Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ralston, 5040
Decision Date | 12 July 1948 |
Docket Number | 5040 |
Citation | 67 Ariz. 358,196 P.2d 470 |
Parties | TRICO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Inc. v. RALSTON et al |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Pinal County; Frank E. Thomas, Judge.
Affirmed.
John F Connor, of Phoenix, for appellant.
Tom Fulbright, of Florence, and Whitney, Ironside & Whitney, of Phoenix (Walter Roche, of Phoenix, of counsel), for appellees.
Gibbons Superior Judge. LaPrade and Udall, JJ., concur. Chief Justice Stanford having disqualified himself, the Honorable J. Smith Gibbons, Judge of the Superior Court of Apache County, was called to sit in his stead.
The Eloy Light, Power and Utility Company, a defendant below, herein called "Eloy Company", is an Arizona public service corporation and owns water and electric plants, lines, and systems in the unincorporated town of Eloy, Pinal County, Arizona, and in the vicinity thereof, by which it serves the public generally with electrical energy for general purposes and for pumping of water for irrigation of farm lands and supplying water in the town of Eloy for domestic and commercial use. Plaintiffs (appellees) are customers of the Eloy Company and each receive one or more of the services above named. The appellant, Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc., herein called defendant, is a nonprofit nonstock membership corporation organized under the provisions of article 4, chapter 53, A.C.A.1939, formed to take advantage of the grant of loans to nonprofit cooperatives for rural electrification, pursuant to the provisions of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, title 7, U.S.C.A., chapter 31, sections 901-914.
On October 29, 1946, the Eloy Company, for a nominal consideration of $ 5, granted defendant for a period of sixty days the option to purchase for the sum of $ 200,000 all its electric transmission and distribution lines and facilities and all water distribution properties. Within said sixty-day period defendant Trico exercised said option and announced its election to purchase said properties.
On December 5, 1946, plaintiffs commenced this class action against defendant and the Eloy Company in the superior court of Pinal county, Arizona, for themselves and on behalf of all the consumers of water and electric energy furnished by Eloy Company, asking for declaratory relief adjudicating said option agreement and contemplated sale and transfer of properties thereunder to be unlawful, illegal and void, and for injunctive relief enjoining defendants from consummating said sale and transfer of possession, control, or ownership of said properties.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on the grounds: (a) that the court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action; and (b) that the said complaint failed to state a claim upon which the relief prayed for could be granted. This motion was denied by the trial court; both defendants thereupon answered separately on the merits, each admitting that a controversy existed between plaintiffs and defendant Trico. Eloy Company further asked that the court grant declaratory relief adjudicating the validity and legality of said option and the proposed sale thereunder.
Thereupon, plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings, which motion was granted by the court, and in said judgment it was decreed that said option and the contemplated sale thereunder were unlawful, illegal and void and of no force and effect. No injunctive relief was granted. Defendant Trico appeals from said judgment, but Eloy Company, though served with copies of notice and designated record on appeal, did not join therein and is not before this court either as an appellant or appellee.
There are six assignments of error and an equal number of propositions of law, some of which are fused and intermingled, and not entirely clear as to their application to the issues involved. In the interest of clarity and brevity, we shall consider only those which are necessary in this appeal.
One of the basic questions is whether the courts or the corporation commission has the jurisdiction and power to determine the validity of said option agreement.
In the instant case the record discloses that plaintiffs brought this suit before the matter of the sale therein contemplated could be presented to the corporation commission for approval or disallowance. Counsel for defendant Trico is contending that the court in entertaining this suit testing the validity of the contract in question is usurping the corporation commission's jurisdiction.
Each department above named was created by and owes its existence to the organic law of this state; and each must rely upon the constitution and implementing statutes thereto to define its powers and duties.
In Corporation Commission v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 54 Ariz. 159, 94 P.2d 443, 447, we said: " In construing the provisions of the constitution, it is clearly necessary that we consider the instrument as a whole, and endeavor to give such a construction to each and every part as will make it effective and in harmony with all the other parts. * * *"
See also Arizona Eastern Railroad Co. v. State, 19 Ariz. 409, 171 P. 906.
Applying this rule to the instant case, there are several constitutional provisions which must be considered in determining what department has the jurisdiction to construe the validity of a contract. Article 3 of the constitution provides: "The powers of the government of the state of Arizona shall be divided into three separate departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and, except as provided in this constitution, such departments shall be separate and distinct, and no one of such departments shall exercise the power properly belonging to either of the others."
Section 1 of article 6 provides: "The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a Supreme Court, superior courts, justices of the peace, and such courts inferior to the superior courts as may be provided by law."
and sections 3, 4 and 6 of article 15 read as follows:
In State v. Tucson Gas etc. Co., 15 Ariz. 294, 138 P. 781, 785, after quoting article 3 of the constitution, we said: "* * * The functions of the Corporation Commission are not confined to any of the three departments named, but its duties and powers pervade them all; hence the provision 'except as provided in this Constitution, such departments shall be separate and distinct.'" (Emphasis supplied.)
Article 3 and section 1 of article 6 of the constitution confer all judicial power of the state in the courts, "except as provided in this constitution". No judicial power is vested in or can be exercised by the corporation commission unless that power is expressly granted by the constitution. None of the constitutional provisions set forth above confer upon the commission the jurisdiction to pass upon the construction and validity of contracts. It is urged by defendant that such power of the commission is conferred by the provisions of sections 69-217 and 69-236, A.C.A.1939. In the first place these statutes are of a supervisory and regulatory nature, designed to protect the public interest; and in the second place, being statutory, they cannot grant powers beyond the limits prescribed by the constitution.
The power of the legislature to extend the jurisdiction of the corporation commission was discussed in Menderson v. City of Phoenix, 51 Ariz. 280, 76 P.2d 321, 323, wherein section 6, article 15 of the constitution was under consideration. We said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood
...that supplemental relief statutes such as § 12-1838 allow courts to grant monetary relief in a DRA. See Trico Elec. Coop. v. Ralston, 67 Ariz. 358, 365, 196 P.2d 470, 474 (1948) ("It is proper to ask for and receive injunctive or other relief [in a DRA] where the facts warrant it."); Podol ......
-
State ex rel. Hovey Concrete Products Co. v. Mechem
...24 N.M. 202, 173 P. 682; Oliver v. Board of Trustees of Town of Alamogordo, 35 N.M. 477, 1 P.2d 116. See also Trico Electric Cooperative v. Ralston, 67 Ariz. 358, 196 P.2d 470; Floyd v. Department of Labor and Industry, 44 Wash.2d 560, 269 P.2d 563. But nowhere does this power extend to a d......
-
Aranda v. Cardenas
...unless presented either by a motion, or, if no motion is made, in the answer or reply.") (emphasis added); Trico Elec. Coop. v. Ralston, 67 Ariz. 358, 368, 196 P.2d 470, 476 (1948) ("If th[e] issue [of capacity to sue] is not raised by motion before the answer is filed, it must be set forth......
-
Johnson Utilities, LLC v. Swing First Golf, LLC, 1 CA-CV 13-0625
...can be exercised by the corporation commission unless that power is expressly granted by the constitution." Trico Elec. Coop. v. Ralston, 67 Ariz. 358, 363, 196 P.2d 470, 473 (1948). And although the ACC has broad jurisdiction over "public service corporations" pursuant to Article 15 of the......