In Re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U.S. 646 (1914)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
In Re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U.S. 646 (1914)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 231 U.S. 639, click here.
In re Engelhard & Sons Company No. 12, Original Argued November 10, 1913 Decided January 5, 1914 231 U.S. 646
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND RULE
Syllabus
In a suit by a public utility corporation to enjoin enforcement of rates claimed to be confiscatory, the municipality is the proper party to be made defendant, and as such it can represent all parties interested. The only mode of judicial relief against unreasonable rates is by suit against the governmental authority which established them or is charged with the duty of enforcing them.
It is not competent for each individual having dealings with a regulated public utility corporation to raise a contest in the courts over questions which can be settled in a general and conclusive manner. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418.
Where a telephone company has sued the municipality to enjoin rates as confiscatory and an injunction has been granted upon the company paying into a fund the excess collected from the subscribers, the municipality is the proper party to represent all the subscribers on a reference to determine the amount of refund to which each is entitled after the rates have been held not confiscatory and the injunction dissolved.
Under such conditions, a single subscriber cannot represent all the subscribers as a class, and the court is not compelled under Equity Rule 38 to allow him to intervene.
In this case, the court below having acted within its discretion in refusing a petition for leave to intervene, mandamus to compel it to grant the petition is refused.
The facts, which involve the right and power of a municipality to represent the residents and citizens having contracts with a public utilities corporation in a suit brought by such corporation to enjoin as confiscatory rates established by ordinance of the municipality, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," In Re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U.S. 646 (1914) in 231 U.S. 646 231 U.S. 647. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QGFBGXYY8ZTFB7W.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." In Re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U.S. 646 (1914), in 231 U.S. 646, page 231 U.S. 647. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QGFBGXYY8ZTFB7W.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in In Re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U.S. 646 (1914). cited in 1914, 231 U.S. 646, pp.231 U.S. 647. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QGFBGXYY8ZTFB7W.
|