Court Opinion

ID: 9672799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:00:34.411184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.431895
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Behear
Pbewitt, Justice.
Since the opinion heretofore filed on September 1,1958, was adopted by a majority of the Court, Justices Burnett and Swepston concurring, with Justice Tomlinson dissenting, and Chief Justice Neil not participating, the cause was set down for reargument on December 1, 1958, in which rehearing the Chief Justice participated.
Now, since said opinion was filed another State has spoken on the subject, to-wit, New Mexico, Pacific, iff an opinion dated November 14, 1958, State Highway Com*216mission of New Mexico v. Southern Union Gas Co., N.M., 332 P.2d 1007, the opinion having been written by Justice Shillinglaw, of that Court, which opinion was unanimous and in which they quote extensively from our opinion heretofore filed September 1, 1958. That Court struck down a similar statute as the one involved in this cause as being offensive to the Constitution of New Mexico.
We quote from tht opinion:
“We think that the basic test under this Section of our Constitution is whether the expenditure is for a State purpose. In the present case the primary purpose served by the expenditure is for the convenience and benefit of the utilities, the purpose cannot be public.”
And again we quote :
“In conclusion, we would answer the main argument of the appellee that relocation of these utilities is a public governmental function by stating that the construction of highways is unquestionably a public governmental function but that we disagree as to relocation of utility facilities. Highways are constructed by the state on state-owned rights-of-way for the use of the public. The Southern Union Gas Company, in laying its gas lines, is acting solely for the benefit of the utility. The line is the property of the utility and to be used solely by it, neither the state nor the public having any right to use these lines. The Southern Union Gas Company is not a subordinate governmental agency nor is it fulfilling a governmental function although it is serving a highly useful purpose in the great American free enterprise tradition by furnishing for profit an essential commodity to the people of this state.”
*217We further quote from the New Mexico case:
“In reply to the appellee’s contention that the legislature can change the common law to provide for future payment of utility relocation costs, it is beyond question that the common law is subject to change by statute. That such change may not offend the constitution is equally true. Public policy of this state is determined by the legislature but such declarations of policy are restricted by the limitations of our constitution. Flaska v. State, 51 N.M. 13, 177 P.2d 174.”
The majority of this Court adheres to our former opinion delivered on September 1,1958, in which we held said Chapter 170, Public Acts of 1957 unconstitutional.
The petitions to rehear, after having been duly heard and considered by the Court, are overruled.
Burnett and SwepstoN, Justices, concurring.
Neil, Chief Justice, and Tomlinson, Justice, dissenting.