Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

dends. While the protection of the vested rights of property is a supreme duty of the courts, it has not come to this, that the legislative power rests subservient to the discretion of any railroad corporation which may, by exorbitant and unreasonable salaries, or in some other improper way, transfer its earnings into what it is pleased to call operating expenses.- Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 400, affg. s. c. 83 Mich. 592, 47 N. W. 489. In an action under Interst. Com. Act, § 16, to enforce an order of the Commission, the court has no revisory power over the order.Inters. Com. Commission v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 64 Fed. 723.

A statute giving a commission the power to conduct an investigation as to reasonable charges and to fix a maximum rate is not invalid merely because the determination is made partly upon hearsay evidence, since, even if the right of appeal given does not sufficiently protect the defendant, such appeal is not an exclusive remedy, but there is always the right to proceed by affirmative action to enjoin the enforcement of the commission's orders.— Village of Saratoga v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 203, 107 N. Y. Sup. 341, revd. on other grounds, 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693.

The safety of free government rests upon the independence of each branch of government, and requires that each department should be free from interference, in the discharge of its peculiar duties, by either. of the others. People ex rel. Burby v. Howland, 155 N. Y. 270, 49 N. E. 775, 41 L. R. A. 838.

Review of the proceedings before a state railroad commission, to determine the reasonableness of rates fixed by it, is a judicial function, which may properly be required of the courts.- Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. R. R. Comrs., 38 Ind. App. 439, 78 N. E. 338.

The orders of the Corporation Commission of North Carolina as to rates, etc., are subject to review by the courts.- Corporation Commission v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 139 N. C. 126, 51 N. E. 793.

[blocks in formation]

A state assessing board, in determining the value of railway property for certain purposes of taxation, took into account the returns furnished by the corporations and their respective stocks, bonds, properties, earnings, etc.-Held, that the court will not consider complaints as to results reached by the board, except those based on fraud or the clear adoption of a fundamentally wrong principle.- Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U. S. 585, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 326.

The determinations of the state and municipal civil service commission are not final, but are subject to a limited and qualified judicial control. People ex rel. Schau v. McWilliams, 185 N. Y. 92, 77 N. E. 785.

The courts can review the acts of inferior tribunals possessing powers of a judicial nature.- People ex rel. Smith v. Hoffman, 166 N. Y. 462, 60 N. E. 187, 54 L. R. A. 597, revg. s. c. 55 App. Div. (N. Y.) 260, 68 N. Y. Supp. 884, 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 379, 66 N. Y. Supp. 2.

Decisions of the N. Y. Military Board of Examination are reviewable judicially, unless expressly excepted from such review.-People ex rel. Smith v. Hoffman, 166 N. Y. 462, 60 N. E. 187, 54 L. R. A. 597, revg. s. c. 55 App. Div. (N. Y.) 260, 68 N. Y. Supp. 884, 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 379, 66 N. Y. Supp. 2.

A decision of the N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity, is judicially reviewable. People ex rel. Steward v. Board of R. R. Comrs., 160 N. Y. 202, 54 N. E. 697, affg. s. c. 40 App. Div. (N. Y.) 559, 58 N. Y. Supp. 94.

Certiorari may be issued to review the judicial determinations of inferior tribunals and officers, acting under statutory authority. Decisions of the N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners may be thus reviewed.- People ex rel. Loughran v. Board of R. R. Comrs., 158 N. Y. 421, 53 N. E. 163, affg. s. c. 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) 158, 52 N. Y. Supp. 901.

Decisions of the Commissioners of the Land Office as to questions of fact are judicially reviewable by certiorari.- People ex rel. Burnham v. Jones, 112 N. Y. 597, 20 N. E. 577, modifying and affg. s. c. 49 Hun (N. Y.), 365, 2 N. Y. Supp. 148.

Decisions rendered by New York Board of Fire Department Examiners are not judicially reviewable, even though unreasonable, unless they are wholly impracticable or beyond the scope of its authority.N. Y. Fire Dept. v. Atlas Ss. Co., 106 N. Y. 566, 13 N. E. 329.

An appeal will not lie to the Supreme Court to review questions of fact passed on by commissioners appointed under N. Y. R. R. L., § 22. - Matter of N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 388, 2 N. E. 35.

The action of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, under N. Y. R. R. L., § 100, in permitting a street railroad to change its motive power, is judicially reviewable.- People ex rel. Babylon R. Co. v. Board of R. R. Comrs., 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) 179, 52 N. Y. Supp. 908; affd. 158 N. Y. 711, 53 N. E. 1129.

[blocks in formation]

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not restrictive of state, but only of national action.- Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 40.

The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not confined to the action of the State through

legislature, or through the executive or judicial authority. Those provisions relate to and cover all the instrumentalities by which the state acts and therefore whoever, by virtue of public position under a state government, deprives another of any right protected by that amendment against deprivation by the state, violates the constitutional inhibition. Raymond 7. Chicago Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 7, affg. s. c. 114 Fed. 557.

Whenever the power of regulation of railroad corporations is exerted in such an arbitrary and unreasonable way as to cause it to be in effect not a regulation but an infringement upon the right of ownership, such an exertion of power is void because repugnant to the "due process" and equal protection" clauses of the U. S. Constitution.- Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. N. Carolina Corp. Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 585, affg. s. c. 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191.

66

Acts of state officers in violation of the provisions of state law and in opposition to plain prohibitions therein are not acts of the state to which the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution are applicable.- Barney v. City of New York, 193 U. S. 430, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 502.

The question of what rates are reasonable could be more easily determined by a commission composed of persons whose special skill, observation and experience qualifies them to handle great problems of transportation, but the court cannot shrink from the duty of determining whether it is true, as alleged, that a state statute invades rights secured by the supreme law of the land.- Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 418, affg. s. c. 64 Fed. 165.

There is a remedy in the courts for relief against legislation establishing a tariff of rates which is so unreasonable as to practically destroy the value of the property of companies engaged in the carrying business. Especially may the courts of the United States treat such a question as a judicial one, and hold such acts of legislation to be in conflict with the U. S. Constitution, as depriving the companies of their property without due process of law, and as denying them the equal protection of the laws. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 15 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 484, affg. s. c. 54 Ark. 101, 15 S. W. 18.

The legislative determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.- Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 14 Sup. Ct. R. 499; Wright v. Hart, 182 N. Y. 330, 75 N. E. 404; Colon v. Lisk, 153 N. Y. 188, 47 N. E. 302.

Under the pretence of regulating fares and freights, the state cannot require a railroad corporation to carry persons or property without reward, neither can it do that which in law amounts to a taking of private

property without due process of law. Stone v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 307, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 334, 388, 1191.

Any law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from the stipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 256; McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. (U. S.) 612; People v. Otis, 90 N. Y. 48.

A court of first instance, save in a clear case of legislative error, may well leave to an appellate court the avoidance of a statute for unconstitutionality. Michie v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 151 Fed. 694.

A carrier has no right to earn a return upon its investment, except as it may do so in operating its property in conformity to the law. -Brewer v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 224.

The rights of "liberty" and "property" are sacred and substantial rights guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. Any law which interferes with the right to make and enforce contracts affects both the liberty and property of the citizen.- Wright v. Hart. 182 N. Y. 330, 75 N. E. 404.

The contention that a railroad regulation act invades property rights protected by the state or federal constitutions, is not available in the Court of Appeals unless it has been raised below.- Purdy v. Erie R. Co., 162 N. Y. 42, 56 N. E. 508, 48 L. R. A. 669, affg. s. c. 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 643, 54 N. Y. Supp. 1114.

[ocr errors]

A regulative measure is not necessarily unconstitutional because it to some extent interferes with "liberty or "property."— People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 689.

"Property" may be interfered with without an actual or physical taking or property, and "liberty" may be interfered with without any actual restraint of the person.- Matter of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98.

Depriving an owner of property of one of its essential attributes, is depriving him of his property within the constitutional provision, and a legislative declaration that upon publication of notice, a negotiable security shall not longer be transferrable, is not due process of law, working a forfeiture of the right given by the contract.- People v. Otis, 90 N. Y. 48.

"Due process of law" and "taking of private property" will be given a broad and liberal interpretation.- Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509, affg. s. c. 8 Hun (N. Y.), 16.

That a statute impairs the value of property does not necessarily render it unconstitutional.- Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509, affg. s. c. 8 Hun (N. Y.), 16.

"Due process of law" means in the due course of legal proceedings, according to those rules and forms which have been established for the

protection of private rights, not such an act as the legislature may, in the uncontrolled exercise of its power, think fit to pass.- Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 202.

The courts have no power to lower or interfere with a rate fixed by the legislature, unless it violates same provision of the Constitution.— Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. New York, 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 69, 100 N. Y. Supp. 625; affd. 188 N. Y. 334, 81 N. E. 141.

The remedy against legislative encroachments on the Constitution is to be sought from the judiciary.- Hanlon v. Supervisors, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 383.

The court cannot enjoin the acts of a state railroad commission as to matters committed to its discretion, even though such acts deny constitutional guaranties, but relief, if any, must be had in other ways.Railroad Comrs. v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 24 Fla. 417, 5 So. 129, 2 L. R. A. 504.

The court will not decide a transportation act to be unconstitutional unless a decision on that point is absolutely necessary to a disposition of a cause upon its merits.- Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Hunt, Ind. App. —, 79 N. E. 927.

To warrant the courts in interfering to determine the reasonableness of a rate fixed by a state legislature or commission, it should clearly appear that the rate fixed is so grossly inadequate as to be confiscatory and so in violation of the Constitution.- Steenerson v. Gt. Northern R. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N. W. 713.

The statute creating the Virginia Corporation Commission does not deny the equal protection of the laws to the companies subjected to the control of that commission, since the jurisdiction complained of applies to all persons or companies engaged in the business transportation and there is no discrimination in favor of or against any one carrier.— Winchester & S. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 106 Va. 264, 55 S. E. 692.

Questions whether a general statute of a state encroaches upon the commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution will be decided only in particular cases and not in the abstract.- Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 599, 46 S. E. 911.

[8] - Acts done pursuant to police power.

The exercise of the police power is subject to judicial review.- Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 25 Sup Ct. R. (U. S.) 18.

In the exercise of the police power of the state, which aims at the suppression of whatever is contrary to public policy or inimical to the public interests, the legislature is vested with a large discretion, which if exercised bona fide for the protection of the public, is beyond the reach of judicial inquiry.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677,

« AnteriorContinuar »