kins, does not present the disputants with duties difficult or strange. The parties and the federal courts must now search for and apply the entire body of substantive law governing an identical action in the state courts. Hitherto, even in what were termed matters of "general" law, counsel had to investigate the enactments of the state legislature. Now they must merely broaden their inquiry to include the decisions of the state courts, just as they would in a case tried in the state court, and just as they have always done in actions brought in the federal courts involving what were known as matters of "local" law. The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court, for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion, with directions to permit such amendments of the pleadings as may be necessary for that purpose. Judgment vacated. MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. No. 705. Argued April 4, 5, 1938.-Decided May 2, 1938. 1. The Act of May 14, 1934, restricting the jurisdiction of the federal courts to enjoin enforcement of orders of state commissions affecting public utility rates, is inapplicable to an order of a commission commanding a corporation to produce evidence on a certain date, made without notice or hearing. P. 214. 2. In a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional a projected inquiry by a state agency into the reasonableness of the rates of a gas company, the expense to the company of complying with the order by showing the original and historical costs of its properties, cost of reproduction as a going concern, and other elements of value recog 81638-38-14 Opinion of the Court. 304 U.S. nized by law in fixing rates, is part of the amount or value in controversy. P. 215. 3. The objection that a suit is not within equity jurisdiction because of the existence of a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law (Jud. Code § 267) may be taken by trial or appellate court sua sponte. P. 216. 4. The adequate legal remedy which will defeat equity jurisdiction. must be a remedy available in the federal court. P. 217. 5. A gas corporation owning very valuable property and doing a large business sought in a federal court to enjoin a state commission from carrying on proceedings to fix the company's rates, in alleged excess of the commission's jurisdiction and in violation of the company's constitutional rights. Held, that a loss of $25,000, in preparing and presenting the company's case before the commission, would not constitute irreparable injury justifying equitable intervention. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41. P. 218. When the only ground for interfering with the state procedure is the reasonable cost of preparing for a hearing, there is no occasion for equitable intervention. P. 221. 12 F. Supp. 254, affirmed. APPEAL from a decree of the District Court of three judges which dismissed a bill for an injunction. Mr. W. J. Brennan, with whom Messrs. Edward C. O'Rear, Allen Prewitt, and Charles N. Kimball were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. J. W. Jones, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, for appellees. MR. JUSTICE REED delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing appellant's bill of complaint for want of jurisdiction in equity. It was entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sitting with three judges under Judicial Code, § 266. 21 F. Supp. 254. The appellant sought to enjoin the Public Service Commission of Kentucky from prosecuting an investigation of wholesale rates for gas marketed by contract in Kentucky by appellant, on the ground that any regulation of the rates charged by appellant to its customers would be beyond the statutory power of the Commission, since the appellant was not a public utility, and would result in a deprivation of property without due process, a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the contracts clause of the Federal and State Constitutions, affecting contracts entered into prior to the passage of the regulatory act of the General Assembly of Kentucky. As grounds for equitable relief, it was alleged that there was no adequate remedy and that irreparable injury would be inflicted upon appellant by the large expense entailed in preparation for the investigation. 1 Appellant is a corporation solely of the State of Maine, engaged in the production and purchase of natural gas at various fields in Kentucky and the transmission of that gas through wholly intrastate pipe lines to distributing agencies at the "city gates" of various municipalities of that Commonwealth. Appellant sells to three distributing agencies: a partnership, a corporation entirely free of connection with appellant, and a corporation in which appellant owns a dominant interest. It offers to sell and sells its commodity by separate contracts only to the distributing agencies named in the bill. All of these agencies, with one immaterial exception, are the owners of unexpired franchises purchased from the respective municipalities which they serve. Either by these franchises or by supplementary contract, the rates are fixed for retail sales of gas. Acting pursuant to statutory provisions authorizing investigations of the rates of defined utilities, the Public Service Commission of Kentucky issued on May 29, 1937, an order, pertinent provisions of which 1 Acts of 1934, c. 145, as amended by Acts of 1936, c. 92. nized by law in fixing rates, is part of the amount or value in controversy. P. 215. 3. The objection that a suit is not within equity jurisdiction because of the existence of a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law (Jud. Code § 267) may be taken by trial or appellate court sua sponte. P. 216. 4. The adequate legal remedy which will defeat equity jurisdiction must be a remedy available in the federal court. P. 217. 5. A gas corporation owning very valuable property and doing a large business sought in a federal court to enjoin a state commission from carrying on proceedings to fix the company's rates, in alleged excess of the commission's jurisdiction and in violation of the company's constitutional rights. Held, that a loss of $25,000, in preparing and presenting the company's case before the commission, would not constitute irreparable injury justifying equitable intervention. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41. P. 218. When the only ground for interfering with the state procedure is the reasonable cost of preparing for a hearing, there is no occasion for equitable intervention. P. 221. 12 F. Supp. 254, affirmed. APPEAL from a decree of the District Court of three judges which dismissed a bill for an injunction. Mr. W. J. Brennan, with whom Messrs. Edward C. O'Rear, Allen Prewitt, and Charles N. Kimball were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. J. W. Jones, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, for appellees. MR. JUSTICE REED delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing appellant's bill of complaint for want of jurisdiction in equity. It was entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sitting with three judges under Judicial Code, § 266. 21 F. Supp. 254. The appellant sought to enjoin the Public Service Commission of Kentucky from prosecuting an investigation of wholesale rates for gas marketed by contract in Kentucky by appellant, on the ground that any regulation of the rates charged by appellant to its customers would be beyond the statutory power of the Commission, since the appellant was not a public utility, and would result in a deprivation of property without due process, a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the contracts clause of the Federal and State Constitutions, affecting contracts entered into prior to the passage of the regulatory act of the General Assembly of Kentucky. As grounds for equitable relief, it was alleged that there was no adequate remedy and that irreparable injury would be inflicted upon appellant by the large expense entailed in preparation for the investigation. 1 Appellant is a corporation solely of the State of Maine, engaged in the production and purchase of natural gas at various fields in Kentucky and the transmission of that gas through wholly intrastate pipe lines to distributing agencies at the "city gates" of various municipalities of that Commonwealth. Appellant sells to three distributing agencies: a partnership, a corporation entirely free of connection with appellant, and a corporation in which appellant owns a dominant interest. It offers to sell and sells its commodity by separate contracts only to the distributing agencies named in the bill. All of these agencies, with one immaterial exception, are the owners of unexpired franchises purchased from the respective municipalities which they serve. Either by these franchises or by supplementary contract, the rates are fixed for retail sales of gas. Acting pursuant to statutory provisions authorizing investigations of the rates of defined utilities, the Public Service Commission of Kentucky issued on May 29, 1937, an order, pertinent provisions of which 1 1 Acts of 1934, c. 145, as amended by Acts of 1936, c. 92. |