In re Opinion of the Justices

Decision Date07 April 1938
Citation300 Mass. 591,14 N.E.2d 392
PartiesIn re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Answers to questions propounded to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court by resolution of the House of Representatives.House of Representatives,

March 24, 1938.

Whereas, There is now pending before the House of Representatives a bill, House No. 150, a copy of which is submitted herewith, providing that ‘Every electric company shall furnish its consumers with electric light bulbs without charge therefor’; and

Whereas, No such requirement is found in any existing law or proposed in any pending legislation, with reference to municipal electric lighting plants; and

Whereas, Grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of said bill, if enacted into law; accordingly be it.

Ordered, That the House of Representatives require the opinions of the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on the following important questions of law:

1. It is constitutionally competent for the General Court to require an electric light company to furnish electric light bulbs to its consumers without charge therefor, as provided in said bill, notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of Article 14 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States that no state shall deprive any person of property without due process of law?

2. Would the requirement of said bill that every electric company shall furnish electric light bulbs to its consumers without charge therefor, it enacted into law, when no municipal electric lighting plant is subjected or proposed by pending legislation to be subjected to any such requirement, constitute a denial to electric companies of the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the provisions of said section of said Article of Amendment to said Constitution?

3. Would said requirement that such companies furnish free electric light bulbs to their consumers, if enacted into law, be a valid exercise of the police power of the commonwealth, notwithstanding the provisions of said section of said Article of Amendment to said Constitution?

Opinions of the honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court relative to ‘An Act requiring electric companies to furnish without charge electric light bulbs to consumers.’

To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court have considered the questions embodied in the order adopted on March 24, 1938, copy of which is hereto annexed, and respectfully submit the following opinion.

The proposed statute requires that ‘Every electric company shall furnish its consumers with electric light bulbs without charge therefor.’ This is brief. It is to be interpreted according to the common and approved usage of the language. Its words express the clear idea that the consumers of electricity shall receive electric light bulbs without cost to themselves, and that the expense of such bulbs shall be carried wholly by the electric company. This thought is emphasized because it is set forth in almost identical terms in the title. No reference is made in the proposed statute to the public board which has power to fix the rates for electricity or to the inclusion of the cost of bulbs in the price of electricity to be charged to consumers. Some mention of this subject would be expected if it were intended that such expense should be passed on to the consumers in any form. ‘Electric company’ is defined in G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 164, § 1, as ‘a corporation organized under the laws of the commonwealth for the purpose of making by means of water power, steam power or otherwise and selling, or distributing and selling, electricity within the commonwealth.’ The word ‘shall’ as employed in a statute of this nature imports an imperative and unescapable obligation. McCarty v. Boyden, 275 Mass. 91, 93, 175 N.E. 292.Decatur v. Auditor of Peabody, 251 Mass. 82, 88, 146 N.E. 360. “Furnish' means to provide or supply.' Panasuk's Case, 217 Mass. 589, 593, 105 N.E. 368, 369. It implies some degree of active effort to accomplish the designated end. ‘Without charge therefor’ signifies in this context without payment by the consumers in any way directly or indirectly. Niles v. Adams, 208 Mass. 100, 103, 94 N.E. 285.

The proposed statute imposes a requirement for electric companies which is beyond their undertaking. The definition already quoted from the General Laws confines the activities of electric companies to the ‘making * * * and selling, or distributing and selling, electricity.’ Their function is different from that of telephone companies, which supply ‘telephone service.’ G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 166, § 14. It has been recognized that the sale of electrical appliances is a business separate and distinct from the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical energy. MacRae v. Selectmen of Concord, Mass., 6 N.E.2d 366, 108 A.L.R. 1450. There appears to be no sound ground based on reasons of safety for a statutory compulsion that electric companies furnish bulbs. We are not aware of any considerations affecting the public health or promoting the public morals which would arise from the operation of the proposed statute.

Such companies cannot be required to perform a duty outside their original undertaking unless they are compensated therefor. The investments of capital in electric companies was made on the footing of being devoted to the uses specified in the statute under which they were incorporated. The reserved right to amend or repeal the charters of such corporations does not go so far as to authorize the taking of that property and devoting it to a different use. If a statute of the kind here proposed is to be held valid, all sorts of equipment may be required to be furnished free with the result that capital originally invested in the business of making, selling, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Ozmun, 33635.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1944
    ...to accomplish a contemplated purpose, something more than a passive willingness to respond to a demand. Opinion of the Justices, 300 Mass. 591, 14 N.E. 2d 392, 115 A.L.R. 1158. The word is frequently used in workmen's compensation acts with such a meaning. In re Panasuk, 217 Mass. 589, 105 ......

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