North Carolina Public Service Co. v. Southern Power Co.
Decision Date | 10 November 1920 |
Docket Number | 392. |
Citation | 104 S.E. 872,180 N.C. 335 |
Parties | NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. ET AL. v. SOUTHERN POWER CO. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Ray, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the North Carolina Public Service Company and others against the Southern Power Company. From an order denying a motion to remove to the United States District Court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The petition for a writ of mandamus, duly verified, was filed by the plaintiffs according to the statute. On the return day in apt time the defendant filed a petition for removal of the proceeding to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina. The petition was in due form, accompanied by the proper bond, and in all respects regular. The judge denied the motion to remove, and the defendant appealed.
The allegations of a petition for mandamus to compel the furnishing of electric current, as to the reciprocal rights duties, and liabilities of the parties, must be taken as true in determining defendant's right to remove the proceeding to a federal court.
Cansler & Cansler, of Charlotte, Broadhurst & Cox and W. P. Bynum all of Greensboro, and W. S. O'B. Robinson, Jr., of Charlotte, for appellant.
Brooks & Kelly, of Greensboro, and Roberson & Dalton, of High Point for appellee Public Service Co.
Chas. A. Hines, of Greensboro, for appellee City of Greensboro.
Dred Peacock, of High Point, for appellee City of High Point.
The motion to remove this cause to the federal court is based upon the contention that this proceeding, while denominated a petition for a writ of mandamus, is in fact a "suit of a civil nature at common law or in equity," of which the federal court has jurisdiction.
It seems to be well settled that a proceeding for a writ of mandamus in a state court is not a suit of a civil nature at law or in equity which can be removed from the state to the federal courts. 18 R. C. L. § 6. This is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450, 7 S.Ct. 63, 30 L.Ed. 744. The question then to be considered: Is this in fact a mandamus proceeding?
The record discloses that this is not an ordinary action, returnable to term time in the manner prescribed by law for civil action. It seems to have been brought by law in strict accordance with the provisions of the statute regulating proceedings in mandamus. Pell's Revisal, §§ 822-824.
An examination of the complaint discloses that the cause of action is one for the enforcement of which mandamus has been held to be the proper remedy. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs alleged substantially that the defendant is under legal obligations to furnish them electric current as a public service corporation engaged in furnishing electric current to the public.
The reciprocal rights and duties, liabilities, and allegations between the North Carolina Public Service Corporation, and the Southern Power Company are set out in the opinion of this court in 179 N.C. 19, 101 S.E. 593, and in the opinion of the court upon a rehearing of the same case (179 N.C. 330, 102 S.E. 625). It is not necessary to go into that matter now as the allegations of the petition for writ of mandamus must be taken to be true so far as this matter for removal is concerned. The substance of this petition is that the defendant is now furnishing plaintiff with electric current, but has notified plaintiffs that it will cease to do so on and after January 1, 1921. Plaintiffs aver that it is the legal duty of the defendant to continue to furnish the said current after January 1st, and upon such reasonable terms and rates as may be fixed by the Corporation Commission, in case the parties fail to agree among themselves. Plaintiffs aver that this duty which the defendant has assumed, a public service corporation under the laws of North Carolina, is a continuous duty, and that the defendant may be compelled to perform it by writ of mandamus. The prayer of the petition is as follows:
"Wherefore plaintiffs pray for a writ of mandamus against the defendant power company, to compel it to continue to furnish electric current and power to the Public Service Company through its substations at Greensboro and High Point, to operate the street car lines in both said cities, and for the use and benefit of the municipalities and the citizens thereof for light and power, as is now being furnished, and for the cost of this proceeding, but for no other relief."
It is well settled under the decisions of this court that mandamus is a proper remedy to compel a public service corporation to perform its duties for the benefit of the public. In Telephone Co. v. Telephone Co., 159 N.C. 17, 74 S.E. 639, the difference between a mandamus and a mandatory injunction is clearly stated as follows:
In Walls v. Strickland, 174 N.C. 298, 93 S.E. 857, it is said by Mr. Justice Allen:
"It was then held that the telephone companies, serving the public, must discharge their duties impartially and without discrimination, and that the right of mandamus issued by the courts was the proper remedy to enforce the performance of the duty."
It is contended, however, by the defendant that a writ of mandamus can only issue against a public service corporation to secure the performance of a duty which it has failed to perform, and will not lie to compel the performance of a continuous duty. It is insisted that there has been no actual default, and that there will not be at best until the 1st of January, 1921, and that the question involved is at best a moot question.
We admit that the general rule is that mandamus will not ordinarily lie in anticipation of a supposed omission of duty, and that in this case the omission of duty will not occur until January 1st.
After disposing of other contentions, the court, continuing, says:
--citing numerous authorities.
The contention that the case presents only a moot question we do not take seriously.
See, also, State ex rel. Morris v. Wrightson, 56 N. J. Law, 126, 28 A. 56, 22 L. R. A. 561. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado, 48 Colo. 104, 110 P. 197, 20 Ann. Cas. 1109, in the case of Berkey v. Commissioners, citing City of Austin v. Cahill, 99 Tex. 172, 88 S.W. 542, 89 S.W. 552.
This question was considered by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Attorney General v. Boston, 123 Mass. 460. In that case the court says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Hines
... ... No. 289. Supreme Court of North Carolina October 26, 1921 ... expense for medical and hospital service, had been ruined in ... physical health, and ... the charge of negligence entirely in its power ... An outsider can hardly be expected to prove ... ...
-
Holmes Elec. Co., Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
... ... CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. No. 284.Supreme Court of North CarolinaNovember 20, 1929 ... Appeal ... from ... The ... plaintiff alleged that it is a public service corporation and ... had constructed and maintained a system of ... judgment rendered. The plaintiff relies upon the Southern ... Power Company Cases, reported in 179 N.C. 18, 101 S.E. 593, ... 12 ... ...
-
Horton v. Interstate Tel. & Tel. Co.
... ... No. 334.Supreme Court of North CarolinaApril 20, 1932 ... of Durham County, North Carolina, beginning on October ... 26th, 1931, and it ... North Carolina, and furnishes a telephone service ... to the public generally in the City of ... of an agreement which it has with the Southern Bell ... Telephone Company, and that under the ... v. Power Co., 179 N.C. 18, 101 S.E. 593, 12 A. L. R ... ...
-
Freeman v. Dalton
... ... DALTON. No. 362.Supreme Court of North CarolinaMay 17, 1922 ... ...