Public Utilities Commission For State of Kansas v. Landon Kansas City, Mo v. Same Kansas City Gas Co v. Kansas Natural Gas Co

Decision Date17 March 1919
Docket Number330,329,353,Nos. 277,s. 277
Citation39 S.Ct. 268,249 U.S. 236,63 L.Ed. 577
PartiesPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR STATE OF KANSAS et al. v. LANDON et al. (two cases). KANSAS CITY, MO., et al. v. SAME. KANSAS CITY GAS CO. et al. v. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO. et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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

Messrs. Robert Stone, of Topeka, Kan., and Chester I. Long, of Wichita, Kan., for Landon.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 237-241 intentionally omitted] Mr. James B. Lindsay, for Public Service Commission of Missouri.

Mr. A. F. Smith, of Kansas City, Mo., for Kansas City.

Mr. Charles Blood Smith, of Topeka, Kan., for Fidelity Title & Trust Co.

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

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are appeals by different groups of defendants below from decree prohibiting public commissions and officers of Kansas and Missouri, certain municipalities and many local gas distributing companies from interfering with establishment and maintenance of selling rates for gas to consumers sufficiently high to compensate receivers of the Kansas Natural Gas Company. 234 Fed. 152; 242 Fed. 658; 245 Fed. 950.

The Kansas Natural Gas Company—hereinafter, the Gas Company—a Delaware corporation, owned a system of pipe lines extending from Oklahoma and Kansas points to some forty terminal towns and cities in Kansas and Missouri and produced, purchased, transported, distributed and sold natural gas prior to October 9, 1912. During the years 1904-1908 by separate agreements it undertook to supply many local companies with gas for ultimate sale to their customers and to accept therefor a definite proportion—generally two-thirds of the gross amounts paid by such customers. Permanent physical connections permitted gas to pass from the Gas Company's pipe lines into the several local companies' mains. The latter operated under special ordinances usually specifying the rates which customers should pay; and, except in four relatively unimportant places, the former had no local franchise permitting either distribution or sale of gas, nor did it own any interest in a defendant distributing company.

The Gas Company procured gas by drilling, purchase or otherwise in Southern Kansas and Oklahoma—6 per cent. in the former—forced it through pipe lines and delivered it in the local mains at the connection points. None was obtained in Missouri. Having received gas at the connection points the several local companies dis tributed and sold it, collected established rates and settled with the Gas Company as agreed. Approximately 44 per cent. of the total was thus sold to customers in Kansas and 56 per cent. in Missouri.

October 9, 1912, the United States District Court for Kansas appointed receivers for the Gas Company and shortly thereafter, acting under section 56, Judicial Code, extended the receivership to Missouri and Oklahoma. It is unnecessary to detail subsequent changes in respect of this receivership. The receivers took over the company's property, affairs and business and operated them under orders of the court; without specifically adopting or disavowing the supply contracts of 1904-1908 they continued to deliver gas to local distributing companies and to accept payments as originally agreed.

Available gas diminished; pipe lines to new wells became necessary; operating costs increased; and the sums received from local distributing companies were inadequate for the receivers' demands. In 1915 they petitioned the Kansas Public Utilities Commission to permit higher charges to customers by local companies. Responding the Commission authorized, December 10, 1915, what is known as the '28-Cent Schedule'—much below the rates requested.

Claiming jurisdiction over distribution and sale of gas in that state and power to fix the rates which local companies should both pay and charge therefor, the Missouri Public Service Commission suspended some proposed advanced rates to consumers and threatened to enforce further appropriate orders if found necessary. Certain local companies, notably the Kansas City Gas Company, insist that the receivers should comply with the original supply contracts between them and the Gas Company.

In December, 1915, the receivers began this proceeding against Kansas Public Utilities Commission, Missouri Public Service Commission, thirty-two local distributing companies and forty-seven cities and towns in those states. After setting out the history of the Gas Company the bill alleged that the above-described actions by state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 cases
  • United States v. Standard Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 28 d1 Junho d1 1948
    ...of carload lots by interstate carriers to the receivers the movement of the poultry ceases to be interstate commerce. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236 237, 245, 39 S.Ct. 268, 63 L.Ed. 577; Missouri v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298, 309, 44 S.Ct. 544, 68 L.Ed. 1027; Eas......
  • Federal Power Commission v. East Ohio Gas Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 9 d1 Janeiro d1 1950
    ...regulate interstate gas only after it was reduced in pressure and entered a local distribution system. Public Utilities Comm. v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236, 243, 39 S.Ct. 268, 63 L.Ed. 577; State of Missouri v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298, 310, 44 S.Ct. 544, 546, 68 L.Ed. 1027; Poublic U......
  • Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States United States v. Schechter Poultry Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 27 d1 Maio d1 1935
    ...in interstate commerce. Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622, 632, 633, 5 S.Ct. 1091, 29 L.Ed. 257; Public Utilities Commission v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236, 245, 39 S.Ct. 268, 63 L.Ed. 577; Industrial Association v. United States, 268 U.S. 64, 78, 79, 45 S.Ct. 403, 69 L.Ed. 849; Atlantic Coast Line R......
  • Colorado Interstate Gas Co v. Federal Power Commission Canadian River Gas Co v. Same
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 2 d1 Abril d1 1945
    ...Newark Natural Gas & F. Co. v. Newark, 242 U.S. 405, 37 S.Ct. 156, 61 L.Ed. 393, Ann.Cas.1917B, 1025; Public Utilities Commission v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236, 39 S.Ct. 268, 63 L.Ed. 577; Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 252 U.S. 23, 40 S.Ct. 279, 64 L.Ed. 434; Railroad Commiss......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Energy-environment Policy Alignments
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 90-4, June 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...companies is interstate commerce protected from state regulation by the Dormant Commerce Clause. See also Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236, 245 (1919). In Public Utilities Commission v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., 273 U.S. 83 (1927), the Court applied the rationale of Kansas N......
  • CHAPTER 4 FEDERAL OIL AND GAS PIPELINE REGULATION: AN OVERVIEW
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil and Gas Agreements - Midstream and Marketing (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...the pipelines or producers did the gathering. [4] West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911). [5] Public Util. Comm'n v. London, 249 U.S. 236 (1918). [6] Public Util. Comm'n v. Attleboro Steam & Elec. Co., 273 U.S. 83 (1927). [7] 15 U.S.C. § 717-717w . [8] 42 U.S.C. §§ 7172(a)(1)(C......
  • OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL REGULATION
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines- Wellhead to End User (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...for a discussion of some of the factors influencing whether the pipelines or producers did the gathering. [2] 221 U.S. 229 (1911). [3] 249 U.S. 236 (1918). [4] 273 U.S. 83 (1927). [5] 15 U.S.C. § 717-717w . [6] 15 U.S.C. § 717a. [7] FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 610 (1944). [8]......
  • CHAPTER 2 THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY: CURRENT FEDERAL REGULATION
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Gas Marketing (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...U.S.C. §§ 717 et seq. [10] Phillips at 582. [11] West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911). [12] Public Util. Comm'n v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236 (1918); Missouri v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298 (1924). [13] Public Util. Comm'n v. Attleboro Steam & Elec. Co., 273 U.S. 83 (1927)......
  • 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