State on Inf. of McKittrick ex rel. City of Trenton v. Missouri Public Service Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1943
• Docket Number: 36189
• Citation: 174 S.W.2d 871,351 Mo. 961
• Parties: State of Missouri, on the Information of Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, ex rel. City of Trenton, Relator, v. Missouri Public Service Corporation
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

174 S.W.2d 871

351 Mo. 961

State of Missouri, on the Information of Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, ex rel. City of Trenton, Relator, v. Missouri Public Service Corporation

No. 36189

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 20, 1943

Rehearing Denied November 1, 1943.

Writ denied.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, Covell R. Hewitt, Assistant Attorney General, Gerald Cross, Pross T. Cross, and Russell N. Pickett, for relator; Harry J. Fair and R. Leroy Miller of counsel.

(1) Quo warranto is the proper remedy for obtaining the ouster of respondent and such action could properly be brought at the relation of the City of Trenton. State ex inf. McKittrick, Atty. Gen., ex rel. City of Campbell v Arkansas-Missouri P. Co., 93 S.W.2d 887; State ex rel. Sikeston v. Mo. Utilities Co., 53 S.W.2d 394, 331 Mo. 337; State ex inf. Jones v. West End L. & P Co., 152 S.W. 76, 246 Mo. 653; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Ry. Co., 41 S.W. 955, 140 Mo. 539; State ex inf Atty. Gen. ex rel. City of Lebanon v. Mo. Standard Tel. Co., 85 S.W.2d 613; State ex rel. City of California v. Mo. Utilities Co., 96 S.W.2d 607. (2) Municipal consent is necessary to entitle a utility to occupy the streets of a city. Secs. 5369, 7828, R. S. 1939; State ex rel. City of Campbell v. Arkansas-Missouri P. Co., 93 S.W.2d 887; State ex rel. Sikeston v. Mo. Utilities Co., 53 S.W.2d 394, 331 Mo. 337; State ex rel. Lebanon v. Mo. Standard Tel. Co., 85 S.W.2d 613; State ex rel. California v. Mo. Utilities Co., 96 S.W.2d 607. (3) Utility must obtain municipal consent even though it has certificate of convenience and necessity. The Public Service Commission law did not repeal, modify or amend the statutes requiring a public utility to obtain consent of the municipality. State ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Mo. Utilities Co., 53 S.W.2d 394; State ex rel. City of Campbell v. Arkansas-Missouri P. Co., 93 S.W.2d 887; State ex rel. California v. Mo. Utilities Co., 96 S.W.2d 607; State ex rel. City of Lebanon v. Mo. Standard Tel. Co., 85 S.W.2d 613. (4) Respondent holds no franchise authorizing it to conduct its electric business in the City of Trenton. The validity of the Jones franchise was fully litigated and held to be invalid by the Federal Court in a former action between the same parties. The judgment rendered by the Federal Court is res judicata. Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 18 S.Ct. 18; Case v. Sipes, 217 S.W. 306; Billot v. Income Guar. Co., 124 S.W.2d 608; Russell v. Russell, 134 F. 840; Simmonds v. Norwich Union Indemnity Co., 73 F.2d 412; Constitution, United States, Sec. 1, Art. IV; 15 R. C. L. 927, sec. 405; Deposit Bank of Frankfort v. Board of Councilmen of Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499, 24 S.Ct. 154. (5) The Jones franchise is invalid even though the decision of the Federal Court is not res judicata. The perpetual electric franchise claimed by respondent is invalid because, when the ordinance granting such franchise was passed, the city council was without power to grant an electric franchise. Special Charter, Laws, 1871, 478; Secs. 951, 952, R. S. 1879; City of Carthage v. Carthage Light Co., 97 Mo.App. 20, 70 S.W. 936; State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Springfield Water Co., 131 S.W.2d 525; State ex rel. v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 548; State ex rel. City of Hannibal v. Smith, 74 S.W.2d 367. (6) Any rights to operate an electric plant under the Jones franchise were abandoned. Non-use of the Jones franchise for many years by the predecessors of respondent amounts to a forfeiture or abandonment of the franchise. State ex inf. Jones ex rel. St. Louis v. Light & Dev. Co., 246 Mo. 618, 152 S.W. 67; State ex inf. Jones v. West End L. & P. Co., 246 Mo. 653, 152 S.W. 76. (7) Respondent's answer is insufficient to plead the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel must be pleaded with particularity and precision and every essential fact must be set forth and nothing can be supplied by inference or intendment. 21 C. J. 1247, 1248, sec. 360; 19 Am. Jur. 844, sec. 193; Grafeman Dairy Co. v. Northwestern Bank, 288 S.W. 359; Mo. Cattle Loan Co. v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co., 52 S.W.2d 1. (8) Estoppel is applied to municipal corporations only in exceptional cases and then with much caution. State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. City of California v. Mo. Utilities Co., 96 S.W.2d 607; State ex inf. Shartel ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Mo. Utilities Co., 53 S.W.2d 394; City of Pacific v. Ryan, 28 S.W.2d 652; 19 Am. Jur. 820, sec. 168. (9) A municipality operating its own electric plant acts in its proprietary capacity. Riley v. City of Independence, 258 Mo. 671, 167 S.W. 1022; Thompson v. City of Lamar, 322 Mo. 514, 17 S.W.2d 960. (10) A municipality in granting the right to another to operate an electric plant and to occupy its streets acts in its governmental capacity. State ex inf. Jones ex rel. St. Louis v. Light & Dev. Co., 246 Mo. 618, 152 S.W. 76. (11) To constitute estoppel three elements must concur. (a) An admission, statement or act inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted and sued on; (b) An act by the other party on the faith of such admission, statement or act; and (c) Injury to such other party resulting from allowing first party to contradict or repudiate such admission, statement, or act. 2 Pomeroy's Equity Jur. (4 Ed.), p. 1644, sec. 805; 19 Am. Jur. 642, sec. 42; Bramell v. Adams, 146 Mo. 70; First Natl. Bank v. Ragsdale, 171 Mo. 168; Pollard v. Ward, 289 Mo. 275; State ex inf. Shartel ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Mo. Utilities Co., 53 S.W.2d 394. (12) Street lighting contracts relied upon by respondent to create estoppel are ultra vires. Sec. 1342, R. S. 1899; Sec. 3368, R. S. 1909; 19 Am. Jur. 820, sec. 168; Peters v. St. Louis, 226 Mo. 62, 125 S.W. 1134. (13) Installation of street lights and collection of taxes and licenses by city do not create estoppel. State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. City of California v. Mo. Utilities Co., 96 S.W.2d 607; City of Roswell v. Mountain States Tel. & Tele. Co., 78 F.2d 379. (14) In the absence of injury to party claiming estoppel there can be no estoppel. 19 Am. Jur. 735, sec. 85; Sec. 6961, R. S. 1939; 21 C. J. 1135, sec. 136. (15) The facts necessary to constitute estoppel are not present in the case at bar. State ex inf. McKittrick, Atty. Gen., ex rel. City of Springfield v. Springfield City Water Co., 131 S.W.2d 525.

T. J. Layson, D. C. Chastain and A. Z. Patterson for respondent; Patterson, Chastain & Smith of counsel.

(1) The relator is barred by laches from maintaining a quo warranto proceeding. State ex rel. Brown v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 582; State ex inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 337, 53 S.W. 394; State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Springfield City Water Co., 345 Mo. 6 131 S.W.2d 525. (2) The Town of Trenton operating under a Special Charter in 1886 had the power to grant the perpetual electric franchise to C. D. Jones and associates. Charter of Trenton; Missouri, 1872, p. 481; Webb City Waterworks Co. v. Webb City, 78 Mo.App. 422; State ex inf. Chaney v. West Mo. Power Co., 313 Mo. 283, 281 S.W. 709; Levis v. City of Newton, 75 F. 884, affirmed Newton v. Levis, 79 F. 715; St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 U.S. 465; State ex rel. v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 548, 31 S.W. 784; Owensboro v. Cumberland T. & T. Co., 230 U.S. 58, 33 S.Ct. 988; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U.S. 100, 33 S.Ct. 967; City of Covington v. South Covington & C. St. R. Co., 246 U.S. 413, 38 S.Ct. 376; State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Springfield City Water Co., supra; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Guernsey, 46 Mo.App. 120; Pike's Peak Power Co. v. City of Colorado Springs, 105 F. 1; Andrews v. Natl. Foundry & Pipe Works, 61 F. 782; 19 F.Supp. 45. (3) The Jones Franchise contained no limitation as to term and was a grant in perpetuity since not limited by its own terms or by any law of the state. State ex inf. Chaney v. West Mo. Power Co., 313 Mo. 283, 281 S.W. 709; Owensboro v. Cumberland Tel. & T. Co., 230 U.S. 58, 33 S.Ct. 988; Boise Water Co. v. Boise City, 230 U.S. 84, 33 S.Ct. 1003; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U.S. 100, 33 S.Ct. 967; Northern Ohio T. & L. Co. v. Ohio, 245 U.S. 574, 38 S.Ct. 196; Covington v. Street Ry. Co., 246 U.S. 413, 38 S.Ct. 376; Ohio Public Serv. Co. v. State of Ohio, 274 U.S. 12, 47 S.Ct. 480; Note, 2 A. L. R., p. 1122; 12 R. C. L., p. 213. (4) The decision of Judge Otis that the franchise was invalid is not res judicata. State ex rel. Mason v. Schmoll, 37 S.W.2d 972; Dickey v. Heim, 48 Mo.App. 114; Barkhoefer v. Barkhoefer, 93 Mo.App. 373; Hartwig v. Ins. Co., 167 Mo.App. 128; Mo. District Tel. Co. v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., 336 Mo. 453, 79 S.W.2d 257; Scheer v. Trust Co. of St. Louis, 49 S.W.2d 946; State ex rel. Green v. Brown, 224 Mo.App. 1197; Bushnell v. Miss. & Fox River Drain. Dist., 111 S.W.2d 946; Kinsley v. Wood, 78 S.W.2d 148; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351; Baltimore Steam Ship Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 47 S.Ct. 600; N. Carolina R. Co. v. Story, 268 U.S. 288, 45 S.Ct. 531; St. L. & S.W. Ry. Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 76, 53 S.Ct. 516; City of Owensboro v. Cumberland Tel. & T. Co., 230 U.S. 58, 38 S.Ct. 988; City of Vicksburg v. Henson, 231 U.S. 259, 34 S.Ct. 95; Roberts v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 158 U.S. 1, 15 S.Ct. 756; United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 250 U.S. 451, 42 S.Ct. 363; Moran Towing & Transportation Co., Inc., v. Navigation Libera Triestina, 92 F.2d 37. (5) The basis of Judge Otis' opinion was that the franchise was not ratified by popular vote; relator admits that Judge Otis' conclusion was erroneous by not urging that ground here, and the decision was in fact erroneous. Secs. 951, 952, R. S. 1879; State ex inf. Chaney v. West Mo. Power Co., 313 Mo. 283, 281 S.W. 709; Holland Realty & Power Co. v. St. Louis, 282 Mo. 180, 221 S.W. 51; State ex inf. v. Light & Power...