United States v. New York Telephone Co
The Federal Communications Commission's order for readjustment of telephone company's accounts could not be enjoined on theory that commission's order was premised upon erroneous conclusion that company's original accounting entries were illegal when made, where principal foundation of commission's order was that company was legally subject to requirement of restating its accounts on basis of original cost, notwithstanding commission might have thought, as an alternative ground for its decision, that accounts were illegal when made. Communications Act of 1934, §§ 220(a, c, g), 402(a), 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 220(a, c, g), 402(a); Interstate Commerce Act § 20(5), as amended Sept. 18, 1940, 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(5); Jud.Code §§ 24(28), 208, 209, 211, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 41(28), 46, 45, 48; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 43, 44, 47.

Where effect of write-up caused originally by subsidiary telephone company's recording the property purchased from parent company at structural value rather than at parent company's net book cost had never been eradicated, Federal Communications Commission's order requiring subsidiary to make charges to surplus with corresponding credits to other accounts, to conform with commission's uniform system of accounts based upon 'original cost', was not erroneous because portions of property had been retired and written out of plant account at amount at which they were recorded originally and corresponding charges had been made concurrently to depreciation reserve. Communications Act of 1934, §§ 220(a, c, g), 402(a), 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 220(a, c, g), 402(a); Interstate Commerce Act § 20(5), as amended Sept. 18, 1940, 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(5).

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Harry M. Plotkin, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Mr. Henry J. Friendly, of New York City, for appellee.

Messrs. Philip Halpern and Frank C. Bowers, both of New York City, for Public Service Commission, amicus curiae.

Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision