Public Service Com'n v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Citation | 31 S.W.2d 67,325 Mo. 1217 |
Decision Date | 03 September 1930 |
Docket Number | 30518 |
Parties | Public Service Commission v. Kansas City Power & Light Company, Appellant |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court; Hon. Henry J. Westhues Judge.
Affirmed.
Johnson Lucas, Landon & Graves, William C. Lucas and Ludwick Graves for appellant.
(1) The Public Service Commission has only such powers as are granted expressly or impliedly by statute; being a creature of the statute, it can only exercise such powers as are expressly conferred upon it, the limits of which are clearly defined it has no authority beyond the express terms of the Public Service Law. State ex rel. Terminal Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 308 Mo. 359, 272 S.W. 957; Public Service Com. v. Ry. Co., 301 Mo. 157, 256 S.W. 226; State ex rel. Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 277 Mo. 175, 210 S.W. 386; State ex rel. United Rys. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 270 Mo. 429, 192 S.W. 958; State ex rel. Rutledge v. Public Service Commission, 289 S.W. 785. (2) The appellant, having complied with Sec. 10481, R. S. 1919, and having received a certificate of public convenience and necessity thereunder, has satisfied all requirements of the Public Service Law, Section 10481 being the only statute requiring an electrical utility to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The Public Service Law does not require a certificate of public convenience and necessity for later extensions of an electrical utility, and therefore the Public Service Commission has no power or authority to require such a certificate for later extensions. Missouri Valley Realty Co. v. Cupples Station Light, Heat & Power Co., 2 Public Service Com. Reports (Mo.) 1. (3) The power of the Public Service Commission to regulate rates of electric utilities and telephone and telegraph companies and to require certain standards of construction of the equipment of electric utilities and telephone companies in order to give safe, adequate and sufficient service to the public does not authorize the Commission to prospectively require an electrical transmission line to be built in accordance with certain standards to prevent anticipated electrical interference with a telephone line, or to require a certificate of public convenience and necessity before the building of an extension of a transmission line in order to prevent anticipated electrical interference in a telephone line, or prospectively inquire into any question of service, type of construction or otherwise of an extension of an electrical transmission line by requiring a prior certificate of public convenience and necessity therefor. (4) The question of damage of telephone service by inductive interference and the cost of its eradication is a matter of assessment of damages and injunction within the jurisdiction of our courts, and entirely without the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Public Service Commission. Electricity, Par. 3, Century Digest; Electricity, Key Number 7, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Decennial Digests; State ex rel. Rutledge v. Public Service Com., 289 S.W. 785; State ex rel. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co. v. Public Service Commission, 303 Mo. 212, 259 S.W. 445; State ex rel. Lusk v. Public Service Commission, 268 Mo. 109, 186 S.W. 703.
D. D. McDonald and J. P. Painter for respondent.
(1) The Public Service Commission is vested with and possessed of the powers and duties in the act specified, and also all powers necessary or proper to enable it to carry out fully and effectually all the purposes of the act. Sec. 10412, R. S. 1919; Public Service Comm. v. Railroad, 301 Mo. 157; State ex inf. Barker v. Gas Co., 254 Mo. 535. (2) The provisions of the Public Service Law shall be liberally construed with a view to the public welfare, efficient facilities and substantial justice between patrons and public utilities. Sec. 10538, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 259 Mo. 704; State ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 298 Mo. 321; Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Service Comm., 261 P. 592. (3) The Public Service Commission has jurisdiction of rates and service and by Section 10425 has jurisdiction and supervision as to the manufacture, sale and distribution of electricity for light, heat and power and to electric plants and to persons, firms or corporations owning, leasing, operating and controlling same, and to telephone lines and telephone companies, in so far as said telephone companies conduct and operate such line or lines within this State. Subdivisions 5 and 6, Sec. 10425, R. S. 1919. (4) In granting the certificate of convenience and necessity the Commission is authorized to impose such conditions as it may deem reasonable and necessary. Under this grant of authority it may permit, by a certificate of convenience and necessity, the erection of an electrical transmission line, setting such a standard that the telephone system or line adjacent thereto will not be destroyed by electrical interference. Sec. 10481, R. S. 1919.
Frank, J. All concur, except Walker, J., absent.
The Public Service Commission, plaintiff below brought this action in the Circuit Court of Cole County to enjoin the Kansas City Power & Light Company from rendering electric service to the public over a six-mile extension of said company's transmission lines which was constructed without authority from the Public Service Commission and for which no certificate of convenience and necessity was issued by said commission.
Defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's petition was overruled, and defendant declining to further plead, judgment was rendered enjoining defendant from the operation or use of said transmission line until such time as it applied for and received from the commission a certificate of convenience and necessity therefor and authority from said commission to furnish electric service over said line. Defendant appealed.
The petition, omitting caption and formal parts, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Sanders v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
......, RESPONDENT Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityJuly 1, 1940 . Appeal. ... the investing and purchasing public from misconduct of. brokers and others in ... 1066, 40 S.W.2d 524; Public Service Commission v. Kansas. City Power & Light Co., ......
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Public Service Com'n v. Blair
......Dickmann, Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis; John H. Glassco, Chief of Police of the City ... that the exercise of the police power shall never be. abridged. (b) The General Assembly has ...Cirese v. Ridge, 138 S.W.2d 1012; Speas v. Kansas City, 329 Mo. 184, 44 S.W.2d 114; State ex inf. Barker ... further in a case brought by the Kansas City Power & Light Company (a public utility) to enjoin Cirese from. ......
-
Farm & Home Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Missouri v. Armstrong
...The demurrer admits all the facts well pleaded and the legal conclusions which flow from the allegations. Public Serv. Comm. v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 325 Mo. 1217, 31 S.W.2d 71; Fullington Ozark Poultry Supply Co., 327 Mo. 1167, 39 S.W.2d 782; State ex rel. Kaercher v. Roth, 49 S.W.2d 11......
- State ex rel. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Missouri