Case Name: CENTRAL OREGON IRR. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-06-06
Citations: 80 Or. 607
Docket Number: 
Parties: CENTRAL OREGON IRR. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
Judges: Mb. Justice Eakin took no part in the consideration of this case.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 607–610

Head Matter:
Submitted on brief May 31,
petition dismissed June 6, 1916.
CENTRAL OREGON IRR. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
(157 Pac. 1070.)
Courts—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court—Prohibition.
1. Under Article VII, Section 2, of the Constitution, as amended November, 1910, to provide that the Supreme Court might take original jurisdiction in mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus proceedings, and Article VE, Section 6, of the Constitution, giving it jurisdiction only to revise the final decisions of the Circuit Courts, and Article VII, Section 9, of the Constitution, declaring all judicial power not vested by the Constitution or laws exclusively in some other court to belong to the Circuit Courts, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of an original proceeding by an irrigation company to secure a prerogative writ of prohibition restraining the Public Service Commission and an association from doing anything in respeet to the association’s complaint before the commission.
[As to when the writ of prohibition lies, see notes in 12 Am. Dec. 60á; 18 Am. Dec. 238; 111 Am. St. Rep. 929.
Original proceeding in Supreme Court.
In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
It seems from tbe petition that tbe Central Oregon Irrigation Company Water Users’ Association has preferred a complaint of some sort to the Public Service Commission against tbe petitioner. Tbis is an original proceeding in this court to secure a prerogative writ of prohibition restraining and forbidding tbe present respondents from doing anything in respect to tbe complaint before tbe commission.
Tbe defendants have demurred generally to the petition before us.
Submitted on briefs under tbe proviso of Supreme Court Bule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).
Petition Dismissed.
For petitioner there was a brief submitted over tbe names of Mr. Jesse Stearns and Mr. Denton G. Bur-dick.
Contra, there was a brief submitted by Mr. George M. Brown, Attorney General, and Mr. Harvey H. De Armond.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
1. Section 2 of Article VTI of tbe state Constitution, as amended by tbe plebiscite of November, 1910, reads thus:
"The courts, jurisdiction, and judicial system of Oregon, except so far as expressly changed by this amendment shall remain as at present constituted until otherwise provided by law. But the Supreme Court may, in its own discretion, take original jurisdiction in mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus proceedings."
The function of the Supreme Court in the judicial system of the state, which was thus perpetuated until otherwise changed by future legislation, is defined and limited by Section 6 of the original Article VII of the organic law in these words:
" The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction only to revise the final decisions of the Circuit Courts."
A further restriction is found in Section 9 of the same original article, viz.:
"All judicial power, authority, and jurisdiction not vested by this Constitution, or by laws consistent therewith, exclusively in some other court, shall belong to the Circuit Courts."
The present litigation cannot be classified under either mcmdamus, quo warranto or habeas corpus, which are the only instances in which this court can assume original jurisdiction, even in its discretion. In some cases, such as Livesley v. Krebs Hop Co., 57 Or. 352 (97 Pac. 718, 107 Pac. 460, 112 Pac. 1), we have issued injunctions as ancillary measures to protect or enforce our own jurisdiction already regularly acquired; but in no instance have we ever exercised primary authority in such a case as the petitioner presents here. It is beyond our constitutional authority.
The questions presented by the petition and demurrers are interesting, but as to this court they are as yet only academic, and as such we cannot undertake to decide them in advance of a regular appeal from a Circuit Court decision.
The petition is dismissed. Dismissed.
Mb. Justice Eakin took no part in the consideration of this case.