State ex rel. Hilton v. Four Lakes Telephone Company
| Decision Date | 22 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 21,037 |
| Citation | 169 N.W. 480,141 Minn. 124 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. CLIFFORD L. HILTON v. FOUR LAKES TELEPHONE COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Upon the relation of the attorney general the district court for Washington county granted its alternative writ of mandamus commanding Four Lakes Rural Telephone Company to forthwith give to Henry Sullwood the same telephone facilities and service as to other subscribers upon its lines or show cause why it had not done so. Motion on the pleadings for a peremptory writ granted. From an order, Searles, J. directing that a peremptory writ be issued, respondent appealed. Affirmed.
Telephone companies -- jurisdiction of Railroad and Warehouse Commission.
1. By Laws 1915, c. 152, §§ 1, 2, the Railroad and Warehouse Commission is given jurisdiction and supervisory powers over telephone companies the same as it has over railroad and express companies, and such jurisdiction extends to all companies which are engaged in furnishing telephone service regardless of the character of their organization.
Telephone companies -- statutes not unconstitutional.
2. The statute is not unconstitutional as conferring judicial powers upon the Railroad and Warehouse Commission. The powers conferred are administrative and legislative in character. The reasonableness of its orders is a judicial question reviewable on an appeal to the district court for which the statute provides.
Telephone companies -- review of order after expiration of time for appeal.
3. It was the duty of the telephone company to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities for the public without discrimination. An order of the commission, directing that the same telephone facilities and service be furnished to a petitioner as to others, after the time for appeal and when none was taken, became final, and was not subject to attack or review by the company on mandamus to enforce it.
Telephone companies -- mandamus proper remedy in case of public service association.
4. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the company to furnish the service directed. Although the general rule is that mandamus does not lie to regulate the affairs of unincorporated associations such rule does not prevent the use of the writ to compel the performance of a duty cast by law upon public service associations. Besides the statute expressly authorizes the use by the attorney general of any appropriate writ without a distinction as to the character of the organization of the telephone company.
Comfort & Comfort, for appellant.
Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, Henry C. Flannery, Assistant Attorney General, and Edwin D. Buffington, for respondent.
This is a proceeding in mandamus on the relation of the attorney general to compel the respondent telephone company to install service for one Henry Sullwold, a farmer living a few miles out of Stillwater. The telephone company is a copartnership. Its line passes near Sullwold's farm. It formerly furnished him service which it discontinued. The court granted the relator's motion on the pleadings for the issuance of a peremptory writ. The company appeals from the order.
1. By Laws 1915, p. 208, c. 152, §§ 1, 2, the Railroad and Warehouse Commission is vested with the same jurisdiction and supervisory power over telephone companies as it has over railroad and express companies, and any firm or association or copartnership owning or operating a telephone line for hire, or furnishing telephone service to the public, is a telephone company within the definition of the statute. The respondent company is such a company.
2. It is contended that chapter 152 is unconstitutional because it confers upon the Railroad and Warehouse Commission judicial powers. It does not confer judicial power. The duties of the commission in connection with telephone companies are administrative and legislative in character. Upon an appeal to the district court, for which the statute provides, the reasonableness of the commission's orders which is a judicial question, is for determination. See State v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 130 Minn. 57, 153 N.W. 247, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1201; State v. Great Northern Ry....
To continue reading
Request your trial