State v. Public Service Commission
Decision Date | 04 June 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 20668.,20668. |
Citation | 204 S.W. 497,275 Mo. 201 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. CITY OF SEDALIA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cole County; J. G. Slate, Judge.
Certiorari by the State, on the relation of the City of Sedalia, against the Public Service Commission of Missouri and others, to determine the reasonableness of an order fixing water rates. From an affirmance of the order, relator appeals. Affirmed.
R. S. Robertson, of Sedalia, for appellant. Alex. Z. Patterson, Gen. Counsel, and James D. Lindsay, Asst. Counsel, both of Jefferson City, for respondent Public Service Commission. John H. Bothwell, of Sedalia, for respondent City Water Co.
Stripped of all useless verbiage, this case involves but one question. By ordinance of the city of Sedalia, duly accepted by the predecessor of the City Water Company of Sedalia, Mo., it was provided that the rent on city hydrants should be $30 per annum, and certain other water service to the city should be free of charge. This was what is usually called the "franchise ordinance." It was never submitted to the vote of the people, but for the question here involved we deem this immaterial. The pasage of the ordinance by the city council, and the acceptance thereof by the predecessor of the said City Water Company, constituted a contract between the city and the water company.
From the record here it can be gathered that citizens of the said city complained of the water service, and their complaint was heard by the Public Service Commission, which resulted in the said Public Service Commission requiring the City Water Company to expend something near $100,000 for appropriate water reservoirs and other improvements. Thereafter the City Water Company applied to the Public Service Commission for increased rates for their service both to the city and the general public. This required an investigation as to the valuation of the plant and other Matters to be considered upon the question of increasing the rates. The relator here was permitted to intervene in these proceedings, which were consolidated as one. The relator planted its right upon the contract provided for in the ordinance, supra. Other trivial questions were raised, but to our mind they do not merit notice.
The Public Service Commission heard evidence as to the value of the water plant and other subjects proper to be considered upon the question of water rates. The city was a party throughout these hearings. The result was a general raising of rates, and especially a raising of hydrant rentals (which were to be paid by the city) from $30 per month to $45 per month. The ordinance aforesaid was in evidence upon this hearing. Not being satisfied with the rates fixed by the Public Service Commission, the city, by statutory certiorari, took the matter to the circuit court of Cole county, where the reasonableness of the rates fixed by the Public Service Commission was approved by that court, and from such judgment of approval and affirmance this appeal has been taken.
Under the facts of the record, the reasonableness of the rates fixed by the Public Service Commission cannot be seriously questioned. This leaves the single question as to whether or not the Public Service Commission had the lawful right to fix a rate, so far as the city is concerned, in excess of the ordinance rate. Such is the case when cleared of all driftwood.
I. The question in this case is one in a number of cases, either here or headed this way. The importance of the question bespeaks care and also requires us to take an invoice as to where we are under the Public Service Commission Act (Laws 1913, p. 556). We have adopted the idea of viewing this act in a kindly spirit by giving it a liberal construction. In State ex inf. v. Kansas City Gas Co., 254 Mo. loc. cit. 535, 163 S. W. 858, we said:
See, also, State ex rel. v. Public Service Commission, 259 Mo. loc. cit. 713, 168 S. W. 1156.
Not only so, but we have traced the Public Service Commission Act to the police power of the state. In Gas Co. Case, supra, 254 Mo. loc. cit. 534, 163 S. W. 857, in speaking of this law, we said:
"That act is an elaborate law bottomed on the police power. It evidences a public policy hammered out on the anvil of public disc fission. It apparently recognizes certain generally accepted economic principles and conditions, to wit, that a public utility (like gas, water, car service, etc.) is in its nature a monopoly; that competition is inadequate to protect the public, and, if it exists, is likely to become an economic waste; that state regulation takes the place of and stands for competition; that such regulation, to command respect from patron or utility owner, must be in the name of the overlord, the state, and
To like effect is State ex rel. v. Public Service Commission, 259 Mo. loc. cit. 712, 168 S. W. 1159, whereat it is said:
We have further recognized that the Legislature can delegate to the Public Service Commission the power to ascertain and fix reasonable rates for services rendered to the public by the divers public service corporations. State v. Public Service Commission, 270 Mo. 547, 194 S. W. loc. cit. 291. In this case Faris, J., has aptly said:
Other Missouri cases might be cited, but these suffice for the thought now in mind. First, it is made clear by these cases that the ascertaining and establishing of reasonable rates for public service is one falling within the police power of the state. Let us stick a peg here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Sear Sport Water Co.
...J. Law, 44, 105 Atl. 132; Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co. (Okl.) 100 Pac. 1058, P. U. R. 1917F, 226; State ex rel. City of Sedalia v. Pub. Service Com., 275 Mo. 201, 204 S. W. 497; Leiper v. Balt. & Phila. R. R. Co., 202 Pa. 328, 105 Atl. 551; Milwaukee El. R. & Light Co. v. Railroad Com......
-
State v. Public Service Commission
...of the police power, and that the Legislature may delegate this power to the Public Service Commision. State ex rel. Sedalia v. Pub. Ser. Com., 275 Mo. 201, 204 S. W. 497; City of Fulton v. Pub. Ser. Corn., 275 Mo. 67, 204 S. W. 386; City of Joplin v. Wheeler, 173 Mo. App. 590, 158 S. W. 92......
-
Hight v. City of Harrisonville
...10479, R.S. 1919; Renfroe v. City of Atlanta, 78 S.E. 449; State ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 259 Mo. 704; State ex rel. Scdalia v. Public Service Comm., 275 Mo. 201; Hesse v. City of Watertown (S.D.), supra. (8) The decision in Bell v. City of Fayette overlooks and conflicts with prior......
-
Kansas City v. Terminal Railway Co.
...of legislative power. Sec. 5, Art. XII, Mo. Constitution; State ex rel. Ry. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 271 Mo. 270; State ex rel. Sedalia v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 275 Mo. 201; St. Louis v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 276 Mo. 508. (2) Even if Section 8 were contractual and even if it had not been abrogated ......