Charles Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Company

Citation224 U.S. 217,32 S.Ct. 442,56 L.Ed. 738
Decision Date01 April 1912
Docket NumberNo. 914,914
PartiesCHARLES N. HASKELL, Charles West, John J. Shea, et al., Appts., v. KANSAS NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Marnet Mining Company, and A. W. Lewis
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for appellants.

Messrs. John G. Johnson, D. T. Watson, E. L. Scarritt, and John J. Jones for appellees.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellees in this case brought suit in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Oklahoma against the appellants, who were the governor, attorney general, deputy attorney general, county attorney and deputy county attorney of Washington county, corporation commissioners and mine inspector, of the state of Oklahoma, to enjoin the enforcement of certain statutes of the state of Oklahoma, which undertook to prevent the complainants, now appellees, from transporting natural gas in interstate commerce beyond the borders of the state of Oklahoma. Upon final hearing in that court such statutes were held void, as against the Constitution of the United States, and the enforcement thereof was enjoined. The case came to this court on appeal, and was argued and decided at the October Term, 1910, being reported in 221 U. S. 229, 55 L. ed. 716, 35 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1193, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564.

On May 29, 1911, the last day of the term, a motion was made in this court by the attorney general of Oklahoma to modify the affirmance of the decree in the court below. The parts objected to are found in the margin.

3. The court doth find the issues and equities herein in favor of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in the bill of complaint herein; and doth find, adjudge, and decree that chapter 67 of the Session Laws of the state of Oklahoma of 1907-08, passed and enacted by the legislature of said state of Oklahoma, and approved by the governor of said state on the 21st day of December, 1907, and referred to in plaintiff's bill of complaint herein, is unreasonable, unconstitutional, invalid, and void, and of no force or effect whatever.

4. The temporary injunction heretofore ordered and entered herein is hereby made permanent and perpetual, and the defendants and each and every of them, their representatives, agents, servants, attorneys, workmen, and employees, and all other persons whomsoever, advised, inspired, influenced, incited, or prompted by them, or either of them, are hereby forever restrained and enjoined from committing any of the acts complained of by complainant in its, or his bill of complaint, and from tearing up or destroying, or in any way interfering with, the laying, building, and construction of complainant's pipe lines, or any of the pipe lines referred to in the prayer of complainant's bill of complaint, in, through, or out of the state of Oklahoma, by reason of any of the terms or provisions or contents of chapter 67 of the Session Laws of 1907-1908, passed and enacted by the legislature of the state of Oklahoma, or by reason of any other claimed authority or statute of said state, or common-law right, rule of action, or unwritten law whatsoever; and from in any manner instituting, prosecuting, or conducting any suits, or suing out any writs of process in any of the state courts of the state of Oklahoma against the complainants, or anyone representing it or him, for the purpose of enjoining, restraining, or interfering with either of them in the laying This motion was overruled, with leave to either party to apply to the circuit court from whence the case came for such modification of the decree as would make it conform to the opinion of this court. Thereafter, the present proceeding was instituted by the attorney general's filing a motion in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Oklahoma for the modification of such decree. The former complainants, defendants in this proceeding, appeared and filed a motion in the nature of a demurrer, and also filed an answer in the case. The circuit court, treating the pleadings of the defendants as in the nature of a demurrer, without hearing evidence in support of or against the granting of the motion, and without considering the affidavits or exhibits filed, over- ruled the same, and ordered the mandate of this court, affirming the former decree, to be spread upon the records. Thereupon this appeal was prosecuted.

In order to properly consider this motion, it is necessary to notice the holding in the case in 221 U. S. supra. The original proceeding was brought to enjoin the officers of the state of Oklahoma from preventing the carriage in interstate commerce, beyond the lines of the state, of natural gas which had been severed from the earth by the owners of such gas, and particularly to enjoin the enforcement of a certain statute of the state, passed in 1907, known as chapter 67 of the Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1907-08, which is inserted in full in the margin of the report of the case in 221 U. S., at page 239. This court held that natural gas after severance is a commodity which might be dealt in like other products of the earth, as coal and other minerals, and is a legitimate subject of interstate commerce; and that no state, by such laws as were involved in the case, can prohibit its transportation in interstate commerce beyond the lines of that state. The court held, after considering and construing the provisions of the act of 1907, that it was, upon its face, a law undertaking to prohibit the transmission or transportation in interstate commerce of natural gas to points beyond the state; that it was an unconstitutional interference with the rights of the complainants, who were legitimately engaged in that commerce, and that therefore the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona, A18-0090
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 11, 2020
    ...v. West Virginia , 262 U.S. 553, 595–600, 43 S.Ct. 658, 67 L.Ed. 1117 (1923) (natural gas); Haskell v. Kan. Nat. Gas Co. , 224 U.S. 217, 218, 32 S.Ct. 442, 56 L.Ed. 738 (1912) (natural gas). Minnesota Sands contends that because the ordinance is also an export ban, it must meet strict scrut......
  • Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Kansas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • April 21, 1917
    ... ... Heat & Power Co. and its receiver ... Charles ... A. Loomis, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants Ottawa Gas & ... Landon as receiver of ... the Kansas Natural Gas Company against the Public Utilities ... Commission of the state of ... [242 F. 682] ... Since the decisions in Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas ... Co., 224 U.S. 217, 32 Sup.Ct. 442, 56 L.Ed ... ...
  • In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1921
    ...state cannot deny him. * * *" ¶27 Upon appeal by the state to the Supreme Court of the United States ( Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 224 U.S. 217-8, 56 L. Ed. 738, 32 S. Ct. 442) the court, through Mr. Justice Day, approved the above language of the United States district court by affi......
  • Leggett v. Duke Energy Corp.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • April 23, 2010
    ...thereafter, the Court confirmed its intention to strike down the Oklahoma statute in its entirety. Haskell v. Kan. Natural Gas Co., 224 U.S. 217, 223-24, 32 S.Ct. 442, 56 L.Ed. 738 (1912). Although the West decision signaled the Court's willingness to provide a constitutional framework for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT