Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co. v. Kansas City Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 15 July 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20548.,20548.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: KANSAS CITY BOLT & NUT CO. v. KANSAS CITY LIGHT & POWER CO.

204 S.W. 1074

275 Mo. 529

KANSAS CITY BOLT & NUT CO. v. KANSAS CITY LIGHT & POWER CO.

No. 20548.

Supreme Court of Missouri. In Banc.

July 15, 1918.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Willard P. Hall, Judge.

Suit by the Kansas City Bolt & Nut Company against the Kansas City Light & Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Rees Turpin, of Kansas City, for appellant. John H. Lucas, of Kansas City, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant from discontinuing the supply of electric energy to plaintiff's manufacturing plant as provided under the terms of a certain contract entered into on the 6th day of September, 1912, by and between the plaintiff and defendant's predecessor. Upon a trial had before the circuit court of Jackson county, judgment went for defendant. Plaintiff duly appealed.

The facts necessary to an understanding of the issues involved are few and simple, and may be summarized as follows: on September 6, 1912, the predecessor of the defendant power company, a public service corporation located at Kansas City, Mo., entered into a contract with the plaintiff corporation whereby, for a certain specified price and during the life of the contract, it agreed to supply electric energy for the operation of the plaintiff's manufacturing plant located within the corporate limits of said city. On April 17, 1917, the Public Service Commission, proceeding in conformity with the provisions of the Public Service Commission Act, after a valuation was made and full hearing had, made an order establishing a schedule of rates which the defendant company should be permitted to charge for electric energy at Kansas City, Mo. It is not necessary that the details of the contract rates nor of the rates established by the commission be given (because the legality of the commission rate is not involved upon this appeal), but it is sufficient for the purpose of this case to say that the cost to plaintiff for the electric energy required to operate its plant was higher under the rates established by the commission. The defendant threatened to discontinue the service if the appellant longer refused to pay the rate which had then been placed on file with the Public Service Commission and which was afterwards established as the proper rate by the commission. The appellant, relying upon the contract, refused to pay the amount demanded and instituted this suit.

While there are some minor propositions discussed in the briefs, there:.s one main question which will dispose of ti.e case. We shall therefore confine our discussion to the one main question, viz.: Did the order of the Public Service Commission fixing the rates which the defendant company could charge for electric energy at Kansas City, Mo.,...