Public Service Com'n v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.

Citation31 S.W.2d 67,325 Mo. 1217
Decision Date03 September 1930
Docket Number30518
PartiesPublic Service Commission v. Kansas City Power & Light Company, Appellant
CourtUnited 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.

OPINION
FRANK

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:

"That the defendant is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri and is the owner and operator of electric plants located in Kansas City Missouri, and serves the community of Kansas City and surrounding territory with electrical energy from its generating plants at Kansas City, Missouri; that the defendant did obtain from this Commission a permission and approval for the construction and operation of its electrical plants, and a certificate of convenience and necessity therefor, as required by Section 10481, Revised Statutes 1919, and has secured permissions, approvals and certificates of convenience and necessity for all of its transmission lines and extensions thereof except the extension here in controversy.

"Plaintiff states that by the provisions of said Public Service Commission Law it is given jurisdiction and supervision over the rates, service and electric plants and distribution system of said defendant, with power and authority to supervise and regulate said rates and charges and to require said defendant to render safe, adequate and sufficient service.

"Plaintiff states that by the provisions of said Public Service Commission Law, it is given jurisdiction, supervision, power and authority over the rates, charges and service, with power and authority to supervise and regulate the rates and service of telephone and telegraph companies or corporations, and jurisdiction, supervision, power and authority to regulate the service over their lines and systems in the State of Missouri, and to require said telephone and telegraph companies to render safe, adequate and sufficient service.

"Plaintiff states that by the provisions of said Public Service Commission Law, it is given jurisdiction, supervision and authority to require of electrical corporations in the construction of electrical transmission lines that they be built according to certain standards, depending on the voltage of electricity so transported, in order to prevent the destruction of telephonic and telegraphic communication by inductive interference.

"Plaintiff states that certain telephone lines and systems will be injuriously affected by inductive interference from the said extension of transmission line herein complained of, so that adequate service cannot be had over the telephone lines and systems so interfered with when electrical energy is being transported over the transmission line herein complained of.

"Plaintiff further states that under the provisions of the Public Service Commission Law, it is the duty of all electric corporations owning and operating electric plants or systems to apply to the Public Service Commission of Missouri for a certificate of convenience and necessity, permission and approval, to extend its transmission lines and electric service by any additions and extensions not covered by previous certificates of convenience and necessity, but plaintiff says that the defendant in violation of its duty as aforesaid and in violation of the provisions of law of the Public Service Commission Act has extended its transmission lines and service beyond the permission it has heretofore received and is now supplying, or threatening to supply, electric energy over transmission lines that have not been authorized by the Public Service Commission and no certificate therefor has been issued by said Commission. Said transmission line extending from Fairville in the County of Saline to Miami in the County of Saline, all in the State of Missouri; the said transmission line being an extension of an existing transmission line which was duly authorized by plaintiff Commission.

"Plaintiff further states that it has no adequate remedy at law and institutes this proceeding under the provision of the Public Service...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State ex rel. Sanders v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 1 July 1940
    ......, 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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 December 1940
    ......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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 July 1935
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 November 1934
  • 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