Majority
p. 46(Argued January 6, 1915; decided January 26, 1915.)
In the Matter of the Application of the Public Service Commission for the First District, Appellant, for an Order Directing William H. Mendel, Respondent, to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Punished for Refusing to Be Examined, Answer Questions and Produce Books and Papers in a Matter Pending before the Public Service Commission.
Headnote
Public service commission — has no right of supervision over lessor of space in railroad station who maintains a parcel room therein.The proprietor of a parcel room, occupying leased space in a railroad station, is not subject to the supervision of the. public service commission and is under no duty to reveal its profits or submit to a general inspection of its books.
Matter of Public Service Commission, 162 App. Div. 371 , affirmed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 15, 1914, which reversed an order of Special Term adjudging the respondent herein in contempt and punishing him therefor.
The public service commission on September 9, 1913, on its own motion adopted a resolution for a hearing to be held for the purpose of determining whether the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company should be ordered to maintain in its Grand Central Station a suitable room where parcels might be checked by those using the trains of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company or the trains of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, for a charge to be less than ten cents per parcel. Upon the hearing it appeared that the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company did not maintain any parcel checking room, but that its lessee, W. H. Mendel,
p. 47
Incorporated, did conduct such parcel rooms. Mr. Mendel appeared in response to a subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum, but refused, on advice of counsel, to produce the journals, cash books and ledgers of the corporation, relating to the business carried on under the lease of the parcel-checking privilege, although directed to do so by the presiding commissioner, and also refused, on advice of counsel, to answer certain questions.
Arthur Du Bois and. George 8. Coleman for appellant.
The refusal of the witness to produce the books of W. H. Mendel, Iricorporated, of which he was president, and to answer the questions asked was without reasonable cause or legal excuse. (Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361 ; Nelson v. U. S., 201 U. S., 92 ; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25 ; Burnham v. Morissey, 14 Gray [Mass.], 226; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L. R. 239 ; State v. U. S. Express Co., 81 Minn. 87 ; United States v. Tilden, 10 Benedict, 566; Matter of Barnes, 204 N. Y. 108 .)
George W. Alger for respondent.
The commission had no jurisdiction over this private company, not subject to its supervision, conducting a private business. The questions as to its private affairs, not the acts of the carrier, are unwarranted by law and- are not pertinent or legal, and the witness lawfully refused to answer such questions and lawfully refused to produce the books of his company in response to a void and unauthorized subpoena duces tecum. (I. C. Comm. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447 ; Matter of Pacific Ry. Comm., 32 Fed. Rep. 241 ; Matter of Foster, 139 App. Div. 769 ; Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1030; Harriman v. I. C. Comm., 211 U. S. 407 ; Matter of Straus, 30 App. Div. 610 ; Wallace v. Baring, 2 App. Div. 501 .)
We do not find it necessary for the disposition of this appeal to determine whether the pub-
p. 48
lie service commission, by force of its right to regulate stations and terminal facilities (Public Service Commissions Law, Cons. Laws, ch. 48, section 50), has in any case the power to compel a railroad corporation to maintain a parcel room. We do not mean to intimate a belief that the power exists, but we think the determination whether it does or does' not exist should be left to some case where the rights of the railroad company are directly involved. We are satisfied that, in any event, the witness Mendel could not properly be required to disclose to the commission the financial condition of his company. That company was not subject to the supervision of the commission. It was under no duty to reveal its profits through the testimony of its officer. (Public Service Commissions Law, section 19.) It was under, no duty to submit to a general inspection of its books. (Public Service Commissions Law, section 45, subd. 3.) It kept a parcel room in the railroad station. It kept in the same station a candy store and booth. The commission had no greater control over the one business than over the other. Its power to investigate the profits yielded by the parcel room was no greater than it would have been if the same business had been conducted in an adjoining building. The accident of location did not impose upon the owner the duty to make public disclosure of the profits of a private venture.
The order should.be affirmed, with costs.
Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Cases cited
- In re Mendel 162 App. Div. 371 p. 46
- Wilson v. United States 221 U. S. 361 p. 47
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird 194 U. S. 25 p. 47
- In re Barnes 204 N. Y. 108 p. 47
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson 154 U. S. 447 p. 47
- Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission 211 U. S. 407 p. 47
- In re Strauss 30 App. Div. 610 p. 47