Central Trust Co. of New York v. Consumers' Light, Heat & Power Co.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 75-N. |
| Citation | 282 F. 680 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
| Parties | CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. CONSUMERS' LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO. (STATE OF KANSAS ex rel. HELM, Intervener). |
A. E Helm, of Topeka, Kan., for Public Utilities Commission of kansas.
H. O Caster, S. N. Hawkes, and Robert C. Garver, all of Bartlesville, Okl., for Kansas Natural Gas Co.
Thomas F. Doran, of Topeka, Kan., for defendant.
The single question now presented to the court for decision in this suit is this, namely: Is the business done by the Kansas Natural Gas Company (hereinafter called the Natural Company) a Delaware corporation, engaged in the business of producing and buying natural gas, mostly in the state of Oklahoma, also in this state, and transporting the same through pipe lines in this state, and through this state into the state of Missouri, and delivering the same to distributing companies to be delivered by said companies to their customers, in its nature such business as is under the control and subject to the regulation of the Public Utilities Commission of the state of Kansas in the matter of rates or price per 1,000 cubic feet which may be charged by the Natural Company for the gas so transported, sold, and furnished the distributing companies at the intake of said distributing companies' lines at the gates of the cities? This question arises and is now presented for determination in the following manner:
One G J. Swan is the receiver, duly appointed, in the above entitled and numbered suit in this court, over the property and assets of defendant, the Consumers' Light, Heat & Power Company, a corporation created for the purpose of furnishing light, heat, and power to the city of Topeka and its inhabitants, in this state, and the adjoining town of Oakland. Said receiver was, through the gas system of defendant Light, Heat & Power Company engaged in the business of so furnishing gas at the time this litigation arose. The only source of supply of natural gas which said receiver has or can procure is from the Natural Company. The rate fixed and price charged by the Natural Company prior to the 1st day of April, this present year, for gas furnished and delivered to said receiver at the city gate, was the sum of 35 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. However, on April 1st, said receiver was by the Natural Company notified, as follows:
Kansas Natural Gas Co., by H. L. Montgomery.'
This same proposed increase in rates from 35 to 40 cents per 1,000 cubic feet was made as to all cities and towns of this state, without presentation of the right to so do to the Public Utilities Commission of this state, or receiving any authority from that source. Thereupon the receiver of defendant Consumers' Light, Heat & Power Company filed in this suit his complaint, praying an injunction against the Natural Company, restraining said company from charging the proposed rate of 40 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, on the ground said rate was confiscatory, in view of the only rate it is by the Public Utilities Commission allowed to charge its customers.
Thereupon a restraining order was granted the receiver, and the Public Utilities Commission, through its solicitor, in the name of the state, intervened herein, praying an injunction against the Natural Company, restraining it from charging or collecting from any distributing company located in this state said increase in price of gas from 35 to 40 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, on the ground such proposed increase or charge for gas is unlawful and void, because not authorized by the Public Utilities Commission of this state. Thus is raised the issue of the power, jurisdiction, and control of the Public Utilities Commission of this state over the business done by the Natural Company within this state.
Coming, now, to the consideration of this question, it may be said: The Natural Company owns and exercises no franchise rights in this state, acquired from the state or any of its municipal bodies. It is a foreign corporation, owning a pipe line system, and is producing or purchasing natural gas in Oklahoma, this state, and transporting it from Oklahoma, into and through this state, into the state of Missouri, and delivering the same to some 40-odd local gas companies holding franchises from the several cities in which they are located for the distribution and sale of natural gas therein. In the transaction of its business the Natural Company is engaged solely and alone in interstate commerce business within this state, and does no local business whatever. This is conceded. The local companies, to which the Natural Company sells its gas, do a purely local business; hence unquestionably are subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Public Utilities Commission of this state, so far as located within this state. The question, however, is as to that business which is transacted by the Natural Company. This question, I find, has been presented to and received consideration from the Supreme Court in the case of Public Utilities Commission v. Landon, 249 U.S. 236, 39 Sup.Ct. 268, 63 L.Ed. 577, wherein Mr. Justice McReynolds, delivering the OPINION, said, in speaking of the business conducted by the Natural Company, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Fatzer v. Sinclair Pipe Line Co.
...recent date we have State of Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., D.C., 282 F. 341 and Central Trust Co. of New York v. Consumers Light, Heat & Power Co., D.C., 282 F. 680. These cases were affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. See Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Na......
-
State of Missouri v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.
... ... proposition; i.e., the power of the commission respecting ... this ... distributed directly to the consumers in different cities and ... localities therein ... may have some light thrown upon the question by referring ... to the ... York. The pipes which reach the customers served are ... Kansas, in the case of Central Trust Co. v ... Consumers' Light, Heat & Power ... ...