Palermo Land & Water Co. v. Railroad Commission

The bill seeks a final decree avoiding an order of the defendant Commission, made in the exercise of power conferred by the Public Utilities Act of the state (Stats, of Cal. [Ex. Sess.] 1911, p. 18), fixing plaintiff’s water rates, on the ground that such rates are confiscatory and will take plaintiff’s prop-' erty without due process of law; and it asks for an injunction enjoining enforcement of the order pendente lite. The defendant has moved to dismiss the bill on the ground that the action is prematurely brought.

Section 66 of the Public Utilities Act provides that after any order or decision by the Commission any party pecuniarily interested may apply to the Commission for a rehearing in the matter, and that:

The bill fails to disclose that any application was made for a rehearing in the present case, and it was conceded at the argument that no such application had been interposed.

*709 It is contended by the defendants, and I think correctly so, that the fads bring the case within the principles of Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Cine Co., 211 U. S. 210 , 29 Sup. Ct. 67, 53 L. Ed. 150 . There the Constitution and laws of Virginia vested the power to fix- rates for public…