City of Fulton v. Public Service Commission

204 S.W. 386, 275 Mo. 67, 1918 Mo. LEXIS 56
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 13, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 204 S.W. 386 (City of Fulton v. Public Service Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Fulton v. Public Service Commission, 204 S.W. 386, 275 Mo. 67, 1918 Mo. LEXIS 56 (Mo. 1918).

Opinion

BLAIR, J.

The city appeals from an affirmance of an order of the Public Service Commission fixing telephone charges at rates exceeding máximums prescribed in a franchise granted by city ordinance in 1900 to the telephone company. It is stipulated that the only question involved is “the authority of the Public Service Commission of Missouri to order an increase of telephone rates and charges over the rates and charges provided for in Ordinance No. 62 of the City of Pulton.” Relator’s contention is that the order of the Commission impairs the obligation of the contract evidenced by the ordinance mentioned.

The question was decided in State ex rel. Sedalia v. Public Service Commission, 275 Mo. 201, and we adopt the ruling there made. The suggestion that the rights of individual subscribers are involved is answered by the rule that individuals cannot abridge the police power by contracts made under an ordinance subject to revision under that power. [Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 189 U. S. 434.] All such contracts necessarily are made in contemplation of the State’s power to;fix rates. This disposes of the idea that the revision of rates impairs the obligation of contracts.

In view of what is written in the Sedalia ease it is necessary to overrule State ex rel. St. Louis v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 102 Mo. 472, in so far as it- conflicts with' that decision. The result in that case was right on other grounds, as the record shows. Sloan v. Railroad, 61 Mo. 24, is not necessarily in conflict with the conclusion in the Sedalia case. The Sloan ease was based upon legislation enacted prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1875.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gaines v. Gibbs
709 S.W.2d 541 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)
Midland Realty Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
300 U.S. 109 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Kansas City Light & Power Co. v. Midland Realty Co.
93 S.W.2d 954 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1936)
Kansas City v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
25 S.W.2d 1055 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
State Ex Rel. Water Co. v. Public Service Commission
291 S.W. 788 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
State Ex Rel. Missouri Gas & Electric Service Co. v. Trimble
271 S.W. 43 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
City of Cape Girardeau v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
267 S.W. 601 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
State Ex Rel. City of Harrisonville v. Public Service Commission
236 S.W. 852 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)
Southwest Mo. R.R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm.
219 S.W. 380 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Southwest Missouri Railroad v. Public Service Commission
281 Mo. 52 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Kansas City v. Public Service Commission
210 S.W. 381 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission
207 S.W. 799 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)
Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co. v. Kansas City Light & Power Co.
204 S.W. 1074 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 S.W. 386, 275 Mo. 67, 1918 Mo. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-fulton-v-public-service-commission-mo-1918.