Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/265/196/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:50:23+00:00

Document:
1. When the jurisdiction of a state court to review orders of a Commission fixing rates is confined to determining on the record certified by the Commission whether the order is lawful and reasonable and whether evidence was improperly excluded, without power to pass on the weight or sufficiency of evidence or to enter any new order in lieu of the one appealed from, the remedy is purely judicial, and need not be invoked by a party complaining of the rates fixed as confiscatory, before seeking relief in a federal court. Remington's Comp. Washington Stat. 1922, § 10428, considered. P. 265 U. S. 200.
2. A state statute empowering a Commission, after hearing, to refuse an increase of rates proposed by a public utility cannot, by forbidding supersedeas until a final judicial decree has been rendered in the state courts, prevent recourse to a federal court for temporary relief by injunction. P. 265 U. S. 201.
3. Under the law of Washington, Rem.Comp.Stat. 1922, § 10441, providing for revision of administrative valuations of the property of public utilities, the function of the state courts is not merely judicial, but also legislative, since they can pass upon the weight of evidence, and can set aside a valuation and make a new one. Keller v. Potomac Co., 261 U. S. 428. Id.
5. Comity usually prevents seeking such relief in a federal court before the legislative remedy in the state courts has been exhausted. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210. P. 265 U. S. 203.
6. But when a public utility, by reason of an order reinstating rates which it sought to increase, is suffering daily from confiscation, and under the state law (Rem.Comp.Stat. 1922, § 10429) no stay is allowable pending revision by the state courts, comity does not prevent relief by a federal court. P. 265 U. S. 204.
7. A litigant whose constitutional rights are being invaded and to whom a statute denies a supersedeas in the state tribunals may properly base his application for equitable relief on the effect of the statute and the presumption of its validity, and is not required to establish that the state statute is not invalid under the state constitution. Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 255 U. S. 288. P. 265 U. S. 205.
8. Where appeal from an order refusing an interlocutory injunction is followed by an appeal from a final decree dismissing the bill on the same ground, the first appeal should be dismissed and relief be granted under the second. Id.
Appeals from decrees of the district court refusing an interlocutory injunction and dismissing the bill, in a suit to enjoin interference with increases of telephone rates.
of rates for telephone service within the State of Washington and in the Cities of Seattle and Tacoma, to which rates the appellant company is limited by a refusal of the Department of Public Works to permit an increase thereof. The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company is a corporation of California authorized to do business in Washington and owning a plant covering the state. It owns all the stock of the Home Telephone Company, which owns and operates the Spokane Exchange. A similar question as to confiscatory rates has arisen in respect to that company and that exchange, but a separate bill was filed by that company and is considered on appeal in a case reported next after this.
This bill by the Pacific Company seeks an injunction against the Department of Public Works of the state to prevent it from interfering with the maintenance and collection of the increased rates the company proposes in all parts of Washington except Spokane. A court of three judges was organized to hear the application for a temporary order. The suit depended for jurisdiction both on the diverse citizenship of the parties and upon the averment that the order of the Department of Public Works, if enforced, would deprive the company of its property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court set aside the temporary restraining order issued by the district judge on the filing of the bill and denied the application for temporary injunction. Appeal was taken direct to this Court under Judicial Code § 266, as amended by Act March 4, 1913, 37 Stat. 1013. After the denial of the temporary injunction, the district judge heard the case on a motion to dismiss the bill, and granted the motion, and from this final decree a second appeal was taken.
make, the Department of Public Works and others in state authority, defendants would, unless restrained by the court, institute proceedings to compel compliance with the confiscatory schedule, and that the company and its officers and employees would be subjected to a multiplicity of suits and incur criminal penalties prescribed by the laws of the state.
By the statutes of Washington (§ 10428, Remington's Comp. St.1922), any complainant affected by any order of the Commission (now the department) may within 30 days apply to the superior court of the proper county for a writ of review "for the purpose of having its reasonableness and lawfulness inquired into and determined." The Commission certifies the record, upon which the court is to enter judgment affirming or setting aside the Commission's order. If reversed for failing to receive proper evidence offered, the case is to be referred back to the Commission to receive the evidence and enter a new order. The court may remand any case reversed by it to the Commission for further action. It is clear that the function to be performed by the superior court under this section is judicial. It does not fix rates or enter a new order as to them. It does not pass on the sufficiency or weight of evidence. It only looks into the reasonableness and lawfulness of the order of the Commission, and is to determine whether evidence which should have been received was rejected, and, in that case, is to send the case back to the Commission for a new order. The court does not act legislatively.
Instead of applying to the superior court of the state, therefore, application was made by the bill herein to the federal district court within the 30 days to restrain the order of the department as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"If the Commission shall, at the conclusion of the hearing, refuse to permit such increase, either in whole or in part, no supersedeas shall be granted in any action or proceeding brought to review the order of the Commission pending the final determination of such action by the superior court, or, if appealed to the supreme court, by such supreme court."
It is apparent from these provisions that, after the Commission finally denied the increase of rates applied for, the company had exhausted its administrative remedy to avoid the alleged confiscatory rates under which it was compelled to render the service. It had therefore no recourse but to a court. Both by reason of diverse citizenship and because of the federal constitutional question, the federal court of equity was available to it. The state statute forbidding a stay of proceedings until a final judicial decree was rendered, of course, could not prevent a federal court of equity from affording such temporary relief by injunction as the principles of equity procedure required. The conditions set out in the bill therefore seem to have made a case ripe for federal relief. Bacon v. Rutland R. Co., 232 U. S. 134; Prendergast v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 262 U. S. 43, 262 U. S. 48.
But it is urged that such relief is premature because the rates, increase of which was refused, were reasonable, and afforded an adequate return on the value of the property of the company used in the public service as fixed by the Commission in accord with the statutory procedure for that purpose, and that the company still has a right to appeal from the valuation of the Commission to the superior and supreme courts on the legislative question of that valuation.
of the value of the property and equipment of a public service company. The company is given 30 days' notice of a hearing, and is entitled to adduce evidence and to have it transcribed and certified. The Commission is to render findings of fact in writing concerning all matters concerning which evidence may be introduced tending to show the value of the company's property used for the public convenience. The company, believing the findings to be unfair, unwarranted, or unjust, may go into the superior court and have a writ of review of such findings and their correctness, reasonableness, and lawfulness inquired into and determined, and if the court finds them to be "unjust, incorrect, unreasonable, unlawful or not supported by the evidence," it shall make "new and correct findings," unless it sets them aside for refusing to receive proper evidence, and returns them for new findings thereon. The company is given the right of appeal to the supreme court of the state, which is given the same power as the superior court as to findings of the Commission. The findings of the Commission as corrected by the courts are made admissible in evidence in any action or proceeding except in matters of taxation, and are to be conclusive evidence of the facts found under conditions then existing, and can only be controverted by showing a subsequent change of conditions. Provision is made for further hearings to ascertain betterments, improvements, extensions, and additions, and the values of the property used by the company for interstate and for intrastate business.
It is thus apparent that the contention of the department and the state authorities that the company has not exhausted its remedy to secure a change in the valuation of the property by the superior and Supreme Courts of the state is correct, and that resort to them to change the valuation would be no bar to a resort to a federal court of equity to enjoin the enforcement of rates based upon such valuation after it had been approved by the state courts. It was on this ground that the district court held, both on the application for a temporary injunction before the three judges and upon the final dismissal, that the bill was premature, and could not be brought until after the final confirmation of the valuation by the state supreme court.
The district court relied on the case of Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210. In that case, the tribunal which fixed railroad rates that were the subject of controversy consisted not only of a commission, but of the supreme court of the state on appeal, and the court, in reaching its conclusion, acted legislatively, as the commission did. It was held that, as the complaining company had not exhausted its legislative remedy by appeal to the supreme court of the state, for its final action in the fixing of rates, comity, in absence of a controlling right to the contrary, required that the federal court delay remedy by injunction against the rates fixed until the company had invoked the conclusion of the state supreme court in respect to them. So here it is contended that, until the superior and supreme courts shall have finally considered the correctness of the valuation upon which the adequacy of the rates depends, comity requires that the federal court shall stay its hand.
valuation, further procedure in fixing valuation was void, and there was no reason either of comity or right which should delay the remedy by a bill in a federal court. Territory ex rel. Kelly v. Stewart, 1 Wash. 98, 110; State ex rel. Seattle v. Public Service Commission, 76 Wash. 492, 500. It is our duty to avoid expressing an opinion on such an issue under the Constitution of Washington in the absence of a clear decision by its highest court if we can do so, and we think we can.
"Provided, however, that, when any rate has been in force for any length of time exceeding one year, and such rate is advanced by the public service company, and the order of the Commission reinstates such prior rate in whole or in part, no supersedeas shall be allowed in any case from such order pending the final determination of the cause in the superior court, or if appealed to the supreme court by such supreme court."
will not prevent a federal court of equity from suspending the daily confiscation if it finds the case to justify it. Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 261 U. S. 293. In such a case, the Prentis case has no application. Love v. Atchison Railway Co., 185 F. 321, 324, 325.
But it is argued that the courts of Washington have inherent power to grant a supersedeas in such a case, and that §§ 10429 and 10424, supra, are invalid. As we have declined to look into the validity of the legislative functions with which the Washington state courts are vested in the valuation sections, so we decline to examine the validity of these restraints upon those courts to grant stays in cases of rates. A litigant whose constitutional rights are being invaded, and to whom a statute denies a supersedeas in the state tribunals, may properly base his application for equitable relief on the effect of the statute and the presumption of its validity, and is not required to establish that the state statute is not invalid under the state constitution. Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 255 U. S. 288, 255 U. S. 296, presents an analogous case.
Nor does the provision of § 266 of the Judicial Code (37 Stat. 1013, c. 160) that a suit in a state court to enforce the rate complained of, accompanied by a stay, shall suspend the proceedings in the federal court prevent the filing and prosecution of this bill, first because no such suit seems to have been brought, and, even if it had been, there certainly has been no stay of proceedings in the state court as provided in that section. Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., supra.
We think, therefore, that the district court erred in denying a temporary injunction under § 266 on the ground that the bill was premature.
Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 252 U. S. 44, this motion should be granted; but it does not change the ultimate result, because the final decree of the district court dismissing the bill really turned on the same erroneous ruling of its prematurity as that upon which the temporary injunction was denied, and must be reversed for the same reason.
After the case was reached in this Court, somewhat extended argument was made in the later appeal to show that the bill was defective in stating a case for equitable relief, even if it was not premature. The argument is based on objections which seem to us to be rather makeweights or afterthoughts, and are so unsubstantial that we do not discuss them. The merits of the issue between the parties can be developed after the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

References: § 10428
 § 10441
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10429
 v. 
 § 266
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 266
 v. 
 § 266
 v.