Case Name: NEWTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-03-06
Citations: 258 U.S. 178
Docket Number: No. 296
Parties: NEWTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 258
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
NEWTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS COMPANY.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
No. 296.
Argued January 6, 1922.
Decided March 6, 1922.
Approving the conclusion of the master and the District Court that a gas .rate fixed under Laws New York, 1906, c. 125, had become confiscatory.
269 Fed. 277, affirmed.
Appeal from a decree enjoining enforcement of a statutory-gas rate as confiscatory. See also the cases, ante, 165, and post, 180,
Mr.. Wilber W. Chambers, with whom Mr. Charles D. Newton, Attorney General of the State of New York, and Mr. Clarence R. Cummings were on the brief, for Newton, Attorney General.'
Mr. M. Maldwin Fertig, with whom Mr. John P. O’Brien and Mr. James A. Donnelly were on the brief, for Wallace, District Attorney.
Mr. William L. Ransom, with whom Mr. John A. Garver, Mr. Charles A. Vilas and Mr. Jacob H. Goetz were on the briefs, for appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McReynolds
delivered the opinion of the court.
. This appeal brings up for review a final decree entered November 19, 1920, which adjudged that in so far as c. 125, Laws of New York of 1906, prohibited appellee from charging and receiving more than $1.00 per thousand/ cubic feet for gas delivered, and sold in the Third Ward, Borough of Queens, New York City, it was and had been confiscatory since January 1, 1919. 269 Fed. 277.
After taking a great mass of evidence the Master reported that the actual cost to appellee of manufacturing and distributing gas exceeded. $1.00 per thousand cubic feet and that the challenged act was confiscatory. With this conclusion the trial court agreed and entered an appropriate decree. We find no sufficient ground for disapproving the action so taken, and it is accordingly
Affirmed.