245 F. 950 (D.Kan. 1917), 136-N, Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of Kansas

Docket Nº:136-N.
Citation:245 F. 950
Party Name:LANDON v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF KANSAS et al.
Case Date:August 13, 1917
Court:United States District Courts, 10th Circuit, District of Kansas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 950

245 F. 950 (D.Kan. 1917)

LANDON

v.

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF KANSAS et al.

No. 136-N.

United States District Court, D. Kansas, First Division.

August 13, 1917

Page 951

Chester I. Long, of Wichita, Kan., John H. Atwood, of Kansas City, Mo., and Robert Stone, of Topeka, Kan., for complainant.

H. O. Caster and F. S. Jackson, both of Topeka, Kan., for Public Utilities Commission of Kansas.

James D. Lindsay, of Jefferson City, Mo., for Public Service Commission of Missouri.

T. S. Salathiel, of Independence, Kan., for Kansas Natural Gas Co.

J. A. Harzfeld and A. F. Evans, both of Kansas City, Mo., for city of Kansas City, Mo.

H. J. Smith, of Kansas City, Kan., for city of Kansas City, Kan.

W. E. Stringfellow, of St. Joseph, Mo., for St. Joseph Gas Co.

T. F. Doran, of Topeka, Kan., for Consumers' Light, Heat & Power Co.

Charles Blood Smith, of Topeka, Kan., for Fidelity Title & Trust Co. and Sharitt, receiver.

Charles L. Faust, of St. Joseph, Mo., for city of St. Joseph, Mo.

E. F. Cameron, of Joplin, Mo., for city of Carl Junction, Mo.

M. T. January, of Nevada, Mo., for city of Nevada, Mo.

George J. Grayston, of Joplin, Mo., for Joplin Gas Co.

J. W. Dana, of Kansas City, Mo., for Wyandotte Gas Co. and Kansas City Gas Co.

BOOTH, District Judge.

I had supposed until this morning that there was to be simply an informal conference by the receiver and his counsel in case No. 1351 Equity with reference to the question of the advisability of making a change in the rates for the coming winter and as to what those rates should be; but I am advised that other parties interested have been notified, and I think wisely so, as the conference might well take a broader scope than what I had supposed it was to take, because the question of rates is one in which a good many parties are interested. It is also a question upon which the court desires to get all the light possible before making any definite order.

It might very likely be of advantage, if not to all, at least to some of you, to know what decision has been reached upon the issues touching the Missouri defendants which were tried and submitted at Kansas City a few weeks ago in case 136-N Equity. I have not been able to prepare a written opinion for filing with regard to these issues; but I have, however, reached certain conclusions, and I think, perhaps, it

Page 952

would be just as well that I should state what these conclusions are at this time, and then, if I think it advisable, I will reduce them later to writing and have them filed. If this is the desire of the attorneys, I will follow this plan, because I think it may have some bearing upon the discussion as to what rates the court may order, and also have some bearing as to the position the attorneys may take upon one side or the other, and especially those representing Missouri defendants.

By a former decision, which was filed in April, and by a decree that was entered upon that decision, the issues in case No. 136-N, so far as they related specially to the Kansas defendants were disposed of, but the issues so far as they related specially to the Missouri defendants, and also the issue as to the status of the supply contracts, were held open for taking further evidence and for further consideration.

The jurisdictional questions raised by the Missouri defendants do not require further discussion. They have been disposed of by the former decisions, viz. the decision of the enlarged court, found in 234 F. 152, and the decision of this court filed April 21, 1917 (242 F. 658).

The principal issues in which the Missouri defendants are interested involve two main questions: First. Whether the acts of the Missouri Commission and of the Missouri defendants, or of certain of them, have been of such a character as to call for an injunction against them on behalf of the receiver. That question resolves itself into two subordinate questions: (a) Whether the business which is being carried on by the receiver, viz. the transportation of natural gas from Oklahoma and sale...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP