Poland Tel. Co. v. Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co.

Decision Date05 April 1966
Citation218 A.2d 487
CourtMaine Supreme Court
PartiesPOLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY v. The PINE TREE TEL. & TEL. CO.

Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, by Frederick G. Taintor, Lewiston, for plaintiff.

McLean, Southard & Hunt, by Frank E. Southard, Jr., Augusta, for defendant.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, RUDMAN and DUFRESNE, JJ.

WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice.

The Pine Tree Telephone and Telegraph Company (Pine Tree) appeals from the denial by the Public Utilities Commission of its request for an order that Poland Telephone Company (Poland) cease and desist from providing telephone service in a certain area (the disputed area) in Gray. The Commission in its decree said: '* * * we find that the Commission has no statutory authority to issue any order to any utility created by private and special act of the legislature and issued a franchise thereunder, to cease and desist from providing a service so authorized within its franchised area.'

The facts are not in dispute. Poland first initiated service into the disputed area in 1927 and is at the present time providing the only available telephone service. Pine Tree has furnished telephone service in the Town of Gray since before 1927, but not within the disputed area, and states that it is willing and able to provide service therein. It contends that the service by Poland in Gray from its inception has been unlawful.

Pine Tree is a corporation organized in 1899 under the general laws of the State relating to the incorporation and control of telephone and telegraph companies. P.L.1895, c. 103. Its authority to serve Gray is unquestioned.

Poland was chartered by special act of the Legislature, P. & S.L.1901, c. 322, § 2, which provides as follows:

'Section 2. Said corporation is hereby authorized to construct, own, maintain and operate telephone line or lines anywhere in the counties of Androscoggin, Oxford and Cumberland in the state of Maine, having obtained consent of the several municipalities, and said company shall have a right to locate and construct its lines upon and along any public highway or bridge in said counties, but in such a manner as not to incommode or endanger the customary public use thereof.' (Gray is within Cumberland County.)

The pertinent statutes are as follows:

' § 2301. Organization

Corporations for the operation of telegraphs or telephones, and corporations for the operation of both telegraphs and telephones, and corporations for the transmission of television signals by wire, and corporations for the purpose of making, generating, selling, distributing and supplying gas or electricity, or both, for lighting, heating, manufacturing or mechanical purposes, in any city or town, or 2 or more adjoining cities or towns, within the State, or for either or any of such purposes, may be organized under Title 13, sections 71 to 79. No corporation so organized or person or association shall have authority, without the consent of the Public Utilities Commission, to furnish its service in or to any city or town in or to which another corporation, person or association is furnishing or is authorized to furnish a similar service. Any corporation authorized to make, generate, sell, distribute and supply electricity may sell and distribute electricity to any other corporation similarly authorized.

' § 2302. Consent only after hearing

No consent, authorized in section 2301, and no license, permit or franchise shall be granted to any person, association or corporation to operate, manage or control any public utility of the kind named in section 2301 in any city or town where there is in operation a public utility engaged in similar service or authorized therefor, until the Public Utilities Commission has made a declaration, after a public hearing of all parties interested, that public convenience and necessity require such second public utility.'

' § 2303. Consent only to Maine corporations

No consent authorized in section 2301 to operate, manage or control any public utility shall be hereafter granted to a corporation unless such corporation is duly organized under the laws of this State or authorized by such laws to do business in this State.' 35 M.R.S.A. §§ 2301, 2302, 2303.

The decisive question is whether Poland may provide its services in the disputed area without a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued under Section 2302 by the Commission after hearing.

In our opinion Sections 2301 and 2302 are not applicable to a corporation specially chartered by the Legislature, as is Poland. In Section 2301 the phrase 'no corporation so organized' plainly refers to corporations organized under 13 M.R.S.A. §§ 71-79 (the general law). Under Section 2302 the 'consent' required is only that authorized in Section 2301. The two sections must be read together. The provisions for issuance of 'no license, permit or franchise' in Section 2302 are not applicable. It is with 'consent' that we are concerned.

Pine Tree urges that the regulation of the telephone business requires the judgment and decision of the Public Utilities Commission with reference to the authority of a second or competitive public utility. The statutes should in Pine Tree's view be so construed. In short, Pine Tree's position is that there is no difference under the second public utility section between the corporation organized under general law and the corporation, such as Poland, specially chartered by the Legislature.

The regulation of public utilities is a function of the Legislature. In 1913 broad powers were delegated to the Public Utilities Commission in 'An Act to Create a Public Utilities Commission, Prescribe its Powers and Duties, and Provide for the Regulation and Control of Public Utilities.' P.L.1913, c. 129. The delegation of power, however, was not in 1913, and never has been, all inclusive but limited as the statutes have from time to time provided. Auburn Water District v. Public Utilities Commission et al, 156 Me. 222, 163 A.2d 743.

Section 2301 is unchanged from Section 27 in the 1913 Act with the exception of the inclusion of 'and corporations for the transmission of television signals by wire' in the first sentence, and the addition of the last sentence relating to the sale and distribution of electricity. Section 2302 is Section 28 of the 1913 Act with inconsequential changes. 'No such consent' has become 'no consent, authorized in Section 2301.' Sections 27 and 28 of the 1913 Act come to us as Sections 2301 and 2302, unchanged in scope and meaning insofar as Pine Tree and Poland are concerned.

Prior to 1895 it would appear that all telephone companies were specially chartered by the Legislature. P.L.1895, c. 103, the first statute permitting their organization under general law, reads in part:

'Sect. 3. Corporations organized under the provisions of this act shall have authority, except as herein limited, to construct, maintain and operate its lines upon and along the route or routes and between the points stated in its certificate of incorporation. But no corporation organized hereunder shall have authority without special act of the legislature, to construct its lines along the route or routes, used or authorized to be used, by any other telegraph or telephone company, person or firm, or between points connected, or authorized to be connected, by the lines of any such company, person or firm, unless it shall first obtain the consent of such other company, person or firm.' (Emphasis supplied)

The second sentence of Section 3 prohibiting construction of lines along routes of certain other companies without special act of the Legislature unless consent of the other company had been obtained was stricken from the law in 1903. P.L.1903,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Standish Telephone Co. v. Saco River Tel. & Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 14 Marzo 1989
    ...Commission reconsidered and reversed its December 1986 order, and, in its order of April 25, 1988, relied on Poland Tel. Co. v. Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co., 218 A.2d 487 (Me.1966), and concluded that it had no jurisdiction in 1938 to enter the order approving the agreement between Standish an......
  • Biddeford & Saco Gas Co. v. Portland Gas Light Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 4 Octubre 1967
    ...into their shoes' as a legislatively chartered company and has preemptive rights under the ruling in Poland Telephone Company v. The Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co., Me., 218 A.2d 487, which rights the Commission has no jurisdiction to alter, and, two, that its purposes recited in its certificate......
  • Town of Madison, Dept. of Elec. Works v. Public Utilities Com'n
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 6 Septiembre 1996
    ...approval even though "general law utility B" was the first to establish its service. In 1966, we held in Poland Telephone Company v. Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co., 218 A.2d 487 (Me.1966), that the consent requirement, codified at 35 M.R.S.A. § 2301 1 did not apply to charter utilities. We obser......
  • Beckett v. Roderick
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 1969
    ...Me. 326, 44 A.2d 1; Van Buren Light & Power Co. v. Inhabitants of Van Buren, 1920, 118 Me. 458, 109 A. 3; Poland Telephone Co. v. Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co., 1966, Me., 218 A.2d 487. Two important State policies are involved. The first pursues the development of school administrative units o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT