City of Columbia v. State Public Service Com'n

Citation43 S.W.2d 813,329 Mo. 38
Decision Date20 November 1931
Docket Number30966
PartiesCity of Columbia v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, Appellant
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Cole Circuit Court; Hon. H. J. Westhues, Judge.

Affirmed.

D D. McDonald and J. P. Painter for appellant.

(1) The Public Service Commission Act confers jurisdiction upon the Public Service Commission to regulate and fix the rates to be charged by a municipally owned and operated electric light plant. Secs. 5189, 5190, 5191, 5192, R. S. 1929; Secs. 5121, 5122, 5123, 5124 to 5135, inclusive, R. S. 1929; Pub Serv. Com. v. Kirkwood, 4 S.W.2d 773. (2) In adopting a title the Legislature may select its own language and may use few, or many words. It is sufficient that the title fairly embraces the subject-matter covered by the act; mere matter of detail need not be stated in the title. State ex rel v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439; State v. Terte, 23 S.W.2d 120; Bank v. Clark, 252 Mo. 20; State v. Buente, 256 Mo. 227; Bledsoe v. Stallard, 250 Mo. 154; State ex rel. v. Kirby, 168 S.W. 746; Kansas City v. Land Co., 169 S.W. 62; Matter of Knaust, 101 N.Y. 188; Barnes v. Kirksville, 266 Mo. 270; Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; State ex rel. Sedalia v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 275 Mo. 201; State ex rel. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Latshaw, 30 S.W.2d 105. (3) The Public Service Commission's power extends to all public utility corporations and persons subject to the provisions of the act. And to such other and further extent, and to all such other and additional matters and things, and in such further respects as may therein appear, either expressly or impliedly. Sec. 5123, R. S. 1929; Sec. 5136, subd. 9, R. S. 1929; Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 31 S.W.2d 67. (4) All laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of the Public Service Commission Act are repealed. Sec. 5236, R. S. 1929; Clark v. Ry., 23 S.W.2d 174; Coal Co. v. Mellon, 315 Mo. 798; State ex rel. Mo. So. Ry. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 259 Mo. 704.

Ralph L. Alexander, Howard F. Major and Clark, Boggs, Cave & Peterson for respondent.

(1) The wording of the act itself does not confer jurisdiction upon the Public Service Commission to regulate and fix the rates charged by a municipally owned and operated electric light plant. Chapter 33, R. S. 1929; Secs. 5122, 5136, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. United Railways Co. v. Public Service Commission, 270 Mo. 429; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Public Service Commission, 301 Mo. 179; State ex rel. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 308 Mo. 359; Public Service Commission v. Kirkwood, 4 S.W.2d 773; Public Service Commission v. Ry. Co., 301 Mo. 157; People ex rel. v. Wilcox, 200 N.Y. 432, 94 N.E. 215. (2) If it be said that the Public Service Commission Act contemplates supervision of municipally owned electric light plants, then such provision of the act is unconstitutional in that it is in violation of Section 28, Article 4, of the Constitution of Missouri, providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. Sec. 5122, R. S. 1929; Sec. 5136, R. S. 1929; Southard v. Short, 8 S.W.2d 903; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 539; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 192, 223 S.W. 738; St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 616; State ex rel. v. County Court, 102 Mo. 539; State ex rel. Lorantos v. Terte, 23 S.W.2d 120. (3) The Public Service Commission may be enjoined by the circuit court where it is seeking to exercise power beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. Sec. 5234, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. v. Latshaw, 30 S.W.2d 105.

OPINION

Atwood, J.

Respondent, City of Columbia, filed petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County seeking injunctive relief against appellant, Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri.

The petition alleges the organization and existence of plaintiff as a city of the third class, and that for a period of more than twenty-five years it has been and is the owner of a certain electric light plant located in the city of Columbia, Missouri, and operates the same as a municipal plant for the purpose of furnishing its citizens with electric current for lighting and power uses, and that the rates charged therefor are fixed and determined by plaintiff's city council and by it regulated so as to meet the needs of plaintiff in the operation thereof.

The petition further alleges the organization and existence of the Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri, and that on March 7, 1930, certain residents of the city of Columbia filed a petition in the nature of a complaint with said commission, claiming that the rates charged by plaintiff for electric current used for lighting, heating and power purposes are higher than justified; that the income derived from the sale of electric current by plaintiff is greater than needed in the operation and maintenance of said plant; that part of the funds are being illegally used for purposes other than the operation of said plant; and praying said commission to make an inventory and appraisement of the electrical property belonging to plaintiff and to fix fair and reasonable rates to be charged by plaintiff therefor.

Plaintiff's petition further alleges that thereupon said commission ordered plaintiff to answer said complaint, and pursuant to said order plaintiff filed answer setting out that it is a municipal corporation, and that said plant is owned and operated by it as a municipally-owned electric light plant, and denying that said commission has any jurisdiction or authority to regulate it in the operation of said plant; that thereafter, on April 7, 1930, said commission ordered its engineering department to make an inventory and appraisement of said electrical property and ordered its auditing department to make an audit of the books and records of said property for the purpose of furnishing information deemed necessary for said commission in its determination of the present fair value, proper operating charges and fair rates for services of said property.

Plaintiff's petition further alleges that thereafter it filed a motion to dismiss said complaint and vacate said order for the reason that the commission is without legal authority to fix electrical rates for plaintiff in the operation of its municipally owned plant, and because under the laws of this State it is without legal authority to interfere with or control plaintiff in the operation of its said plant; and that said commission has overruled said motion and is disregarding all protests of plaintiff and is about to proceed with the work of appraising said property and auditing its books, and is about to proceed to determine the reasonableness of rates charged by plaintiff for electric light and power.

The petition then sets forth reasons, hereinafter referred to, why the commission is without jurisdiction to entertain said complaint and issue said orders, and further alleges that if the commission is permitted to proceed with its orders to appraise said property and audit its books preparatory to fixing said rates it will spend an amount of money in excess of ten thousand dollars, which will ultimately be charged to and paid by plaintiff, and in addition thereto plaintiff will be required to expend in excess of seventy-five hundred dollars in preparing for the hearing and trial of said complaint; that the commission's attempt to carry out said orders and fix rates will cause irreparable loss and damage to plaintiff; and that plaintiff has no adequate or complete remedy at law.

Plaintiff's prayer is that the commission, its agents, servants and representatives, be restrained from taking any proceedings whatever under or pursuant to said complaint, from making said appraisement and audit, from taking any further steps whatever in the matter of rates charged or to be charged by plaintiff or interfering with its management and control of said plant, and for general equitable relief.

The commission entered its voluntary appearance and demurred to plaintiff's petition on the grounds that it shows on its face that the court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter, that it states no cause of action over which the court has jurisdiction, that the Public Service Commission Act vests in said commission exclusive jurisdiction to determine and fix reasonable rates to be charged by a municipally-owned electric light plant, that by the provisions of Section 10522, Revised Statutes 1919, the court is not authorized to enjoin said commission in the performance of its official duties, and that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

This demurrer being overruled and defendant refusing to plead further, the court ordered, adjudged and decreed "that the defendant, its officers, agents, servants and employees, be enjoined and restrained from taking any further proceedings whatever under or pursuant to the application pending before it, filed by certain citizens of Columbia, Missouri; that the defendant be restrained and enjoined from proceeding to appraise or value the physical property of the electric light plant of the city of Columbia; that defendant be restrained and enjoined from auditing the books of said municipal electric light plant of plaintiff; that defendant be restrained and enjoined from taking any further steps of any kind or character touching the matter of rates to be charged or being charged by the city of Columbia for services and current furnished by its municipally-owned electric plant to its patrons at Columbia, Missouri; and that plaintiff recover of and from defendant its costs in this behalf laid out and expended." From this judgment defendant has appealed.

It is apparent that the validity of defendant's demur...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Friedel v. Bailey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 20 November 1931
    ...... Sec. 3003, R. S. 1929; Columbia Savings Bank v. Winn, 132 Mo. 80; Jones v. ...Blackwell, 150 Mo. 267;. State ex rel. v. Jarrott, 183 Mo. 204. (4) Deed. ... quash the opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals. upholding an instruction which ......
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. & Equipment Co. v. Bates
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 November 1949
    ......Becker, 329 Mo. 1041, 47 S.W.2d 781; City of Columbia v. P.S.C., 329. Mo. 38, 43 S.W.2d 813; ...607, 233. S.W. 54; Brashear Freight Lines v. Public Service. Comm., 23 F.Supp. 865; Stebbins v. Riley, 268. ......
  • State ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Public Service Com'n of Missouri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 April 1935
    ...... and we have held that they do not even come within the. regulation of the act. [City of Columbia v. State Public. Service Comm., 329 Mo. 38, 43 S.W.2d 813.] . . . Even. though two power corporations may operate on the same. schedule of rates, ......
  • State ex rel. Consumers Public Service Co. v. Public Service Com'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 April 1944
    ...... unlawful. Sec. 5651, R.S. 1939; Re Queen City Mutual Tel Co.,. 1 Mo. P.S.C. 44; Re Duenweg Water Works Co., 1 Mo. P.S.C. 61;. Re Astor, 1 Mo. ...v. Cook et. al., 95 S.W.2d 1162, 339 Mo. 45. City of Columbia v. State Public Serv. Comm., 43 S.W.2d 813, 329 Mo. 38;. State ex rel. Dept. Penal Inst. v. ......
  • 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