Joseph McKenna

“ The Electric Company to the ruling of the court opposes the contention that the Supreme Court denied the company's 'petition for a preliminary writ and refused to even cause the record in the case, certified by the Commission to be brought up,' and therefore 'simply refused to entertain jurisdiction of the controversy.' And it is the further contention that the court could neither affirm nor set aside the orders of the Commission until the record was certified to it and the parties were before it and after formal hearing in the matter. ”

“ Counsel to sustain the position that he has assumed and contends for insists upon a literal reading of the statute and a discussion of the elements of res judicata. We need not follow counsel into the latter. ”

“ And further, to quote the District Court:
'Such a determination is as effectual as an estoppel as would have been a formal judgment upon issues of fact. Calaf v. Calaf, 232 U.S. 371, 34 Sup. Ct. 411, 58 L. Ed. 642; Hart Steel Co. et al. v. Railroad Supply Co., 244 U.S. 294, 299, 37 Sup. Ct. 506, 61 L. Ed. 1148.'
The court held, and we concur, that absence of an opinion by the Supreme Court did not affect the quality of its decision or detract from its efficacy as a judgment upon the questions presented, and its subsequent conclusive effect upon the rights of the Electric Company. ”