Evening star., 1936-10-16
I. T.V.A.LOSESF|GHT
TO BLOCK ACTION
BY POWER FIRMS
Suit Within Jurisdiction of
Nashville Federal Court,
Judge Rules.
COURT FAILS TO PASS
ON LEGALITY OF ACT
Holds Averments of Defendants
Sufficient Justification
for Hearing.
By the Associated Press.

BY the ASSOCIATED FreSS.
NASHVILLE, Tenn, October 16.-
Federal District Judge John ]. Gore
overruled today motion by the Ten
nessee Valley Authority TO dismiss a
suit brought against it by 19 power
companies, but did not pass upon the
question of constitutionality of the T.
v. A. act.
The effect Of the decision, in the
opinion of attorneys. is to keep the
suit before Judge Gore for hearing on
the constitutional issues involved.
On the answers eventually given to
those questions by the Supreme Court,
it is generally agreed, the T. v. A.
power program likely will stand or
fall.
There may be cases where it would
be proper TO look to the constitutions
ality Of an act to determine the ques-
ton of jurisdiction, the Judge said
in a written opinion, "but think the
case made by the averments in this
bill brings it within the Jurisdiction
of this court, regardless Of the con-
stitutionality of the Tennessee Valley
Authority act.
II think the averments, If proven.
strip the defendants Of their official
character and constitute them private
citizens in that regard, and
when such conditions exist. they are
subject to suit in any court of COM
petent Jurisdiction where they are
committing said illegal and unconsti-
tutional acts, and where process can
be served"
Begun in Knoxville.
The power companies suit was
brought originally in Chancery Court
at Knoxville and transferred to Fed
eral District Court on the plea Of the
T. v. A. Subsequently, the T. v. A.
filed a motion to dismiss, contending
that under a section Of the T. v. A.
act the suit should have been brought
In the Northern district of Alabama.
The act fixed the authority's legal
residence in that district.
Certainly Congress may create Q
corporate agency for a lawful and
constitutional purpose" the court said,
land in so doing may provide the
forum in which such agency may be
sued. And, so long as it acts within
the constitutional powers granted, 1t
may not be sued elsewhere.
But, If the act be invalid, or II the
agency assumes powers not conferred,
it is stripped Of its immunity to be
sued in the forum designated by the
act creating 1t, and assumes the role
of an individual, who Is answerable
for his wrongs wherever found.
1T is hardly reasonable to suppose
that Congress intended to make these
defendants immune from suit in any
jurisdiction except in the northern
judicial district of Alabama for dam
| ages resulting by their unauthorized
acts of whatever character.
Cites Former Hearing.
upon a former hearing I was Of
| the opinion that it was necessary to
pass upon the validity Of the Ten
nessee Valley Authority act to de-
termine whether the Chancery Court
of Knox County had jurisdiction Of
| the cause.
IF it did not, this court acquired
none by a removal of the cause, and
I was in doubt as to whether the
avermentS in the bill. to the effect
that defendants were committing un-
authorized acts to the injury of COM
plainants. and threatening to con-
tinue to commit acts ultra wires the
power granted by the Tennessee Valley
Authority act, were sufficient to vest
the Chancery Court of Knox County
with jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
"A further study of the bill and
the authorities convinces me that it is
unnecessary to pass upon the con-
stitutionality Of the Tennessee Valley
Authority act to determine that ques-
tion.
But it is necessary that I scrutinize
the bill to determine whether real,
substantial constitutional questions
are involved and that apparently the
bill is filed in good faith, and Is not
frivolous"
At the conclusion of his 19-page
(See T. v. A., Page A-2)