Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Com'n

Decision Date14 August 1940
Docket NumberCiv. No. 38.
Citation34 F. Supp. 980
PartiesINTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., Inc., v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

Shotwell & Brown, of Monroe, La., for plaintiff.

Leslie P. Gardiner, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, and Ellis C. Irwin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (A. G. Ball, Jr., of New Orleans, La., of counsel), for defendants.

Before FOSTER and McCORD, Circuit Judges, DAWKINS, District Judge.

DAWKINS, District Judge.

The nature of this case is stated in the opinion handed down on the application for preliminary injunction, which was denied. D.C., 33 F.Supp. 50. We are now to consider the merits. The case has been submitted upon the same record which was before us on the former hearing, without additional proof, and we have been favored with brief by counsel for the complainant only.

The matter to be decided at this time, is as to whether plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment under Section 274d of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400, that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission of the State.

The facts, as developed at the hearing, were stated specially by us in our former opinion, but since they are more succinctly set forth, and we find correctly, in the brief of complainant, the latter are adopted as the specific findings in this case, to-wit:

"1. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, without charter power to act as a common carrier or public utility corporation, and is authorized to do business in Louisiana only as a private corporation.

"The Company was organized primarily to supply fuel to a refinery at Baton Rouge.

"2. It owns and operates a 22" pipe line extending from Fowler, Louisiana, in the Monroe gas field, to the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a distance of 171.61 miles, of which 43.92 miles extend across the southwest corner of the state of Mississippi.

"3. It produces and purchases natural gas in the Monroe gas field and, under specific contracts, sells:

"(a) Large quantities of natural gas in the Monroe field to pipe line companies

"(b) Small quantities to industries and distributors along the 91.17 miles of line prior to crossing the Mississippi River

"(c) Small quantities to distributors along the 43.92 miles of line in the state of Mississippi

"(d) Small quantities to distributors along its line in the state of Louisiana after it enters the state north of Baton Rouge

"(e) To the distributing company at Baton Rouge and to several industries in the vicinity of Baton Rouge

"It transports gas from the Monroe field to a point of connection, near Baton Rouge, with a pipe line of United Gas Pipe Line Company.

"4. It was stipulated by said parties as follows:

"`All gas sold and marketed by Interstate Natural Gas Company, Incorporated, is sold and marketed:

"`(a) At wholesale to other companies or corporations who, in turn, sell and distribute the same to consumers, deliveries of which gas are made by Interstate Natural Gas Company, Incorporated, at taps on its main line to such purchasers; or

"`(b) To industrial consumers, deliveries, of which gas is made by Interstate at taps on its main line to such purchasers; or

"`(c) To corporations operating interstate pipe lines extending from the State of Louisiana into other states, deliveries of which gas are made by Interstate to such purchasers at the compressor stations of said purchasers, as hereinafter more particularly set out.'

"5. From the affidavits of A. H. Salisbury and Glenn Anderson, it appears that, during the twelve month period from July 1, 1938, to June 30, 1939, the gas sold by plaintiff was as follows:

                Field sales to pipe line
                companies which transport
                it out of Louisiana                24,806,424 MCF
                Sales from the main pipe
                line of Interstate between
                Fowler, Ouachita Parish
                Louisiana, and the Mississippi
                River                                  71,830 MCF
                Sales from the main line
                of Interstate in the State
                of Mississippi                        222,204 MCF
                Sales from the main pipe
                line of Interstate after it
                re-enters the state of Louisiana
                to its southern terminus
                near Baton Rouge                   21,704,812 MCF
                Sales from the main pipe
                line of United Gas Pipe
                Line Company (formerly
                Southern Gas & Fuel
                Company), south of Baton
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • King v. Priest
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1947
    ... ... 32 F.Supp. 31; Interstate Natural Gas Co., Inc., v ... Louisiana Public ... ...
  • Thompson v. Baltimore & OR Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 2, 1945
    ...v. Philad. Co., D.C. D.Del., 1941, 41 F.Supp. 701, affirmed in 3 Cir., 1942, 129 F.2d 1020; Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, D.C.E.D.La., 1940, 34 F. Supp. 980. ...
  • Interstate Natural Gas Co v. Federal Power Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1947
    ...District Court granted the requested relief. Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, D.C.1940, 33 F.Supp. 50; Id., D.C.1940, 34 F.Supp. 980. 10 Shafer v. Farmers' Grain Co., 1925, 268 U.S. 189, 45 S.Ct. 481, 69 L.Ed. 909; Lemke v. Farmers' Grain Co., 1922, 258 U.S. 50, 42 S......
  • State of Wisconsin v. Federal Power Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 22, 1953
    ...interstate in character. Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Louisiana P.U.C., D.C.E.D.La.1940, 33 F.Supp. 50; Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Louisiana P.U. C., D.C.E.D.La.1940, 34 F.Supp. 980. 11 The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Natural Gas Act was not to encroach upon the jurisdictio......
  • 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