Case Name: CHOCTAW ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, v. W. W. REDMAN et al., Defendants in Error
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1954-09-21
Citations: 293 P.2d 564
Docket Number: No. 34970
Parties: CHOCTAW ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, v. W. W. REDMAN et al., Defendants in Error.
Judges: HALLEY, C. J., and CORN, DAVI-SON, and BLACKBIRD, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 293
Pages: 564–573

Head Matter:
CHOCTAW ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, v. W. W. REDMAN et al., Defendants in Error.
No. 34970.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Sept. 21, 1954.
As Amended Nov. 22, 1954.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1954.
Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1950.
Stamper & Dudley, Antlers, Finney & Finney, Idabel, for plaintiff in error.
Lee Welch, Antlers, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.
This is an appeal by the Choctaw Electric Co-operative Inc., á rural electric co-operative organized and governed under the provisions of 18 O.S.1951 § 437 et seq., and by-laws adopted under authority of the statute, from a peremptory writ of mandamus issued by the District Court of Push-mataha.County, Oklahoma, on May 31,1950, which writ directed plaintiff in error, defendant below, and hereinafter referred to as co-operative, to build an electric transmission line a distance of approximately one and five-eighths mile and to furnish electrical service to W. W. Redman and seven others for whom Redman purported to sue as" being similarly situated.
The record discloses that the co-operative was furnishing rural electric service to a large number of farm users in Choctaw, Mc-Curtain and Pushmataha Counties; that defendant in error, W. W. Redman, hereinafter referred to as Redman lived on a farm four miles from Antlers, Oklahoma, in Pushmataha County; that travel to such farm is north from Antlers over Federal Highway 271, a distance of about two and five-eighths miles to a point near and north of Kiamichi River bridge and from there over a county road running due east a distance of one and three-eighths miles; that the co-operative had and used a main or distribution electric transmission line along said Highway 271, for a considerable period of time prior to the 'filing of this action; that Redman for himself and others who lived between him and the co-operative's main electric line sought by this action in mandamus to require the co-operative to erect an auxiliary electric transmission line one and three-eighths miles over said county road from such-main electric line on said Highway 271 to his property and thereby furnish him and his neighbors with electric service.
The record discloses that Redman had on June 22, 1948, signed up and filed with the co-operative on its -regular form, his application for membership and for electric service; that prior to the commencement of the action the co-operative had surveyed and approved as a project such proposed auxiliary line and furnishing of such electric service, had procured easements therefor, and June 28, 1948, wrote Redman a letter from its Hugo office in which the cooperative said:
"In regard to the line to your place. Can't promise you how soon this can be built. But just as soon as we can get to it we will do so; It shouldn't be long until our crew can get on the job. And I'll' keep reminding them of it.
"Very truly yours,
"Choctaw Elec. Co-op.
"By Leon Bates, Coordinator"
That repeatedly thereafter he requested that the co-operative proceed to erect the line and furnish him and his neighbors with electric service which it failed to do resulting in filing of this suit on September 28, 1949. -
This co-operative under the Rural Electric Cooperative Act of Oklahoma, 18 O.S. 1951 •§ 437 et seq., to which it owes its entire creation and existence, may exercise the right of eminent domain, use public highways for its lines, etc., sue and be sued in its corporate name and has express power to furnish electricity to its members, to governmental agencies and political subdivisions, and to other persons not in excess of 10% of the number of its members. 18 O.S.1951 § 437.2. The Act, 18 O.S.1951 -§ 437.26, expressly excludes Rural Electric Co-operatives from the jurisdiction and control of the Corporation Commission.
For reversal and vacation of the peremptory writ of mandamus, the co-operative, a domestic corporation, presents alleged error under nine propositions.
The first, in substance, is that venue of Redman's action is not within Pushmataha County, Oklahoma.
The Sheriff's return shows that the alternative ' writ of mandamus was served in Pushmataha County, Oklahoma on Vance Womack, who resided in said county and was trustee and vice president of Choctaw Electric Co-operative Inc., Also, the writ shows service of the Sheriff of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, upon John A. Bryan,, president of Choctaw Electric Co-operative,. Inc., in Choctaw County. The co-operative's-principal place of business was in Hugo,. Oklahoma, Choctaw County, but it maintained a warehouse for material and equipment, three full-time employees in transacting its business in Pushmataha County and three trustees, including Mr. Womack,, all of whom resided in Pushmataha County.. 'The proposed auxiliary electric line to furnish Redman and his neighbors with electric service was to be located in Push-mataha County.
Under the circumstances the contention of the co-operative is without merit. An action against a domestic corporation may be brought in any .county in which it is situated, or has its principal office or place of business, or in which any of the principal officers thereof may reside or be summoned, or in the county where the cause of action or some part thereof arose. 12 O.S.1951, § 134.
• Under propositions two and three it is argued that since Redman filed a suit against the co-operative for damages for failure to carry out its alleged promise to furnish him electrical service, which suit was admittedly filed and was pending at the time this mandamus action was commenced that he had an adequate remedy at law. Citing 12 O.S.A. § 1452.
We do not agree. The damage suit was for the purpose of obtaining compensation caused by the alleged wrongful refusal of service while the mandamus action, if proper, which question we shall hereinafter discuss, was for the purpose of procuring such service. The action for damages obviously would not afford an adequate remedy, therefore mandamus may lie. 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, § 19, p. 50. See 12 O.S.1951 § 1451, 1452.
Under proposition four it is contended that a rural electric co-operative, organized and operated under the Rural Electric Cooperative Act is not a public utility and is therefore under no duty to provide service to the public, or Redman.
It is conceded by the co-operative that if the District Court had venue and jurisdiction in all other respects this proposition would be determinative of this cause, and we agree. We think that the one and only issue before us is whether under the circumstances Redman is a member, and if he is a member may he invoke the special process of mandamus.
We think that under the circumstances of the present case, defendant is estopped to deny that the plaintiff Redman is one of its members, or that he had been accepted as such, in the manner provided by its by-laws.
The law of electric co-operatives is of recent origin and no precedent is available for our guidance and the case is one of first impression, but we recognize that membership in such co-operatives should be limited to those for whom electric service is available, or to those who actually will buy from or through the co-operative.
Assuming without deciding that the co-operative is as contended by it, not a public utility and excluded from control by the Corporation Commission, then is there no process whereby a member such as Red-man (notwithstanding the co-operative's contention that he is not a member) may obtain his right to the very services for which the co-operative was formed, to wit: to furnish electricity to its members? We think there is, but if not, then by the same process of reasoning a member would not have a right to the continued services of the co-operative if perchance its officers, without cause, discontinued to serve such member. Under the last named circumstances such member would clearly be entitled to relief through the legal process of mandamus. See 12 O.S.1951 § 1451 and the Rural Electric Cooperative Act, supra.
Redman apparently had done everything that was required of him to become a member. Though the co-operative refused to recognize membership rights in him, such refusal, in view of our determination of the ineffectiveness of its denial of his membership, must herein be considered the same as arbitrary discrimination against a member. A fundamental aspect of cooperation is equality. The co-operative's arbitrary discrimination in refusing Redman services due him as a member violated this fundal mental principle of the organization and mandamus is, we think, the proper remedy to prevent the co-operative from engaging in such practice contrary to the basic principles . under which the organization (cooperative) came into existence.
As to Redman's action on behalf of his neighbors, who are similarly situated except as to membership, it is doubtful whether they, as non-members, under the present status of the law of electric co-operatives as distinguished from public utilities, have a legal right to obtain relief by mandamus, even though they are more favorably situated and beneficial to the co-operative than Redman, and this fact probably had something to do with their being included in the trial court's order. To wrongfully exclude them would be discrimination against them but such wrong is apparently without a remedy. A theoretical answer to the question might be that co-operatives are democratic in character and simply would not engage in such discrimination. Be that as it may, we do not herein pass upon that phase of the writ.
From a careful examination of the entire record we think the law enjoins the duty(upon this co-operative to furnish its members electric service and that the gov erning board of an electric co-operative not otherwise controlled is amenable to the writ of mandamus and by such writ may be compelled to perform that duty where it appears that such failure is the result of arbitrary discrimination against a member.
Other questions are raised but in view of what we have said we deem it unnecessary to discuss them.
Judgment affirmed as to Redman.
HALLEY, C. J., and CORN, DAVI-SON, and BLACKBIRD, JJ" concur.
WILLIAMS, J., dissents.