.' H.R.Rep. 709, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 9; S.Rep. 1162, 7.

Category: 7