North Central Public Service Co. v. Village of Circle Pines

• Decision Date: 01 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 44049,44049
• Citation: 302 Minn. 53,224 N.W.2d 741
• Parties: NORTH CENTRAL PUBLIC SERVICE CO., a Division of Donovan Companies, Inc., Respondent, and Village of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF CIRCLE PINES, Minnesota, et al., Appellants, and Molin Concrete Products Co., Defendant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 741

224 N.W.2d 741

302 Minn. 53

NORTH CENTRAL PUBLIC SERVICE CO., a Division of Donovan

Companies, Inc., Respondent, and Village of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF CIRCLE PINES, Minnesota, et al., Appellants, and Molin Concrete Products Co., Defendant.

No. 44049.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 1, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment enjoining defendant village of Circle Pines from selling or furnishing natural gas service to defendant Molin Concrete Products Co. without the prior consent of the plaintiff village of Lino Lakes.

2. Summary judgment, granting a permanent injunction directing defendant village of Circle Pines to refrain from charging consumers within the village of Lino Lakes with costs relative to its extension of gas service, was improper. Any ruling prior to the happening of certain events would be premature. In addition, the effect of the injunction amounts to judicial rate-making, a usurpation of a legislative function.

Fred Burstein and Gregg M. Corwin, Minneapolis, for appellants.

Maun, Hazel, Green, Hayes, Simon & Aretz, Jerome B. Simon, and Charles Bans, St. Paul, for North Central.

Babcock, Locher, Neilson & Mannella, Landol J. Locher, and John M. Burke, Anoka, for Village of Lino Lakes.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and KELLY, MacLAUGHLIN and MULALLY, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

KELLY, Justice.

This appeal arises out of two actions, one by North Central Public Service Co. (North Central) against the village of Circle Pines and its utilities commission (both hereafter Circle Pines) and Molin Concrete Products Co. (Molin), and the other by the village of Lino Lakes (Lino Lakes) against the same defendants. In each action a summary judgment was granted permanently enjoining Circle Pines (1) from selling gas to Molin as long as Lino Lakes withheld its consent, and (2) from including with its costs of service to consumers within Lino Lakes expenses of the Molin line, expenses of the lawsuit, and expenses involving other proceedings upon a similar claim of right. In each case, Circle Pines and its utilities commission appeal from that judgment. We affirm as to the first element of the injunctive relief granted and reverse as to the second element. ¹

In 1961, Lino Lakes granted to Circle Pines a nonexclusive franchise for the distribution of gas to consumers in the village.

Section 2 of the franchise ordinance, Ordinance No. 28, requires that Circle Pines--

'* * * file with the Village of Lino Lakes a map or plat showing the full extent of the lines to be constructed within the Village of Lino Lakes. The location of the lines shown on the said map or plat and additions or extensions thereto shall be subject to the express consent of the Council of the Village of Lino Lakes.'

Section 4 of the franchise requires that defendant Circle Pines shall first obtain approval of Lino Lakes prior to laying or relaying any gas mains. ²

In 1966, Lino Lakes granted to North Central a nonexclusive franchise for the distribution of gas to consumers in the village excepting those within a specified portion of the village, the boundaries of which correspond to the area shown on the plat filed by Circle Pines pursuant to section 2 of its franchise quoted above.

In 1966, pursuant to its franchise, North Central constructed and has since maintained a 3-inch gas line running along the north side of Lilac Street within that portion of the village of Lino Lakes included within its franchise. In 1971, defendant Molin built a new plant in that same portion of the village, on the north side of Lilac Street. North Central then constructed a 2-inch gas line into the plant from its aforementioned 3-inch line alongside Lilac Street and was prepared to provide gas service to Molin.

Circle Pines, without requesting or obtaining the consent of Lino Lakes, constructed a 3-inch gas line from its existing gas distribution system to Lilac Street, and along the south side of Lilac Street parallel to North Central's line on the north side of the street, to a point opposite Molin's property. From that point a 2-inch line was run across Lilac Street to Molin's plant. These lines were constructed pursuant to a contract for gas service entered into by Circle Pines and Molin on March 31, 1971.

The Lino Lakes village council thereafter adopted a resolution disapproving the action of Circle Pines in the extension of its lines to service Molin and requesting Circle Pines not to furnish gas service to Molin. The village council further resolved that Circle Pines was in violation of its franchise in failing to request and obtain the consent of the council before installing the gas line to Molin.

In October and November 1971, Lino Lakes and North Central commenced separate actions requesting injunctive relief to prevent Circle Pines from servicing Molin, from extending its gas distribution system into North Central's franchise area, and from including with its costs of service to its Lino Lakes consumers the expenses incurred as the result of the extension of its gas distribution system into North Central's franchise area.

After plaintiffs' motions for a temporary injunction were denied, plaintiffs each moved for summary judgment. The motions were granted and summary judgments including a permanent injunction were entered. In each action defendants appeal, requesting that this court reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for a trial on the merits, and also dissolve the permanent injunction pending the outcome.

Issues on the appeals are: (1) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment ordering Circle Pines to refrain from selling gas to Molin as long as Lino Lakes withheld its consent, and (2) did the trial court err in enjoining Circle Pines from including in its charges to Lino Lakes consumers any costs relative to its extension of its gas system to defendant Molin?

1. Summary judgment is properly rendered only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and where a determination of the applicable law will resolve the controversy. Rule 56.03, Rules of Civil Procedure; Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 65 N.W.2d 641 (1954). Accordingly, the function of this court on review is to examine the record with two fundamental questions in view: (1) Whether there were any material issues of fact to be determined, and (2) whether the court erred in its application of the law. Minneapolis, St. P. & S.S.M.R. Co. v. St. Paul Mercury-Ind. Co., 268 Minn. 390, 129 N.W.2d 777 (1964).

The defendants contend as to the first issue that the trial court should not have granted a summary judgment because the meanings of the words 'additions or extensions' and 'mains,' as those words were used in sections 2 and 4 of the franchise granted to Circle Pines, were in dispute.

There is no dispute as to the physical facts. The gas line constructed by Circle Pines to the Molin plant consisted of about 1,250 feet of a 3-inch line that was attached at the northerly termination point of Circle Pines' then existing gas distribution system in Lino Lakes. The new 3-inch line was then connected to a 2-inch line running across Lilac Street and onto the Molin property. These new lines were not shown on the map filed pursuant to section 2 of the gas franchise given to Circle Pines. It is conceded that the 3-inch line has a capacity for use as a main or feeder line for the servicing of other customers in addition...