Court Opinion

ID: 9809742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:24:05.450712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:45.324221
License: Public Domain

Allen, J.,
dissenting: The principle announced in the opinion of the Court that corporations affected with a public use must serve the consumer impartially and without discrimination is not questioned, and it is a principle which should be rigidly enforced for the benefit of the public, but the questions presented by this appeal are altogether different.
The plaintiffs are not in my opinion consumers, and not within the protection of the principle, and no party to this action represents the man who must ultimately pay the profits of both plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiffs, the Public Service Company, is a corporation, with power in its charter to generate electricity and sell it to the public, and owns and operates the railway company, the other plaintiff, one being subsidiary to the other, following in large measure the methods of the American Tobacco Company and the Standard Oil Company, condemned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The plaintiff has failed to exercise its powers, and for the last ten years, instead of generating its own electricity, as it had the right to do, has bought its power from the defendant and sold it to the consumer at a profit, stated to be 800 per cent, and this statement is practically undenied, thus introducing between the consumer and the source of power, the plaintiff, as middle-man, with all the attendant evils.
The contract with the defendant for service existing during the last ten years having expired, and being unable to agree upon a new contract, except at an increased rate, this action has been instituted in the Superior Court, and the prayer of the complaint is as follows:
“Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for a writ of mandamus against the defendant:
“1. To compel the defendant power company to furnish and to continue to furnish electric current and power from its substation at Salisbury to the plaintiffs for the use and benefit of the cities of Salisbury and Spencer and East Spencer, and the inhabitants thereof, as heretofore furnished by it.
*40“2. To compel tbe defendant power company to furnish such service, power, and current at uniform and reasonable rates and without discrimination for like service, under the same or substantially similar conditions.”
I do not think the action can be maintained under these conditions for the following reasons:
1. If what is said of the defendants in the opinion of the Court is true, and if the plaintiffs have failed to exercise the powers conferred in their charters, as they admit, preferring to buy power from the defendant, which they sell to the consumer at a profit of 800 per cent, I do not think either party has any standing in court, and certainly the plaintiffs ought not to be aided by judicial decree to continue a business so hurtful to the public.
2. If the Court will inquire into the rights of the parties, and the defendant can be compelled to furnish power to the plaintiff at any rate, it gives the opportunity to destroy the chartered rights of the defendant, and to render it impossible for it to perform its duties to the public.
The plaintiff, seeing that it can avoid the expense of constructing and operating a plant, may enlarge its operations and make new demands on the defendant, or new corporations may be formed, with power to generate electricity and sell to the public, who, profiting by the example and experience of the plaintiff, will build no plants, but will demand power of the defendant on the same terms as the plaintiff, and in this way the operations of the defendant may be limited to furnishing power to competitive corporations.
3. The plaintiff is not entitled .to protection as one of the general public, and cannot secure power from the defendant except by contract between the parties. So far from being one of the public, its position is antagonistic because it sells to the public, and it would seem at the highest rates.
The business in which the plaintiffs are engaged, and their service is not a dependent business or service, but is entirely independent. The plaintiffs are chartered and authorized to generate electricity as well as to distribute it, and it is as much their public duty to do one as it is to do the other, and the obligation to do each is the same. They have no right to rid themselves of either one of their public obligations by undertaking to pass either over to the defendant. They would have as much right to require some other company to distribute electricity for them as they have to require this company to generate electricity and sell it to them to be resold by them at a profit.
Express Co. v. R. R., 111 N. C., 463, is the leading case in this State. The proceeding was instituted before the Railroad Commission; and petitioner, express company, sought to compel certain railroads who *41were made respondents, to furnish it with facilities for doing an express business the same as they were furnishing another express company, alleging that the railroads were discriminating against petitioner in furnishing such facilities to such other express company, while denying them to petitioner. Section 4 of the act constituting the commission provided: “That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.”
The Court, following the Supreme Court of the United States (Express cases, 117 U. S., 1), decided that neither at common law nor under the statute did the railroads owe any public duty to the express company to furnish it with the facilities demanded; that the public duty of the railroads was to serve the shipping and traveling public, and not another carrier; and that there was no discrimination against petitioner, because the railroads were furnishing facilities similar to those demanded by petitioner to another express company. The Court held that the furnishing of such facilities by the railroads to such other express company was a matter of special contract between them.
Chief Justice Shepherd, after citing authorities, says: “The controversy is solely between the respective corporations, and the real question is not whether the defendant railroad companies are authorized to do an express business for themselves, nor whether they must carry express matter for the public on their passenger trains, in the immediate charge of some person especially appointed for that purpose, nor whether they shall carry express freight for the complainant company as they carry like freight for the general public, but whether it is their duty to furnish the complainant with facilities for doing an express business upon their roads, the same in all respects as those they provide for themselves or afford to any other express company.”
Again: “The defendants have not refused to act as common carriers, or to transport any article tendered by the complainant. They have refused to afford it facilities for carrying out an express business upon their roads, and this we have seen they had a right to do. In this refusal they were not guilty of making any discrimination or preference within the act of the Legislature. As we have seen, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that they are under no obligation to carry another company, and the mere fact that they are carrying another company does not amount to an unjust or unreasonable preference.”
In the Express cases, 117 U. S., 1, certain express companies sought *42to compel the railroad companies to give them the same facilities for their business furnished other express companies. The Court denied the application, saying, among other things: “The reason is obvious why special contracts in reference to this business are necessary,” and then proceeds to show that if the railroads were compelled to yield to the demands of the plaintiffs that these might be increased until the railroads could not perform their duties to the public, a condition which may soon confront the defendant in this action.
The Court adds: “If the general public were complaining because the railroad companies refused to carry express matter themselves on their passenger trains, or to allow it to be carried by others, different questions would be presented,” a remark very pertinent to the present controversy.
These authorities, in my opinion, cover the principle involved in this appeal, and are decisive against the plaintiff.
If the courts cannot compel railroads, which are public-service corporations, to give the same service to one express company that it gives to another, which is the decision of the Supreme Court of this State and of the United States, from what source, and by what course of reasoning can it be said that the courts have the power to require one electric company to furnish power to another electric company, its competitor in business, on terms similar to those given to others?
4. The purpose of the action is to fix the rates which the defendant shall charge the plaintiff, and this is primarily a legislative, not a judicial function, and is to be exercised by the Legislature itself, or by a commission acting under its authority.
That this is the purpose of the action is apparent from the whole scope of the pleadings, and the prayer for judgment, in which the Court is asked to compel the defendant to furnish service at reasonable rates.
Who is expected to say what rates are reasonable if not the Court? Certainly the plaintiff will not be permitted to say what the defendant shall charge, and it will not consent for the defendant to do so, and if neither of these, and the' Court is not asked to do so, what practical result can follow this litigation?
In Munn v. Illinois, which is the leading authority on the power to deal with the rates of public-service corporations, the Court says: “It is insisted, however, that the owner of property is entitled to a reasonable compensation for its use, even though it be clothed with a public interest, and that what is reasonable is a judicial and not a legislative question.
“As has already been shown, the practice has been otherwise. In countries where the common law prevails, it has been customary from time immemorial for the Legislature to declare what shall be a reasonable compensation under such circumstances, or, perhaps more properly *43speaking, to fix a maximum beyond which any charge made would be unreasonable. Undoubtedly, in mere private contracts, relating to matters in which the public has no interest, what is reasonable must be ascertained judicially. But this is because the Legislature has no control over such a contract. So, too, in matters which do affect the public interest, and as to which legislative control may be exercised, i£ there are no statutory regulations upon the subject, the courts must determine what is reasonable.”
In Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S., 255: “The courts have not been given jurisdiction to fix rates or practices in direct proceedings, nor can they do so collaterally during the progress of a lawsuit when the action is based on the claim that unreasonable allowances have been paid. If the decision of such questions was committed to different courts with different juries, the results would not only vary in degree, but might often be opposite in character — to the destruction of the uniformity in rate and practice which was the cardinal object of the statute.”
The Supreme Court of "Wisconsin, in City of Madison v. Madison Gas and Electric Company, 108 Northwestern, 65, in holding that the courts have no jurisdiction to fix rates, says: “This power of the State is in its nature legislative, and has always been exercised either directly by the legislative branch of the government or by delegation of it to municipal corporations or some other appropriate agency. Whether existing or prescribed rates and charges for a public service afford a reasonable compensation is a judicial question. In the very nature of the right to regulate these matters, between the public and those engaged in performing the service, it must follow that courts cannot prescribe a schedule of rates and charges as the prescribed quantum of compensation which is to he awarded for future services, because it is the legislative prerogative to make and prescribe the rules which shall regulate the relations between persons and their acts as they arise in the affairs of life. When, however, such rules have been enacted as law, then the judiciary is vested with the authority to construe and apply them to the affairs they were intended to regulate and control. These two functions which are recognized as distinct and separate in the fundamental organization of our Government are not to be encroached upon or curtailed by the other.”
In this State the Legislature has taken charge of the question and has committed the power to fix rates to the Corporation Commission, and there is no reason for the courts to exercise this jurisdiction, which is not within their proper and legitimate functions.
Chapter 127, Laws 1913, provides: “Section 1. The Corporation Commission shall have such general power, control, and supervision of *44all electric light, power, water, and gas companies and corporations, other than such as are municipally owned or conducted, and of all persons, companies, and corporations, other than municipal corporations, now or hereafter engaged in the business of furnishing electricity, electric light, current or power, and gas, as it now has over railroad and other corporations as set forth in chapter twenty of the Revisal of one thousand nine hundred and five, and the acts supplemental and amenda-tory thereof.
“Section 2. That the said commission shall have full power and authority to fix, establish and regulate the rates or charges of such persons, companies, or corporations, to make such investigations and orders, and establish and enforce rules, regulations, fines, and penalties as it has over railroads.
“Section 6. The Corporation Commission shall make reasonable and just rules and regulations :
“1. To prevent discrimination in furnishing electricity, electric light, current, power, or gas.”
Walker, J., concurs in this opinion.