Harrison Electric Co. v. Citizens' Ice & Storage Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1921
• Docket Number: 95
• Citation: 232 S.W. 932,149 Ark. 502
• Parties: HARRISON ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITIZENS' ICE & STORAGE COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

232 S.W. 932

149 Ark. 502

HARRISON ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITIZENS' ICE & STORAGE COMPANY

No. 95

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 11, 1921

Appeal from Boone Chancery Court; Ben F. McMahan, Chancellor reversed.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Claud A. Fuller, for appellant.

The court should have sustained demurrer to paragraph 3 of appellee's reply, alleging that the Corporation Commission had no authority to change rates in abrogation or impairment of an existing contract. Such contracts are subject to the power of the State to regulate public utilities. 145 Ark. 205.

The notice of the application for an increase in rates was published twice in 2 weekly newspapers as required by the Commission. The act provides for a contest of rates before the Commission and for an appeal.

The alleged contract was verbal, and was entered into without authority by appellant's secretary and manager. All rates were subject to change by the Commission. 110 A. 78.

Guy L Trimble, for appellee.

1. Rates could not be changed except after 30 days' notice. Acts 1919, p. 417. See also Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 6809. This notice is mandatory. 104 Ark. 298; 131 Ark. 429; 67 Ark. 43. The cases in 110 A. 778 and 145 Ark. 205 do not deal with notice. When constructive notice is given, the statute must be strictly complied with. 30 Ark. 723. The record should show at least four weekly publications. 39 Ark 61.

2. Affirmative action by the Commission was necessary before the rate could be in effect. 145 Ark. 205 and 110 A. 778 are not in point as this question. Sec. 7 of the act provides that no rates can be changed without authority of the Commission. No order was made in this case.

3. On the cross-appeal, the damages of $ 100 awarded to appellee was insufficient.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellant is a domestic corporation owning and operating the electric light plant at Harrison, Arkansas, and appellee, Citizens Ice & Storage Company, is an industrial consumer of electric current and a patron of appellant. Appellee claims the right under a contract with appellant's predecessor to obtain electric current for its manufacturing plant at the maximum rate of $ 400 per month. Appellant changed the rate on April 1, 1920, after having filed the same with the Corporation Commission, but appellee refused to pay the increased rate. Appellant then cut off the supply of electric current, and appellee instituted this action in the chancery court of Boone County to enjoin appellant from cutting off the current and to recover damages in the sum of $ 2,000 for the interference with its business in cutting off the current. Appellant answered, setting up its change of rates pursuant to the statutes and under authority from the Corporation Commission. On the final hearing of the cause, the chancery court decided that the change of rates was void for the reason that proper notice had not been given by appellant in accordance with the statute and rendered a decree in favor of appellee enjoining appellant from maintaining the increased rates and for the recovery of damages in the sum of one hundred dollars.

The contention of appellee in support of the court's decree is that the statute creating the Corporation Commission and conferring jurisdiction over public utilities requires that before a rate can be changed there must be an affirmative order by the commission authorizing it, and that there must be a notice published weekly for thirty days, and that the statute was not complied with in either of these respects. We think that this is not the proper construction of the statute. Crawford & Moses' Digest, chapter 37; Acts 1919, page 411. The statute confers jurisdiction on the commission over all public utilities in the State with power to control and regulate rates of charges and other matters in connection with service to the public. Section 7 of the act of 1919, which is section 1612 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, reads as follows:

"No person, firm or corporation subject to the provisions of this act shall modify, change, cancel or annul any rate, joint rates, fares, classifications, charge or rental, except after thirty days' notice to the commission and the public which shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force and the time when the changed rates, fares or charges shall go into effect; provided, the commission may enter an order prohibiting such person, firm or corporation from putting such proposed new rates into effect pending hearing and final decision of the matter by the commission, and whenever there shall be filed with the commission any schedule proposing a change in any rates, charges or regulations, the commission shall have, and it is hereby given authority, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative upon reasonable notice, to enter upon a hearing concerning the propriety of such rate, charge or regulation; and, pending such hearing, and the decision thereon, the commission, upon filing with such schedule, and delivering to the carrier or carriers or public service corporation affected thereby, a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension, may suspend the operation of such schedule and defer the use of such rate or charge, but not for a longer period than six months beyond the time when such rate, fare or charge, or regulation would otherwise go into effect; and after full hearing, whether completed before or after the rate, charge or regulation goes into effect, the commission may make such order in reference to such rate, fare, charge or regulation as shall be deemed proper and just. Provided, that if said commission shall suspend the operation of any such schedule, and defer the use of such new rate or...