Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NY
Citations
- 258 U.S. 165
- 42 S. Ct. 264
- 66 L. Ed. 538
- 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2255
Syllabus
<p>1. The copying into the record, contrary to Equity Rules 75 and 76, of voluminous stenographic reports of proceedings before a master, useless exhibits and other matter irrelevant- to the appeal, is an indefensible practice which' the court hereafter will feel at liberty to punish to the limit of its discretion — possibly by dismissing the appeal. P. 173.</p> <p>2. Evidence held, sufficient to support conclusions of the master and trial court that the eighty-cent gas rate fixed by New York Laws 1906, c. 125, and upheld in Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, had become confiscatory when this suit was begun and decided due to increased costs of labor and materials, and would so continue. P. 174.</p> <p>3. There is a presumption that profits realized by a gas company while subject to supervision by a commission empowered to prohibit unreasonable rates wrere lawfully acquired. P. 175.</p> <p>4. The public interest in the property of a public service corporation dedicated to a public use, and the past success -of its enterprise, will not support a demand that it operate indefinitely at a loss. P. 175.</p> <p>5. The fact that a gas company may not have supplied gas of the candle power required by statute, will not debar it (as coming with unclean hands) from equitable relief from a confiscatory rate, when its conduct has been subject to official control and it has endeavored to nleet its customers’ requirements. P. 175.</p> <p>6. Books of a gas company, kept in ordinary course, under supervision of a public commission, and free from suspicion, held admissible as prima facie evidence of the confiscatory effect of a statutory gas rate. P. 176.</p> <p>7. As a condition to an injunction against a gas rate found confiscatory, the court has discretionary power, which, however, should be exercised very cautiously, to prescribe a maximum future rate for a specified period as a limitation in favor of consumers. P. 177.</p> <p>8. But a requirement that future collecti
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Undoubtedly, after appeal the trial court may, if the purposes of Justice require, preserve the status quo until decision by the appellate court.”
- “Undoubtedly, after appeal, the trial court may, if the purposes of justice require, preserve the status quo until decision by the appellate court.”
- “Undoubtedly, after appeal the trial court may, if the purposes of justice require, preserve the status quo until decision by the appellate court”
- “Undoubtedly, after appeal the trial court may, if the purposes of Justice require preserve the status quo until decision by the appellate court.”
- “Undoubtedly, after appeal the trial court may, if the purposes of Justice require, preserve the status quo until decision by the appellate court.”
- “The civil rules allow the district court to modify an injunction to maintain the status quo pending appeal.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McReynolds, Clarke
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.