Weld v. Gas & Elec. Light Com'rs

• Decision Date: 28 February 1908
• Citation: 197 Mass. 556,84 N.E. 101
• Parties: WELD SAME v. GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COM'RS. SAME v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. OF BOSTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

197 Mass. 556

84 N.E. 101

WELD SAME v. GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COM'RS. SAME v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. OF BOSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 28, 1908

COUNSEL

Charles F. Choate, Jr., and Choate, Hall & Stewart (Frederick H. Nash, of counsel), for petitioner.

Everett W. Burdett and Joseph H. Knight, for respondent Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston.

Dana Malone, Atty. Gen., and Frederic B. Greenhalge, Asst. Atty Gen., for respondent board.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The petitioner is the owner of a house on Bay State Road in Boston, which is equipped with pipes for lighting by electricity and connections with the electric wires of the respondent in the second suit, and also with those formerly of the Brookline Gas Company which are now owned and controlled by its successor, the Boston Consolidated Gas Company. Electricity for lighting the house was formerly furnished by this respondent, but in the year 1902 an arrangement was made between the respondent and the Brookline Gas Company, whereby the latter became the purchaser of the respondent's conduits and wires and undertook to do all the business of electric lighting on the westerly side of a line running from the Charles river through Deerfield street Brookline avenue and Chelsea street to the Muddy river, and the respondent became the owner of the conduits and wires of the Brookline Gas Company and undertook to do the business of electric lighting on the easterly side of this line. The respondent's conduits and wires on Bay State Road, connecting with the petitioner's house, were on the westerly side of this line, and were then disconnected from its works, except that a single wire was left to furnish a direct current for the operation of an electric motor in the petitioner's house. Since October 28, 1893, when he ceased to be supplied by the respondent, the petitioner has been furnished with sufficient electricity for the purpose of lighting his house, either by the Brookline Gas Company or its successor, the Boston Consolidated Gas Company, and he has not made and does not now make any complaint as to the sufficiency or quality of the service, or the price charged therefor.

The petitioner filed with the board of gas and electric light commissioners a petition, under Rev. Laws, c. 121, § 33, as amended by St. 1903, p. 125, c. 164, for an order that the respondent be directed and required to supply him with electric light at his house, upon such terms and conditions as might be found legal and reasonable after a hearing. This petition was dismissed by the board, in the exercise of its discretion. The first of the cases before us is a petition for a writ of certiorari to obtain a reversal of this order.

The second case is a petition for a writ of mandamus to command the respondent to restore its service to the petitioner upon such terms as may be legal and reasonable.

The respondent is a corporation, organized to exercise a public franchise of importance to the community in which it conducts its business. It is its duty to exercise this franchise for the benefit of the public, with a reasonable regard for the rights of individuals who desire to be served, and without discrimination between them. It cannot relieve itself from this duty so long as it retains its charter. It enjoys public rights in the streets, which are derived from the commonwealth, through action of the board of aldermen under authority of the Legislature. It is a quasi public corporation, and as such it owes duties to the public. New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650, 6 S.Ct. 252, 29 L.Ed. 516; Coy v. Indianapolis Gas Co., 146 Ind. 655-659, 46 N.E. 17, 36 L. R. A. 535; Williams v. Mutual Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499-501, 18 N.W. 236, 50 Am. Rep. 266; Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas Co., 6 Wis. 539, 70 Am. Dec. 479; Gaslight Co. v. Colliday, 25 Md. 1.

Without legislative authority it cannot sell its property and franchise to another party, in such a way as to take away its power to perform its public duties. Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman Car Co., 139 U.S. 24, 11 S.Ct. 478, 35 L.Ed. 55, and cases cited; Brunswick Gaslight Co. v. United Gas, Fuel & Light Co., 85 Me. 532, 27 A. 525, 35 Am. St. Rep. 385; Gibbs v. Baltimore Gas Co., 130 U.S. 396, 9 S.Ct. 553, 32 L.Ed. 979; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U.S. 71-83, 25 L.Ed. 950; Chicago Gaslight Co. v. People's Gaslight Co., 121 Ill. 530, 13 N.E. 169, 2 Am. St. Rep. 124; South Chicago Railway Co. v. Calumet Electric Street Railway Co., 171 Ill. 391, 49 N.E. 576; State v. Hartford & New Haven Railroad Co., 29 Conn. 538.

The fundamental principles, relied on by the petitioner as applicable to corporations of this general class, are well established. But the laws of this commonwealth in regard to gas and electric lighting companies and the facts of this case give rise to considerations very different from those which induced the decisions in many of the cases above cited. In the first place, in reference to this department of public service, we have adopted, in this state, legislative regulation and control as our reliance against the evil effects of monopoly, rather than competitive action between two or more corporations, where such competition will greatly increase the aggregate cost of supplying the needs of the public, and perhaps cause other serious inconveniences. Under Rev. Laws, c. 121, §§ 1, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 26, 34, 35, the board of gas and electric light commissioners are given supervision and control over all companies furnishing gas or electricity to the public for lighting, and, among other things, they may order, under section 34, any reduction in the price of gas or electric light, or improvement in the quality thereof. Under sections 8 and 9 the courts have jurisdiction to enforce all lawful orders of the board, and all provisions of law relative to such companies. The state through the regularly constituted authorities, has taken complete control of these corporations so far as is necessary to prevent the abuses of monopoly. Our statutes are founded on the assumption that, to have two or more competing companies running lines of gas pipe and conduits for electric wires through the same street would often greatly increase the...