The State ex rel. St. Louis County Gas Company v. Public Service Commission of State of Missouri

• Citation: 286 S.W. 84,315 Mo. 312
• Decision Date: 30 July 1926
• Docket Number: 26750
• Parties: The State ex rel. St. Louis County Gas Company v. Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

286 S.W. 84

315 Mo. 312

The State ex rel. St. Louis County Gas Company v. Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri, Appellant

No. 26750

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 30, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Franklin Miller, Judge.

Affirmed.

D D. McDonald and J. P. Painter for Public Service Commission.

(1) The Public Service Commission is authorized and empowered to hear and determine complaints that rules and regulations of gas corporations are unjust, unreasonable, unjustly discriminatory or unduly preferential; to hear and determine complaints that the property, equipment, etc., of gas companies are unsafe, insufficient or inadequate. Par. 5 Sec. 10478, R. S. 1919. (2) Public Service Commission is expressly authorized "to order reasonable improvements and extensions of the works . . . pipe . . . and other reasonable devices, apparatus and property of gas corporations." Par. 2, Sec. 10478, R. S. 1919. (3) Maplewood being within the territory the gas company professes to serve, the gas company may be required to serve its residents, because it is its duty within reasonable limitations, to serve all in such territory who apply. State ex rel. Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 287 Mo 522; Woodhaven Gaslight Co. v. Deehan, 153 N.Y. 538; New York Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U.S. 345. (4) Corporations which devote their property to a public use may not pick and choose, serving only the portions of the territory covered by their franchise which it is presently profitable for them to serve and restricting the development of the remaining portions by leaving their inhabitants in discomfort without the service which they alone can render. People ex rel. New York Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U.S. 345; State ex rel. Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 287 Mo. 522. (5) The court has no power to substitute its own judgment of what is reasonable in place of the determination of the Public Service Commission, and it can only annul the order of the Commission for the violation of some rule of law. People ex rel. New York Gas Co. v. McCall, 219 N.Y. 84, 245 U.S. 345; State ex rel. Woodhaven Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 1925E, P. U. R., p. 827.

Rassieur & Goodwin for respondent.

(1) Schedules of rules and regulations when duly filed with the Public Service Commission have the force of law, and must until lawfully changed, be observed by the utility, the public and the Commission. R. S. 1919, sec. 10478, par. 12; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 59 L.Ed. 853; See decisions under Interstate Commerce Act, 4 Fed. Stat. Ann. (2 Ed.) p. 415. (2) To exempt particular individuals from the application of published schedules is an unlawful discrimination. R. S. 1919, sec. 10477, pars. 2, 3; sec. 10478, par. 12; A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. P. S. C., 192 S.W. 460; Northern Wood Products Co. v. Town of Jacobs, Pub. Utilities Rep. Ann. 1924 A, p. 193. (3) Any order of the Public Service Commission that discriminates in favor of certain individuals is void. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. P. S. C., 192 S.W. 460; State ex rel. St. Joseph v. Busby, 274 S.W. 1067. In reviewing the reasonableness of an order of the Public Service Commission this court will review the entire evidence and make its own findings, in the same manner as it reviews decrees in equity. State ex rel. S.W. Bell Tel. Co. v. P. S. C., 233 S.W. 425.

Ragland, P. J. All concur, except Graves, J., absent.

OPINION

RAGLAND

This is an appeal by the Public Service Commission from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, reversing an order of the Public Service Commission, entered upon the complaint of Jesse Harnage et al. against St. Louis County Gas Company. A general outline of the facts, sufficient for an understanding of the question presented for decision, may for the most part be gathered from the following portions of the Commission's report:

"1. Jesse L. Harnage, Simon Fargo and Harry Leo joined in a complaint against the St. Louis County Gas Company which is engaged in manufacturing and distributing gas to the inhabitants of St. Louis County in this State. Complainants seek to require the defendant to extend its gas mains four hundred feet to reach their separate premises on Folk Avenue in the city of Maplewood, for supplying them with gas.

"After answer filed by defendant, the case was heard before two members of the Commission at the city of St. Louis, on the 25th day of September, 1924, and submitted for decision upon the evidence and a typewritten memorandum filed in behalf of the complainants.

"2. Complainants before filing this complaint requested defendant to furnish them gas service at their premises aforesaid which defendant offered to do on the 23rd day of June, 1924, under the terms of defendant's rules governing extensions of its mains which has been duly filed with the Public Service Commission. The complainants refused to accept service on the terms offered by defendant and say the said rules of defendant relating to extensions of its mains are unreasonable.

"Complainants offer to pay the expenses of equipping their premises with pipes for gas service from the curb line and insist that all other costs of furnishing equipment for their service should be borne by defendant. The total cost of furnishing and installing the equipment necessary for serving complainants with gas to the curb line, including meters, was estimated to be $ 259. The defendant in accordance with its rules offered to expend $ 184 of the foregoing amount upon complainants depositing with it the remainder $ 75, said $ 75 to be subject to refund to complainants under either of the following methods as provided by defendant's rules:

"'A. The customers may guarantee that the annual revenue received by the company from the extension shall amount in total to forty per cent of its actual cost, whereupon the company shall refund to the customers at the end of each year after its completion that portion of the annual revenue from the extension in excess of twenty per cent of its cost until the total amount of the deposit has been refunded.

"'In the event the annual revenue received by the company from the extension shall not equal the amount guaranteed by the customers, the company shall charge the deficiency of actual revenue below guaranteed revenue against the customer's deposit, reducing to that extent the amount to be refunded.

"'B. The company will refund to the customers the following amounts for each new customer secured on the extension within the first five years after its completion.

"'a. For each general illuminating and fuel service customer, $ 30.

"'b. For each industrial fuel service or resident heating service customer, $ 150; providing that the sum of such refund shall not exceed the total amount deposited.

"'The customers shall designate the plan under which they desire refunds made at the time of making deposit for the extension but shall have the option at any time within six months after the completion of the...