.
520
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
QDULDCN&Ml
--
-h
duetit, Texss
ctolltlcJs3ll$
Of yow 1efter
nt, rpliahlet-
of JtaPisc?iotion
aPisos
the cowlpanydid not
to the Gam~Loeionfrom
ox%mlalm, effectJIve
but inete& attwked
0 0Ptlbsnoe ana tam ga8
utility statutes by an appeal to the Die-
trlct CouPt in wh8PtoIlcounty, where the
OPLWNUWJ was 8upePsd3d aad litigot%On
initiated.
*ThcJorainanao and the statutes WBPe
finally hol(lto be vSr3.dand the CWPBW
filed its appeal to the Oommbdon on @@et
s, iff40,after ntmrlg a yew had elapsed
fP0~ the opP‘3ctiro data of! the tx-clime.
Uonor3blo ken A. Sxzith
tionorabloJerry Stiler - pa@ 2
*Tuo questions 3re lmsect ~fiicb8ffeot
the juriedictistof the Comrzl.ssion
-
*First: iiasth3 Cowpmy lost its fight
or 3IIpaalto the R3ilro3d comzission38 I"o-
vid& by Artlcl,o@OOS, R. 6., 1926, 3s wnded?
"&uiwGrs tZitLk3s+two qu"ationswill be
appax%3fezl."
drtiole 6o68 of .&he &W&Sod ciV% %afU?ie6 &S 08
followst
*Whm 3 aity F;Gvernmct Las crdepsd aaj
etxietifii r3te roiluced,the gas utility Pfieot-
ed by such order my 3pw31 tc the Co~&~sj.ou
by filing aitb it (iusuch torr~ snd connitifms
a0 th0 Coam;tssion ray direct, a jmtition and
bond to revielpthe doaision, regulation,orbi-
n3nc0, or ord0r of the city, ttxm or nuaioipal-
ity . Upou suoh appeal being taken tbo C&e-
s&on shall set a holu'i?&$and ~oaym&e su&i OP-
de or dooiulon iriregard to the Biatteriwolt-
Bd therein ES St way deem Just axxlraasonoble.
The Cocgdeeion shall hear such appeal de nwo.
Yheuever any 3.0~31distributingcom;$mnyor oon-
awn, obese ratbe hova beon fixed by any mniel-
pal gwornmcnt, des.Iroea cI13k~eof any of its
rates, pentale or chcrFes, it shell lilalie
its
applicationto the mmxcip31 governmentwbme I
such utility is locat& an4 such municipal~
gwomummt shall dc&3rndnc said agpliootion
sir,M.~.sixty &aye aftor gr3eentrrtionunleee
th3 determinationthereof may be longer defer-
red by 3@%ment. If the mu&ci~l gwerument
shouZd reject such ap@.,llcation
or Pail or re-
fuse to act on it rvith5.ns3iilsixty days. then
+&hautility gay npwal tx the Com~&~ion as
hersfn providti- Uui sa.tdComiesion +&all
dotwdne the utters involved in any such
appeal rtithinsixty Lays aftar tiw3filing:by
such utility of such appeal psitbss.ldComnde-
sion cm such furtkiortim? as such utility shall
in vrifine,3gmo to, but the rates fixed by
such Epmlci~l gwernnont shall r9ma5.nin full
form and of'featuntil ordered changed by the
CQnurdsi~on.*
It will be sem the statute preeoribea no time
WithiR Which tit0AiFp0Ckli;aY b0 ta22n to the Comdesion.
Ordinarily,this tl.rz.Q
913mmt is ~mW.cloc~
in cOnnectiOn
with the authority FpqrLhz a>pcill.
hn appeal 08 su& is not ossmtial to duo ~~OQQBQ,
if the or&w or decision itself has beon mclc or rendorti
in a yrweml.tngmoating th%Lyr"umlar2ont.31
requirement of the
Ccnstitution. Th0 cxp3ss :yantitrgCP tlit3ri&t to appeal,
howover, cOncludvcly ovidcnooo the lagislativeintent that
5uol:right 5hould *S&SC, so that oc rust construe the stat-
ute with rofp3ct to th2 t&w within tvhtch the right to ap-
p6al mitt be exorcised.
Tim purpose 0P all litigationis, of course, to
put an mrl to contmversy. Ln turn, it is the plrposo of
every appeal (wharo on9 fe r;omittfkl)a.m.l
eepeeially of
the titw ototmtt with respect to the exemisking of sue
appeal, LB to loutau en& to tho litigofion. That aoaounte
for t&e al&mot universal rule that a tins within which the
appeal is to be talconor pert'eutcdis atat3d in the statute
@ruthorlzingtho appeal.
%hLs statute tither raves the right of appeal to
ths tliseotisfiedutility without 'anylimit wbateower ne to
th3 tim wit&-dinwhiti the right met bo exeroieti, or it
neeessarilvi~pl~os s litit as to sulohtim* It is Lncon-
caivable &at the EOg-&latUX%riaantto Ctpnf'er thQ ri t of
;rgpol dthout w lititationwhatsoever as to tho tf%
within which such appeal shoulr2bs taken. This idoe is
inconsistent with the conooytion QTP mped.itianof the cdl
tc thy controversy,‘and,momover, would result in a chaotic
unocrttintgnever contcsglatedby the Lo&:ielatura.
zt'c
nre of tho opinion there should be road into
th3 stotUt3 ~5 a 2IwmBiWy iEIpliCatiG2?thS PeqUiPelrrent
that an app3al fro& the ordinattoeof tha city to the Corn--
rission should be talan within a masonable time after the
rigbt of appal lie&aocrut3ti~
k"uatis t&at ~rwaonable tits+ -- whether the
qua&ion be ona of fnct or of law -- moasearily Begmls
0 tlm pmticular f%mt situst5.on.
upm tIx circumstances OL
Xn 5pooial procoedi.a~;s,
like the faeeont* where
&ItWiQ33ill the rattar of tine is not neces-
i6 RUthOZd.Z0i!*
swLfy Set,or&ne& by the gaumd ru%e of time with respect
honorable Lou A. Smith
honorable Jerry Sa%ler - paw4
to appeals, but 0x1the oontrary, the spsaial statute
will aontrol. See 4 C. J. Sec. p. 889, ~431,rhere
the question is disouoae%. At all events we are of
the opixioxthatxhere the longest time providedby
the general law for appeal8 in ordinary suits has
elapsed, it will tmrk the expiration of the rsason-
able t&e which the special statute has, aacordiag
to our conetruotion,pwvl%o% in the lxresentease.
In 4 C. J. Sea. p. 893 it is sai%k
"of courtto,despite the existence of
sp00ial p~~isiOns mpldng the time for
action dependent up0n any of the s&tore
roferre% to, if no appeal or pr043ae%ing
for review is taken until aftor tho ex-
piration af the longest period allowable,
whether the nature Of the aotion or pro-
oettdingor of the di8positionna%e by the
acntrtbelow, la any aape& in which it
xd.ghtbe vlexe%, suGh action is there-
atter barred rithout any need for inquiry
or %eoision as to suah special matter8.s
So that, if the s&ter of reasonable time
be tentttdby aualogJ to the longest period for which
any statute expressly given time to appeal, the nut-
for has been forecrlose%,for the dslay shown fn thla
casa exoee%s any tine known to the law for an appeal,
or even a writ of error treating that proaee%ingitself
as an appeal.
WQ therefore answer your first question in
the affiraattve.
8ime the ordinau00rats was not affeated
by the abortive effort ts enjoin its enforComsnt,
an% einoe there has been no other step taken, whlah
could result in vacatiue;or suspemling It, it fol-
524 :
Eenorable Len A. Bndth,
Eonerable Jerry Sadler - page 8
lows that your second question should likewise be answer-
ed 3.nthe aff5rniative.
Our conclusionshave support in the court de-
tiisioxi~ of this Stateuponanalogous situationsuonstru-
ing appeals frm boards of aohool trustees,and the State
Superintendent of Public Instructions
*But, while the Aot doea not expressly
fix axq time within whioh the appeal shall
be prosecute&,the public interest deumnda
that it shall be taltenwithout uxmeeus~
delay, and fe are satisfied from the very
nature of the 0-e that euah wau the intenf
of the Le slatwe.* - htIvuleseve. JhltohQF
eon (Tex.$138 8. w* 1120.
*A reasonable tims without unueoeseary
delay, te the rule in such oaa66.* -- Watkins
VS. mff, 63 8. W. 922, writ of error dls-
mbm3d uritten oplnlon 64 8. 1. 882.
*In the abrrenoeof any suoh rule (pre-
mlgateiiby the Otate Superlntetienf)the
sole Inquiry then 1st What la a ressonable
time under al1ooncUtlons surrounding the
ins&ant oaee?* - Trustees of Chilioothe
Ind. S&o01 Diet. vu. DwXney, US 8+ Wr
1007. !Shirty days was held to be a reaaon-
able time in that oabe.
*It is true the law does not presotibe
+,hclmgth of time in which an appeal from
the action of a Board of l'rueteoeCan be
taken, but the rule6 of equity d0 doe?and
that such dW.gonoe must b0 ueod as will
prevent innocent parties from bein(r, injured.a
-- Los Aqeles iloight.8 IIIL¶.School Met. TIJ*
Chestnut, 287 B. W. S92. Zn that Qase tW0
weeke was held to ham been 0 roaeonsble
ti%#.
b
S25 i.
B-lebonA.Sudtb
Bowrable Jerry failer - page 6
We trust thic will be a msffioienfaaffer
to your inquirsea.