Sims v. State
Decision Date | 23 February 1921 |
Docket Number | 11787. |
Citation | 196 P. 132,80 Okla. 254,1921 OK 68 |
Parties | SIMS v. STATE. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Sections 1 and 4 of the act of the Legislature of 1915, chapter 176 provide:
Held under said sections, that cotton gins within the state of Oklahoma are public utilities, and that the Corporation Commission is vested with jurisdiction to prescribe the price to be charged for bagging and ties furnished to customers by the operators of gins.
Appeal from Order of Corporation Commission.
The Corporation Commission in proceedings had before it issued Order No 1785, prescribing the retail price of bagging and ties to be charged by the operators of gins for the season of 1920, from which Jake Sims appeals adversely to the State. Affirmed.
Bond, Melton & Melton, of Chickasha, for appellant.
E. S. Ratliff, of Ada, for the State.
Jake Sims, the appellant, prosecutes this appeal to reverse Order No. 1785 of the Corporation Commission of the state of Oklahoma, made on the 11th day of September, 1920, prescribing the rate for ginning cotton and the price to be charged by ginners furnishing bagging and ties. The material parts of the order appealed from read as follows:
That part of the order prescribing the price to be charged by ginners furnishing bagging and ties is the only part of the order which the appellant seeks to reverse and set aside, and the only question presented to this court for decision is whether the Corporation Commission is vested with jurisdiction to prescribe the price to be charged for bagging and ties which gin operators furnish to their customers.
The counsel for the appellant contend that there is no duty imposed by the Legislature upon cotton ginners to furnish bagging and ties; that bagging and ties are merchantable articles subject to purchase and sale, dealt in by some cotton ginners and by other persons in the state, and that the Commission has never sought to require the cotton ginners to furnish bagging and ties with which to wrap cotton, either as a part of the services of ginning or as a merchantable article for the convenience of the customers; that the Commission is without jurisdiction to require the ginners to furnish bagging and ties as a part of the services rendered by a cotton gin in ginning cotton, because the Commission could not control the prices of the manufacturer or the wholesaler, therefore the Commission is without jurisdiction to prescribe the prices to be charged for bagging and ties when furnished by the ginner. The order made in the case at bar is not attacked as being unreasonable or unfair.
The Session Laws of 1915, chapter 176, provides:
Under section 1 of said act, supra, cotton gins are declared to be public utilities, and the operation of the same is declared to be public business.
Under section 4 of said act, supra, the Corporation Commission is vested with authority and charged with the duty of regulating and controlling cotton gins in all matters relating to the performance of public duties and the charges therefor correcting abuses and preventing unjust discrimination and extortion. To hold that the Corporation Commission is without jurisdiction to prescribe the...
To continue reading
Request your trial