Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. State

• Citation: 209 P. 777,87 Okla. 174,1922 OK 304
• Decision Date: 03 October 1922
• Docket Number: 12516.
• Parties: OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE ET AL.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

209 P. 777

87 Okla. 174, 1922 OK 304

OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE ET AL.

No. 12516.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

October 3, 1922

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a corporation has been granted a franchise by a municipality by which it is granted the right to sell and distribute natural gas to the inhabitants of such municipality, such corporation, by accepting said franchise, assumed the public duty of providing a gas distributing system reasonably adequate to meet the wants of the municipality at the time it began its service and also to extend its system as the reasonable wants of the growing community might require, so that, where the corporation is in a position to supply the inhabitants of a particular locality within the corporate limits af the municipality, by a reasonable extension of its mains, it should have done so on demand, and having refused may be compelled to do so.

Such right to compel an extension to serve inhabitants of a particular section of the municipality is not an absolute and unqualified right, but is a relative one. The corporation can be compelled to make the extension only where there is a reasonable demand and a reasonable extension can be made to meet the demand, depending upon the facts in the particular case under consideration.

An order of the Corporation Commission requiring a gas company to extend its mains and service pipes to meet the reasonable needs of a community within the corporate limits of the city in which the company is operating under a franchise, cannot be deemed arbitrary or unreasonable and contrary to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, where it appears that the company was accorded full hearing before the Commission; that it is the only one authorized to serve the community in question with gas, and that the rate of return upon the cost of the extension, though amounting initially to only about 4 per cent., will probably soon become ample because of the growth of said community; and where the record does not show that the extension will render the business of the company as a whole unprofitable, or cause an additional burden upon the gas consumers as a whole by making necessary an increase in the rates.

Appeal from Corporation Commission.

Proceedings by certain residents of Oklahoma City before the Corporation Commission against the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company. From an order of the Commission directing defendant to construct an extension of its gas line in Oklahoma City sufficient to afford gas service to such residents, defendant appeals. Order affirmed.

Robert M. Rainey and Streeter B. Flynn, both of Oklahoma City, for appellant.

E. S Ratliff, of Oklahoma City, for appellees.

NICHOLSON J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission directing the appellant to construct an extension of its gas line northward from the present terminus of its gas distribution system near Fortieth street and Tennessee avenue to the intersection of Forty-First street and Tennessee avenue, and laterals westward from Tennessee avenue in Fortieth and Forty-First streets in Oklahoma City, sufficient to afford gas service to certain residents who petitioned the Commission for such order.

At the outset, we are met with the objection that the Corporation Commission has failed to certify the facts upon which the order appealed from is based as is required by section 22, art. 9, of the Constitution, and for this reason appellant asks that the cause be remanded with directions to find and certify the facts. But inasmuch as the record is not large and the evidence introduced was supplemented with an agreed statement of certain facts, we will not remand the cause for the failure of the Commission to find and certify the facts, but will from the record before us consider the principal question presented, i. e., that the order of the Commission requiring the extension is arbitrary and unreasonable, and its effect is to deprive the appellant of its property in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The facts disclosed by the record may be summarized thus: The appellant is operating under a franchise which provides among other things, that the mayor and council shall at all times have power to impose all needful and reasonable regulations for the protection of the interest of the inhabitants of Oklahoma Ciy, and shall have the power after...