Title: Bristol Tennessee Housing Auth. v. Bristol Gas Corp.

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

407 S.W.2d 681 (1966) The BRISTOL TENNESSEE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. The BRISTOL GAS CORPORATION, Appellee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. October 3, 1966. Rehearing Denied November 10, 1966. Craig H. Caldwell, Bristol, for appellant, Caldwell & Johnson, Bristol, of counsel. Ernest F. Smith, Kingsport, for appellee, Hunter, Smith, Davis, Norris & Waddey, Kingsport, of counsel. Hugh F. Carey, Jr. and Melvin Fleischer, Memphis, for amicus curiae Memphis Housing Authority and Tenn. Assn. of Housing & Redevelopment Authorities. DYER, Justice. Appellee, Bristol Gas Corporation, is a public service corporation holding a franchise *682 from the City of Bristol, Tennessee to distribute and sell gas in said city. Appellee, under rights granted by said franchise, had an underground line in Meade Alley. Appellant, Bristol Tennessee Housing Authority, a public body and body corporate created under authority of T.C.A. Sec. 13-801 et seq., sponsored a slum clearance project in the area of Meade Alley. In the course of this project Appellant acquired all the property adjacent to Meade Alley and in April 1965, by proper ordinance, enacted at request of Appellant, the City of Bristol, Tennessee closed Meade Alley. The closing of this alley will require Appellee to relocate its gas line and who is to bear the cost of this relocation is the issue in this suit. The trial judge held Appellant would have to bear this cost. The appeal here is upon stipulated facts. Under the common law rule, predicated upon the police power of the State, utilities using the public ways under franchise grant can be required to remove and/or relocate their lines at their own expense. In the recent case of Pack v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 215 Tenn. 503, 387 S.W.2d 789 (1965) we had occasion to note such in the following language: The United States Supreme Court first stated this common law rule in the landmark case of New Orleans Gaslight Company v. Drainage Commission of New Orleans, 197 U.S. 453, 25 S. Ct. 471, 49 L.Ed 831 (1905): The rule is stated in 18 Am.Jur. Sec. 161, Eminent Domain, as follows: *683 Appellant is but an arm or agency of the City of Bristol, Tennessee and the taking of Meade Alley, necessary as a part of a slum clearance project, was for a public purpose and serves a public use. See Knoxville Housing Authority v. City of Knoxville, 174 Tenn. 76, 123 S.W.2d 1085 (1939). We think Appellant, engaged in slum clearance, is acting in a governmental as distinguished from a proprietary function. The reasons for this is stated in Knoxville Housing Authority v. City of Knoxville, supra, as follows: It is true the franchise under which Appellee uses the public ways, granted by the City of Bristol acting in its proprietary capacity, is a binding contract which cannot be revoked or impaired by the city; but such rights are subject to the lawful and reasonable use, by the City, of the police power delegated to it by the State. See City of Paris, Tennessee v. Paris-Henry County Public Utility District, 207 Tenn. 388, 340 S.W.2d 885 (1960). It results Appellant as an arm or agency of the City of Bristol, Tennessee has deemed it necessary to close a public way (Meade Alley) in order to further a slum clearance project (a public purpose). Such is a lawful and reasonable use of the police power of the State requiring utilities (absent a valid reimbursement statute) to relocate their lines at their own expense. The judgment is reversed. BURNETT, C. J., and WHITE, CHATTIN and CRESON, JJ., concur. Appellee, The Bristol Gas Corporation, has filed a petition to rehear as result of our opinion filed 3 October 1966. In this petition it is stated: We do not agree with this statement. We held Appellant acted in a governmental function under authority of Knoxville Housing Authority v. City of Knoxville, 174 Tenn. 76, 123 S.W.2d 1085 (1939) as shown in the original opinion. The ownership of the property adjacent to the public way (Meade Alley) would not be controlling. After full consideration of the petition to rehear we are satisfied with our original opinion. The petition to rehear is denied. BURNETT, C. J., and CHATTIN and CRESON, JJ., concur.