Newton v. Kings County Lighting Co.

258 U.S. 180, 42 S. Ct. 268, 66 L. Ed. 550, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2257
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 13, 1922
Docket295
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 258 U.S. 180 (Newton v. Kings County Lighting Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newton v. Kings County Lighting Co., 258 U.S. 180, 42 S. Ct. 268, 66 L. Ed. 550, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2257 (1922).

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from' a final decree entered October 19, 1920, which enjoined the enforcement of c. 125, Laws of New York of 1906, ahd also the Act of New York Legislature approved May 9, 1916, c. 604, Laws of 1916. 268 Fed. 143. The first of these statutes fixed the price which appellee might charge for gas distributed in New York City at $1.00 per thousand cubic- feet, and the second amended the earlier one by reducing the maximuih price to eighty cents.

*181 The original bill filed in May, 1920, alleges that the actual cost to appellee of manufacturing and distributing gas during 1919 and the first .three months of 1920 had exceeded eighty cents per thousand cubic feet; that such cost would not be less than $1.00 for an indefinite period thereafter; and that the, statutory rate was confiscatory.

The matter was referred to a Master who took proof and made a report which supported appellee’s claim. With some unimportant modifications this was confirmed by the court. An appropriate decree followed which wé are ¿sked to reverse for sundry specified reasons com-, mented upon orally and in the brief.

We are satisfied that the court below reached a correct conclusion and that none of the points relied upon for reversal are adequate to justify such action. So far as substantial all were adequately disposed of by the opinion of the trial court, and we need not comment further upon them.

The judgment below is

Affirmed,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Benson v. Hunter
2002 OK CIV APP 44 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2002)
Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie
167 Misc. 269 (New York Supreme Court, 1938)
Sackett v. Paine
128 A. 209 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1925)
Kings County Lighting Co. v. Newton
202 A.D. 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 U.S. 180, 42 S. Ct. 268, 66 L. Ed. 550, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-kings-county-lighting-co-scotus-1922.