Pioneer Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grant Cnty. Rural Tel. Co.

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WILLIAMS, J.
• Citation: Pioneer Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grant Cnty. Rural Tel. Co., 1911 OK 526, 119 P. 968 (Okla. 1911)
• Decision Date: 11 July 1911
• Parties: PIONEER TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. GRANT COUNTY RURAL TELEPHONE CO. et al.

1911 OK 526

119 P. 968

PIONEER TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. GRANT COUNTY RURAL TELEPHONE CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: July 11, 1911

SYLLABUS

¶0 The G. C. Rural Telephone Company petitioned the Corporation Commission for an order requiring the P. T. & T. Company to receive and transmit its messages without delay or discrimination, and to make connection with its line under proper rules and regulations. The Commission entered an order requiring such physical connection, and the transmission of messages. This order, as modified, is affirmed.

Appeal from the State Corporation Commission.

Petition of the Grant County Rural Telephone Company and others to compel the Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Company to physically interconnect its plant with that of petitioner. From an order of the Corporation Commission granting the petition, the Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Company appeals. Modified and affirmed.

Hunt Chipley (Edward P. Meany, Henry E. Asp, and S. H. Harris, on the brief), for appellant.

Chas. West (C. J. Davenport, on the brief), for appellees.

WILLIAMS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from the order of the Corporation Commission, made and entered on the 13th day of August, 1909, in which the appellant is directed to physically interconnect its telephone plant with that of the appellee company, and thereafter to receive and transmit its messages without delay and discrimination.

¶2 The appellant is engaged in a general public telephone business throughout the state, furnishing exchange telephone service from various exchange plants located in many cities and towns within the state, including the city of Pond Creek, and also furnishing toll or long-distance service over its toll or long-distance lines constructed generally throughout the state, including toll or long-distance service to and from the city of Pond Creek.

¶3 At the time of the hearing before the Commission, the appellee company had about 71 telephones in the city of Pond Creek and 14 rural telephone lines diverging therefrom and extending over Grant and Garfield counties. By connections with the appellant, the appellee, for its members, could obtain connections for long-distance purposes.

¶4 M. D. Sullivan, a witness on the part of the appellee, testified in part as follows: "Q. How many phones have you in the town of Pond Creek? A. Seventy-one, and I expect in a few days to have 20 or 25 more. Q. What are the rates you are charging there? A. $1 for business phones, and 50 cents a month for residence phones. Q. What are you charging for your rural line? A. Twenty-five cents a month. Q. How many subscribers have you on those lines? A. All the way from 10 to 30. Q. And that number can be handled in a proper manner by making this long-distance connection which you are requesting the Commission to give you? A. Yes, sir; I am satisfied it can. *** Q. Now, what do you charge for the same? A. One dollar for business and 50 cents for residence phones. That is to the stockholders of the company. Q. Supposing a man is not a stockholder, then what? A. The company has refused to furnish phones as yet; but we have put in 3 or 4 phones. If a man will purchase a phone, we will install. *** The phone will cost him $10. Q. Then the rates of the two phones are considerably different? A. Oh; yes. Q. That is the idea I wanted to get into my head. It is the plan to refuse, except to the stockholders? A. Why, I have got by-laws of this company in my pocket. When we organized this company, there were 75 business men and residents that agreed to subscribe $25 towards poling and wiring the town. That is pole and wire the town, and meet the rural lines at the city limits. *** Q. Up to date, the town subscribers in your company have paid $12 in subscriptions and $25 in stock for telephones? A. I do not understand your question. Those who subscribe pay $25; business men pay $1 for phone and private residents, 50 cents. Q. If they have stock in the company, they get their business phone for $1 and residence phone for 50 cents? A. Yes, sir. Q. So, for the first year, it will cost them only $18 for their houses and offices, plus $25 for the stocks? A. Yes, sir."

¶5 Section 5, art. 9, of the Constitution, is as follows: "All telephone and telegraph lines, operated for hire, shall each respectively receive and transmit each other's messages without delay or discrimination, and make physical connections with each other's lines, under such rules and regulations as shall be prescribed by law, or by any commission created by this Constitution, or any act of the Legislature for that purpose."

¶6 Section 2 of the same article also provides: "Every railroad, oil pipe, car, express, telephone or telegraph corporation or association organized or authorized to do a transportation or transmission business under the laws of this state for such purpose, shall, each respectively, have the right to construct and operate its line between any points in this state, and as such to connect at the state line with like lines; and every company shall have the right with its road or line, to intersect, connect with, or cross any railroad or such line."

¶7 A telephone company is a transmission company. Section 34, art. 9, of the Constitution.

¶8 Section 18 of article 9 of the Constitution, in part, provides:

The Commission shall have the power and authority to be charged with the duty of supervising, regulating and controlling all transportation and transmission companies doing business in this state, in all matters relating to the performance of their public duties and their charges therefor, and of correcting abuses and preventing unjust discrimination and extortion by such companies; and to that end the Commission shall, from time to time, prescribe and enforce against such companies, in the manner hereinafter authorized, such rates, charges, classifications, of traffic, and rules and regulations, and shall require them to establish and maintain all such public service, facilities, and conveniences as may be reasonable and just, which said rates, charges, classifications, rules, regulations, and requirements, the Commission may, from time to time, alter and amend, *** and shall, from time to time, make and enforce such requirements, rules and regulations as may be necessary to prevent unjust or unreasonable discrimination and extortion by any transportation or transmission company in favor of, or against any person, locality, community, connecting line, or kind of traffic, in the matter of car service, train or boat schedule, efficiency or transportation, or transmission, or otherwise, in connection with the public duties of such company.

¶9 1. It is insisted by the appellant that the appellee telephone company is not operated for hire, and for that reason the Commission has not jurisdiction to make the order complained of. In Hine v. Wadlington et al., 26 Okl. 389, 109 Pac. 301, it is said: "The only character of telephone line, whether owned by an individual, company, or corporation, excluded from the jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission is that not operated for hire."

¶10 In Twin Valley Telephone Co. v. Mitchell et al., 27 Okl. 388, 113 Pac. 914, it is said: "Only telephone lines â??operated for hireâ?? are placed by article 9 of the Constitution under the jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission. Rural or farmers' lines operated on the mutual plan, without any charges or toll for use of the line, are not subject to regulation by the commission."

¶11 This exemption was inserted at the instance of the representatives of the mutual companies which had been organized in rural communities, not for the purpose of profit, but for the mutual conveniences of the members thereof. If the appellees' telephone company is operated for hire, it then becomes subject to the control of the Commission, where it may be required to furnish reasonable conveniences and facilities for a fair and just compensation to the patronizing public. The appellee in its complaint does not claim to be in that class of telephone companies operated for hire. Nor are we satisfied from the evidence that it comes within such class. If so, every person desiring service, conveniences, and facilities can require the company to furnish the same, without discrimination, for a fair and just compensation. But the Commission certainly has jurisdiction over the appellant telephone company, and may require it to furnish all reasonable public service, conveniences, and facilities to the patronizing, or would-be patronizing, public at a fair and just charge or remuneration. The appellee telephone company, if operated for hire, under section 5, supra, is entitled to physical connection as prayed for, but if not, as contended by the appellant, still it would be entitled to have the appellant to furnish to it all public service, facilities, and conveniences for a just and fair consideration or remuneration, as much so as any other patron.

¶12 Suppose a firm engaged in any business authorized by law, composed of 12 partners having their offices in 12 different places, should make application to the appellant for long-distance service and for phone connections with its long-distance lines, in order that such service might be afforded to said firm and all of its members, could it be successfully contended that the Commission did not have power and authority to require such service, conveniences, and facilities to be afforded by appellant to such patrons for a fair and just remuneration? We think not. What is the difference between a mutual telephone company in point of fact and such firm? A mutual telephone company is composed of many members, and when it makes application to the appellant for long-distance service for each of its members, said mutual company to pay for such service, facility, and convenience, we think the Commission has the authority to require such connection to be made, and for such service to be performed at...