Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Hawkeye State Telephone Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1969
• Docket Number: No. 53309,53309
• Citation: 165 N.W.2d 771
• Parties: NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HAWKEYE STATE TELEPHONE COMPANY and Iowa Telephone Company, Appellees, Iowa State Commerce Commission, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 771

165 N.W.2d 771

78 P.U.R.3d 328

NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HAWKEYE STATE TELEPHONE COMPANY and Iowa Telephone Company, Appellees Iowa State Commerce Commission, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 53309.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 11, 1969.

Wm. F. McFarlin and H. Wayne Wells, Des Moines, and James A. Lucas, of Bedford, for appellant.

Thoma, Schoenthal, Davis, Hockenberg & Wine, Des Moines, and Reynoldson and Reynoldson, of Osceola, for appellees.

Leo J. Steffen, Jr., Commerce Counsel, and Thomas N. Bolton, Assistant Commerce Counsel, for intervenor-appellee.

MOORE, Justice.

Plaintiff, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, on February 14, 1968 filed a petition in equity seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled, pursuant to section 488.11, Code, 1966, to designate the point of connection of its long distance telephone lines with the lines of defendant, Hawkeye State Telephone Company. Plaintiff also sought an injunction prohibiting defendant from connecting its line at a point not agreed to by plaintiff. On February 16 the trial court granted such a temporary injunction which later, by stipulation of the parties, was dissolved.

On February 19 defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition in which the intervenor, Iowa State Commerce Commission, joined on February 29.

On March 11 the joint motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition was sustained on the grounds 'Iowa Commerce Commission has exclusive, initial and original jurisdiction of this controversy under the provisions of Section 490A.11, Code of Iowa, 1966, and this court is without jurisdiction.' Plaintiff did not plead further and has appealed. We affirm.

Briefly, the facts as pleaded by plaintiff are that it has for at least forty years furnished long distance telephone service to the local telephone exchange at the town of Redding under an agreement with Farmers and Merchants Mutual Telephone Company. Hawkeye State Telephone has succeeded to the contractual rights of said company and is constructing new telephone facilities in Redding. Iowa Telephone Company owns and operates the local exchange at the town of Mount Ayr and plaintiff also provides long distance facilities for that exchange. Hawkeye and Iowa Telephone are subsidiaries of Continental Telephone Corporation, share common board members, and for purposes of this appeal will be considered as a single party defendant.

Plaintiff alleged it offered to connect its long distance lines with the local facilities at the new Redding exchange office, but Hawkeye refused to connect at that point. Plaintiff thereafter offered to connect at a reasonable accessible point in Redding. Hawkeye, however, made preparations to connect the Redding facilities to toll facilities of plaintiff at the Mount Ayr switchboard by construction of Hawkeye's own lines which plaintiff alleged would constitute duplication and render useless its own long distance lines between the two towns.

The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter pursuant to Code section 488.11 and should have granted plaintiff the relief sought in its petition.

Plaintiff's basic contention is the trial court had jurisdiction to resolve the conflict under a proper application of section 488.11 and the court erroneously dismissed the petition in deference to the supposed initial exclusive jurisdiction of the Iowa State Commerce Commission.

More specifically plaintiff argues (1) the trial court must have found section 488.11 repealed by section 490A.11, and as repeal by implication is disfavored, this was error, (2) the two sections are reconcilable, applicable to different fact situations, and therefore the court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute under section 488.11, and (3) a question of law alone was presented and therefore properly before the court.

I. Section 488.11 provides: 'Long distance companies shall furnish equal facilities to any local exchange within the state desiring same, and to that end shall immediately make, or at the option of the long distance company, shall immediately permit to be made under its direction and at reasonably accessible places to be designated by such long distance company, the necessary connections between said local exchange and said long distance company telephone system to effect the furnishing of equal facilities to such local exchange.'

Section 490A.11 provides: 'Whenever toll connection between the lines or facilities of two or more telephone companies has been made, or is demanded under the statutes of this state and the companies concerned cannot agree as to the terms and procedures under which toll communications shall be interchanged, the commission upon complaint in writing, after hearing had upon reasonable notice, shall determine such terms and procedures.'

Section 490A.1 provides in part: 'The Iowa state commerce commission shall regulate the rates and service of public utilities to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided * * *.'

Section 490A.2 provides in part: 'The commission shall have broad general powers to effect the purposes of this chapter notwithstanding the fact certain specific powers are hereinafter set forth * * *.'

Neither party denies it is a public utility within the definition which is contained in section 490A.11.

Chapter 488 has been effective statutory law for many years. Chapter 490A, however, was enacted by the 60th General Assembly and became effective July 4, 1963.

Plaintiff first argues the trial court considered section 488.11 as repealed by sustaining the motion to dismiss and holding section 490A.11 confers primary, exclusive jurisdiction on the commerce commission to resolve disputes concerning the point of connection of long distance telephone lines with a local exchange. Plaintiff contends if we are to affirm the trial court we must so hold. We do not agree.

We have repeatedly held repeal by implication is not favored and will not be upheld unless the intent to repeal clearly and unmistakably appears from the language of the later statute and such holding is absolutely necessary. Diver v. Keokuk Savings Bank, 126 Iowa 691, 696, 102 N.W. 542, 544; Iowa P. and L. Co. v. Iowa State Hgwy Comm., 254 Iowa 534, 537, 117 N.W.2d 425, 427; Wendelin v. Russell, 259 Iowa 1152, 1161, 147 N.W.2d 188, 194.

We have also consistently held that statutes relating to the same subject matter or to closely allied subjects must be construed, considered and examined in the light of their common purposes and intent. Such statutes are said to be 'in pari materia'.

As to the rule of pari materia, see Story County v. Hansen, 178 Iowa 45i, 453, 159 N.W. 1000 ('If the proper occasion for construction arises, statutes on the same subject shall be considered with reference to each other'); State v. Zellmer, 202 Iowa 638, 210 N.W. 774, 775 ('The section is a part of the fish and game laws of the state, all of which, as far as in pari materia, should be considered, in arriving at the intent of the legislature in its enactment'); Drazich v. Hollowell, 207 Iowa 427, 429, 223 N.W. 253, 254 ('All acts relating to the same thing or to closely allied subjects should be given consideration'); France v. Benter, 256 Iowa 534, 541, 128 N.W.2d 268, 272, 22 A.L.R.3d 313 ('* * * when statutes relate to the same subject matter, when they are in pari materia, they must be construed together.'). See also Fitzgerald v. State, 220 Iowa 547, 555, 260 N.W. 681, 684; Lewis Consolidated Sch. Dist. of Cass County v. Johnston, 256 Iowa 236, 244, 127 N.W.2d 118, 124; 1 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, section 40.

82 C.J.S. Statutes § 366, pages 810--812, says: 'The court must harmonize statutes relating to the same subject, if possible, and give effect to each, that is, all applicable laws on the same subject matter should be construed together so as to produce a harmonious system or body of legislation, if possible. The statute should be so construed as to give meaning to all of them, if this can be done, and each statute should be afforded a field of operation. So, where the enactment of a series of statutes results in confusion and consequences which the legislature may not have contemplated, the courts must construe the statutes to reflect the obvious intent of the legislature and permit the practical application of the statutes. It has also been held that whatever has been determined in the interpretation of one of several statutes in pari materia is a sound rule of interpretation for the others.' For like statements see 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, section 348.

Reading of chapters 488 and 490A leaves no doubt they are closely related and pertain to common subject matters. Following the established method of considering and construing statutes in pari materia the trial court was correct in considering sections 488.11 and 490A.11 in light of each other since they are obviously in pari materia. The court's holding the commission has exclusive jurisdiction was not tantamount to a repeal of section 488.11. Rather, it was a conclusion reached subsequent to a correct application of the rules of statutory construction in an attempt to harmonize two statutory sections, bearing on the same subject matter, into a properly functioning whole.

II. Our reading of section 488.11 makes abundantly clear its purpose is to insure that any local telephone exchange without the state, such as Hawkeye, which desires connection with the lines of a long distance telephone company shall have such facilities furnished it on an equal basis in order to avoid discrimination among various exchanges. We do not agree with plaintiff's contention section 488.11 gives the long distance company the unrestricted right to establish and make the point of connection and only thereafter may the question of proper facilities be considered. Establishing and making a proper point of connection is an important part of furnishing...