Harris-Irby Cotton Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 12 March 1912
• Citation: 122 P. 163,31 Okla. 603,1912 OK 183
• Parties: HARRIS-IRBY COTTON CO. v. STATE et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

122 P. 163

31 Okla. 603, 1912 OK 183

HARRIS-IRBY COTTON CO. v. STATE et al.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

March 12, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

An order made by the Corporation Commission by virtue of section 8812, Comp. Laws 1909 (Sess. Laws 1907-08, p. 756), requiring a gin to be operated by its owner for the accommodation of the public at a fixed price for ginning cotton, is not appealable to the Supreme Court of the state.

Appeal from the State Corporation Commission.

Proceedings before the Corporation Commission by the State and others against the Harris-Irby Cotton Company. From an order of the Commission, the Cotton Company appeals. Dismissed.

Burwell Crockett & Johnson, for appellant.

Charles West, Atty. Gen., and Charles L. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

WILLIAMS J.

The appellees have moved that this appeal be dismissed on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

The order of the commission sought to be reviewed pertains to the ginning of cotton and charges by the appellant as a domestic corporation. The authority to regulate the same is claimed by the commission to be derived from section 8812, Comp. Laws 1909 (Sess. Laws 1907-08, p. 756), which is as follows "Whenever any business, by reason of its nature, extent or the existence of a virtual monoply therein, is such that the public must use the same, or its services, or the consideration by it given or taken or offered, or the commodities bought or sold herein are offered or taken by purchase or sale in such a manner as to make it of public consequence, or to affect the community at large as to supply, demand, or price or rate thereof, or said business is conducted in violation of the first section of this Act, said business is a public business, and subject to be controlled by the state, by the Corporation Commission or by an action in any district court of the state, as to all of its practices, prices, rates and charges. And it is hereby declared to be the duty of any person, firm or corporation engaged in any public business to render its services and offer its commodities or either upon reasonable terms without discrimination and adequately to the needs of the public considering the facilities of said business." This court may review the order of the Corporation Commission by way of appeal only by virtue of section 20, art. 9, of the Constitution, and section 1239, Comp. Laws 1909 (Sess. Laws 1907-08, p. 229). Section 1239, supra, provides for appeals from orders of the Corporation Commission in contempt cases, and could have no application to this case.

Section 20 of article 9 of the Constitution is as follows: "From any action of the commission prescribing rates, charges, or classifications of traffic, or affecting the train schedule of any transportation company, or requiring additional facilities, conveniences, or public service of any transportation or transmission company, or refusing to approve a suspending bond, or requiring additional security thereon or an increase thereof, as hereinafter provided for an appeal (subject to such reasonable limitations as to time, regulations as to procedure and provisions as to cost, as may be prescribed by...