Bacon v. Rutland Railroad
232 U.S. 134
SCOTUS
1914
Check Treatment
Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is а bill in Equity brought by the appellee, the. Railroad Company, to restrаin the Public Service Commission of Vermont from enforcing an order сoncerning a passenger station of the Company at Vergennes. The order ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍is alleged to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Commission moved, to dismiss the bill-on the ground that until the appellee had taken the appeal from the order to the Supreme Court of the State that is provided *137 for by Pub. Stat. Vt. 1906, §§ 4599, 4600, it ought, not to be heard to complain elsewhere. The motion ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍was overruled and the defendants not desiring to plead an injunction was issued as prayed.

The defendants rely upon Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 229, 230. The grоund of that decision was that by the state constitution an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals from an order of thе State Corporation Commission fixing rates was granted, with power tо the court to substitute such order as in its opinion the Commission should have made. The court was given legislative powers, and it was held that in the circumstances it was proper, ■ before resorting to the Circuit Court ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍of the United States, to make sure that the officials of the State would try to establish an unconstitutional rule. But it was laid down expressly that at the judicial stage the railroads had a right to resort to the сourts of the United States at once. p. 228. Therefore beforе that case can apply it must be established at least that legislative powers are conferred upon the Supreme Cоurt of the State of Vermont.

The appeal in Vermont is given by statute, not by the Constitution, which separates legislative, executive аnd judicial powers, c. 2, § 6. The material provisions are as follоws: § 4599. “Any party to a cause who feels himself aggrieved by the final ordеr, judgment or decree of said board shall have the right to take the cause to the supreme court by appeal, for the correction of any errors excepted to in its procеedings, ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍or in .the form or substance of its orders, judgments and decrees, on the facts found and reported by said board.” By .§ 4600 appeals аre to be taken in the manner and under the laws and rules of proсedure that govern appeals from the court of chancery. “The Supreme Court shall have the same power therein as it has over appeals from such court. It may reverse or аffirm the judgments, orders or decrees of said board. *138 and may remand a cause to said board with such mandates as law or equity shall requirе; and said board shall enter judgment, order or decree in acсordance with such mandates.”' Pub. Stats. 1906. It is apparent on the face of these sections that they do not attempt to confеr legislative powers upon the court. They only provide an аlternative and more expeditious way of doing what might be done by ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍a bill in equity. Whether the alternative is exclusive or concurrent, whethеr it opens matters that would not be open upon a bill or not, if еxceptions are taken (which does not appear in this case), is immaterial; the remedy in any event is purely judicial: to exоnerate the appellant from an order that exceеds the law. This, we understand, is the view taken by the Supreme Court of the State, Bacon v. Boston & Maine R. R., 83 Vermont, 421, 457; Sabre v. Rutland R. R. Co., 86 Vermont, 347, 368, 369, and this being so, by the rule laid down in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., the railroad company was free to assert its rights in the District Court of the United States.

Decree affirmed-.