(Syllabus.)
1. MANDAMUS — Exclusive jurisdiction to review, affirm, reverse or remand action of Corporation Commission vested in Supreme Court with respect to public utilities. Under the provisions of section 20, art. 9 of the Constitution, no court of this state, except the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction to review, affirm, reverse or remand any action of the Corporation Commission with respect to the rates, charges, services, practices, rules or regulations of public utilities, or to suspend or delay the execution or operation thereof.
2. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS — District court held without power to grant relief in gas rate case, and without jurisdiction of subject matter of action — Remedy provided. Under the provisions of the Constitution, in an action in district court against a public utility company when a question of validity of any rate or regulation prescribed by the Corporation Commission is presented and under circumstances that a determination thereof is required as a basis of the relief sought, the district court is without power to grant the relief and is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. A remedy is provided by appeal from Corporation Commission orders to this court; or in a proper case by suitable original action in this court.
WELCH, J.
The facts and issues involved in this appeal were fully presented and considered in connection with the determination of a related case of original jurisdiction in this court, to wit, the case of State ex rel. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Hughes, District Judge, 204 Okla. 134, 227 P.2d 666.
In the cited case we granted writ of prohibition against enforcement of the judgment, the subject of this appeal. In that decision we held that the trial court was without authority to render the said judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action.
For brevity, we herein adopt the statement of the facts as set forth in the cited decision as relates to the question of the jurisdiction of the trial court. We here apply the rules of law stated in the cited decision and as set forth in the syllabus paragraphs above. Herein we hold the trial court was without jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court, with directions to dismiss the action.
ARNOLD, C.J., and CORN, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON, and O'NEAL, JJ., concur. GIBSON, J., dissents.