State ex rel. the Laundry, Inc. v. Publ. Serv. Comm.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 30541.,30541. |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. THE LAUNDRY, INC., and OVERLAND LAUNDRY COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of State of Missouri ET AL., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court. — Hon. H.J. Westhues, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
D.D. McDonald and J.P. Painter for appellants.
(1) The orders of the Commission are prima-facie lawful and reasonable. Secs. 10534, 10535, R.S. 1919; State v. Public Service Comm., 297 S.W. 47; State ex rel. v. Busby, 274 S.W. 1067; C.B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Public Service Comm., 266 Mo. 333, 181 S.W. 61; State v. Public Service Commission, 291 S.W. 788. (2) The Public Service Commission is not a court and cannot render a money judgment. State ex rel. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 259 S.W. 445. (3) The Public Service Commission is without authority to make an exception or change in the classification of rates on file without an appropriate proceeding finding the rates either unreasonable or unlawful. State ex rel. Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 286 S.W. 84. (4) A laundry is not a manufacturer and is not entitled to be so classified as to be placed under a manufacturer's rate. State ex rel. v. Frank, 169 S.W. 333; Muir v. Samuel, 62 S.W. 605; Downing v. Lewis, 76 N.W. 900; In re White Star Laundry Co., 117 Fed. 570; Model Laundry Co. v. East St. Louis & I.W. Co., P.U.R. 1918-D 132, 134; Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Co., 203 Pa. 289. Where the articles laundered are to be put on the market for sale, see In re Troy Steam Laundry Co., 132 Fed. 266. (5) A manufacturer is one who by labor, art, or skill manufactures raw material into some kind of a finished product or article of trade. Graft v. Flintrock Co., 179 N.W. 568, 147 Minn. 58; Chattanooga Plow Co. v. Hayes, 140 S.W. 1068.
Roby Albin for respondents.
(1) The Public Service Commission, in fixing rates and fixing qualifications of those who fall under the same, are exercising a legislative function. Lusk v. Atkinson, 268 Mo. 109; State ex rel. City of Macon v. Public Service Commission, 259 Mo. 706. (2) The so-called manufacturers' rate applying to all use of water to the extent of 500,000 gallons or more per month for manufacturing purposes given by the water company to certain industrial concerns must apply to laundries and all other industrial concerns similarly situated with respect to the use of water; otherwise such classification is class legislation, invalid and prohibited under Section 53 of Article IV of the Constitution. State v. Granneman, 132 Mo. 326; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 263; State v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 74; Ex parte French, 285 S.W. 515; State v. Logan, 268 Mo. 169; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 448. (3) So far as the consumption of water is concerned, a laundry, using the required quantity, fits all tests of a manufacturer in order to secure the rate enjoyed by other industrial concerns in a like position. R.S. 1919, sec. 10477, (2) and (3); In re Troy Steam Laundering Co., 132 Fed. 268; Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604; B. & O.S.W. Railroad Co. v. Cavanaugh, 35 Ind. App. 32; Bates Mach. Co. v. Railroad Co., 70 N.J.L. 684; Graham v. Lumber Co., 118 Ky. 192; Hall v. J.T. Guthrie Sons (Ky.), 103 S.W. 722; St. Louis Brewing Assn. v. City, 140 Mo. 419.
This is an appeal by the Public Service Commission of this State from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, made and entered on January 3, 1930, setting aside an order of the Public Service Commission, dated June 14, 1929, dismissing the complaint of The Laundry, Inc., and the Overland Laundry Company, both Missouri corporations, against the St. Louis County Water Company, a Missouri public utility corporation, filed with the Public Service Commission on December 20, 1928, and remanding the said proceeding to the Public Service Commission for further action.
The proceeding was instituted upon a written complaint filed with the Public Service Commission by the Maplewood Laundry Company and the Overland Laundry Company both incorporated entities, which written complaint charged and alleged, in substance and effect, that the complainants are and were, at all times herein referred to, engaged in a general laundry business, washing, cleaning, starching and ironing clothes, clothing, textile fabrics, and all and every article made therefrom; that they are engaged in said business on a very large scale, by the use of a large number of hired employees, and by the use of a large amount of machinery and equipment, such as is usually and generally used by large industries and other establishments of an industrial and manufacturing nature; that they are further engaged in those business which are incidental to washing and cleaning clothing and laundering the same, such as gathering soiled, unwearable and unusable clothing and fabrics, cleaning, reclaiming, repairing and renewing the same, and delivering the same to their customers in the nature of clean and usable clothing and fabrics; that, in the conduct of complainants' said business, the principal article, ingredient and material used is water, which is purchased by complainants from the St. Louis County Water Company; that complainants have been charged by the St. Louis County Water Company for said water so used, and are now being charged for said water so being used, at meter rates, which rates are the same as are charged individual users and consumers; that complainants have paid such water charges and rates under protest, for the reason that said St. Louis County Water Company has threatened to discontinue the supply of water furnished to complainants in the event that water is not paid for by complainants at the same meter rates as are charged individual consumers; that complainants use and have used, in carrying on their business, an amount of water in excess of 500,000 gallons per month, which water is purchased from the St. Louis County Water Company; that there is, and has been, in force and effect, within and for St. Louis County, a schedule of rates for water, which became effective on April 1, 1924, providing certain rates for water for industrial establishments, known as "manufacturers' rates," and which provide that consumption of water for manufacturing purposes amounting to 500,000 gallons per month shall be at the rate of fifteen cents per thousand gallons, with a discount of ten per cent for cash paid in ten days; that complainants have made application to the said St. Louis County Water Company for the said "manufacturers' rates," but the said Water Company has failed and refused to extend to complainants the said "manufacturers' rates;" that by extending said "manufacturers' rates" to certain users and consumers of water, and by withholding such rates from complainants, who use the same or larger amounts of water, sufficient to come within said class and schedule of rates, there results an unjust and unfair discrimination against complainants, which is illegal and unfair to complainants.
The relief sought by complainants, as prayed in their complaint, is that the Public Service Commission "make investigation of the facts and matters set forth herein, and determine that the said manufacturers' rates shall be available to the petitioners (complainants), and for an order upon the said St. Louis County Water Company to extend to the petitioners the said manufacturers' rates, and to sell and to supply to petitioners water on said basis and at said rate and upon said conditions; and that the said St. Louis County Water Company account to the petitioners for the moneys which petitioners have been compelled to pay under protest since April 1, 1924, and to refund to the petitioners the amounts paid, together with interest, in excess of the amount which petitioners should have paid had they been classified as manufacturers, and had they been extended the said manufacturers' rates; and the petitioners pray for such other and further relief in the premises as to the Public Service Commission may seem meet and proper."
In due time, and after proper notice to the St. Louis County Water Company, a hearing upon said complaint was had before the Public Service Commission at its principal office in Jefferson City, Cole County, Missouri, at which hearing the complainants and the St. Louis County Water Company appeared by counsel, and evidence was offered by the respective parties in support of, and in opposition to, the written complaint so filed. At such hearing, it appearing that The Laundry, Inc., a Missouri corporation, had succeeded to the corporate business, rights and franchises of the Maplewood Laundry Company, the successor corporation was substituted as a complainant in the place and stead of Maplewood Laundry Company.
The evidence adduced upon the hearing before the Public Service Commission developed the following facts:
Since March 13, 1924, and effective from and after that date, there has been on file with the Public Service Commission a schedule of rates, filed by the St. Louis County Water Company, and ordered and approved by the Commission, for the furnishing of water to consumers "residing in incorporated cities and towns entering into franchise contracts with the company for water and fire service for periods of twenty years," which schedule of rates is as follows:
"Use in Gallons per Quarter. Per M
0 to 3,000 (first) ................. 3,000 gal ........ 48¾c
3,000 to 9,000 (next) .............. 6,000 gal ........ 45c
9,000 to 36,000 (next) ............. 27,000 gal ........ 37½c
36,000 to 225,000 (next) ........... 189,000 gal ........ 30c
225,000 to 600,000 (next) .......... 375,000 gal ........ 22½c
All over 600,000 ........................................ 18c"
The plant and place of business of The Laundry, Inc., being located in the city of Maplewood, an incorporated city in St. Louis County, the said laundry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO
...police powers. Statutes with respect thereto being remedial should be liberally construed. State ex rel. Laundry, Inc., v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, 327 Mo. 93, 34 S.W.2d 37, 42(2); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U.S. 1, 27 S.Ct. 585, 51 L.Ed. 933......
-
Gaddy v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
...574(14); Co-Operative Live Stock Com'n. Co. v. Browning, 260 Mo. 324, 344, 168 S.W. 934, 938(2); State ex rel. Laundry, Inc. v. Public Service Com'n., 327 Mo. 93, 106, 34 S.W.2d 37, 42-43(3); Dodd v. Independence Stove & Furnace Co., 330 Mo. 662, 671, 51 S.W.2d 114, 118(11).7 In re Tompkins......
-
State on Information of Dalton v. Miles Laboratories
...Co-Operative Live Stock Commission Co. v. Browning, 260 Mo. 324, 344, 168 S.W. 934, 938(2); State ex rel. Laundry, Inc., v. Public Service Commission, 327 Mo. 93, 106, 34 S.W.2d 37, 42-43(3); Dodd v. Independence Stove & Furnace Co., 330 Mo. 662, 671, 51 S.W.2d 114, 118(11).12 See also Comm......
-
Katz Drug Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
...of its first point defendant cites Sections 386.390, subd. 1, and 393.140(11) RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; State ex rel. Laundry, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 327 Mo. 93, 34 S.W.2d 37; Kansas City Light & Power Co. v. Midland Realty Co., 338 Mo. 1141, 93 S.W.2d 954, affirmed 300 U.S. 109, 57 ......