*1 849 Supreme tion to do so herein. The Court of the United in of the case Federal Radio Commission v. States Nelson Mortgage Company, supra [289 & Bond Brothers U. S. powers speaking 632], 53 S. of its said: 266, Ct. “It cannot give merely advisory, decisions which are or exer- can it essentially legislative are cise functions which or admini- ’’ strative. suggestion of The error is overruled.
Sydney participate J., Smith, O. did not in this decision. Company &Oil Gas Board et al. The California v. State 14, (In Suggestion 25, 1946. Banc. of Error Oct. Overruled Nov.
1946.) (2d) [27 So. 548. No. 36162.] (In 25, 1946.) Banc. Nov. (2d) (2d) also 28 27 So. 542,
See So. 120. Ethridge, Wells, Wells, Thomas, Newman and W. & N. Engle appell- Jr., Laub, and Jackson, of & of for Natchez, ant.
854 *6 n & Snow, appellees. Butler for Jackson, of
859 suggestion appellees, Butler Snow, & on of for Jackson, of error. Ethridge,
Wells, Wells, Thomas, Newman & W. N. and Engle Jr., all of Jackson, Laub, of & Lucius Natchez, and appellant, sug- Lamar, M. of New Orleans, La., for on gestion of error.
Argued orally by Ethridge, appellant, W. N. Jr., for by George appellee. Jr., and Butler, for opinion Roberds, J., delivered the of the Court. by opinion day
This case is controlled the this handed Company down in the case of California v. State Oil and (2d) Gas Board et 200 al., Miss. 27 824, So. 542. Reversed and remanded. op Suggestion
On Ekeor. opinion Smith, Sr., J., L. A. delivered the of the Court suggestion on of error.
.860 contending
Suggestion we that of Error filed here is opin- by holding in is the erred that case controlled this & Board ion in v. Gas case of California Co. State Oil the (2d) In we al., et 200 Miss. So. 542. that case 824, *10 appealable held that of was 17, 1945, the order October (a) against that to the court the contention circuit as appeal by order no was the statute from authorized said upon petition a filed since the order was not a decision by party provisions statute, of the Code either the under appellant (b) ex- failed to Sec. that the 1942, 6136; and remedy before Oil Gas haust administrative the and its appeal premature. the that, therefore, was Board, and, procedure In laid in sta the entire down the this case only companion one tute in case was followed while the Company petition was the However, filed. California application (or petition) party was made a to there the hearing Hodge upon and F. which the was had, “of T. ‘being provides anyone party a to that since the statute unnecessary petition may appeal it after that, was ’, such losing hearing before the board, the full had the was party, party such had been the California Com whether petition seeking Hodge, pany file another or T. F. should again precedent heard as a condition that the matter be companion opinion appeal.” the in refer to the to an We reported & v. State Oil Board Co. Gas case, as California (2d) 542. 824, 200 Miss. So. al., et procedure this in the we did not condemn However, purpose main and our in an- No. case, 36162, instant by opinion nouncing in the other that controlled the it is interpre- to it our conclusion as the to extend to case, was application the of substantive statute, the and tation of pertinent in decision set out the other case. other law, and suggestion error overruled. of is The participate Sydney Smith, J., in this decision. C. did not