City of Ludlow v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co.

22 S.W.2d 909, 231 Ky. 813, 1929 Ky. LEXIS 375
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedDecember 3, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 22 S.W.2d 909 (City of Ludlow v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Ludlow v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 22 S.W.2d 909, 231 Ky. 813, 1929 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 1929).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Commissioner Stanley—

Affirming.

The franchise of the Union Light, Heat & Power Company for supplying the city of Ludlow with natural gas expired in August or September, 1929; the exact date is now immaterial. On July 18, 1929, the municipality provided for the sale of a new franchise and bids were asked therefor. The bid of the appellee company was the only one received, and it sought the franchise with a basic rate of 80 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, whereas the one in the old franchise was 40 cents. This bid was rejected. On August 6th the company served notice on the mayor and board of councilmen that on the expiration of its franchise it would “discontinue, terminate and withdraw its said gas service and will not continue to furnish any gas service in the municipality after midnight of August 11, 1929.” On August 10th the city filed suit against the appellee and its officers to enjoin the discontinuance. A restraining order issued, but a temporary injunction was denied by the lowei court. On motion made before the Chief Justice of this court, with three other Judges concurring, that order was set aside, and it was directed that the status quo be maintained pending a final determination.

The petition as finally amended sets up the facts stated above, and in addition alleges in substance that the company had its equipment installed in the city; it was the only company engaged in the business of supplying natural gas to municipalities in northern Kentucky; *815 that the city was dependent upon the defendant for that commodity, averred to be a necessity for the preservation of the health and convenience- of the inhabitants; that the terms under which the company -was asking a new franchise and the proposed rates are unfair, unjust, and unreasonable ; and that the notice of discontinuance was inadequate and insufficient in time to enable the city to make other arrangements, if such other arrangements could be made. It further set up an ordinance passed on September 12, 1929, by which the, city undertook to prevent a discontinuance of the service, and to fix the price of gas furnished by any public service corporation to the citizens at 37 cents base; and ■ also the fact that the city had filed with the Railroad Commission of Kentucky an application to have that body fix reasonable and equitable rates for natural gas to its-citizens, but that the company was claiming the commission had no jurisdiction or power to fix rates. A permanent injunction and a declaration of rights in the premises were asked. Demurrers were sustained to appellant’s pleadings, and tills appeal follows.

The grant and acceptance of a franchise is but a contract, and its obligations are binding on both parties. A contract expires according to its terms. In accordance with the constitutional limitation, the contract entered into between appellant and appellee in 1909 expired at the end of 20 years. There was no contractual relation between the parties after that period. Board of Education of Somerset v. Kentucky Utilities Company 231 Ky. 484, 21 S. W. (2d) -. It is universally held that, when a franchise contract terminates, the mutual rights and liabilities are at an end. The property used by the franchise owner does not cease to be its property and it has the right to remove it from the streets, and, upon failure to exercise that .right, may be compelled to do so. However, the courts in the interest of justice and equity have held that a reasonable time should be given for the removal of the physical properties, for, obviously, there could be .no instant removal on a discontinuance of the service; also under some circumstances courts of equity have interposed their pciwers to prevent a discontinuance of service for the time being, as has been done in this very case, until the rights of the parties could be fully adjudicated.

In anticipation of the difficulties which might be encountered, the General Assembly at its 1926 session di *816 rected that the legislative body of a municipality should provide at least 18 months before the expiration of any franchise for the sale of a similar franchise. That procedure was not followed by the City of Ludlow in this instance.

The question sharply presented is: Can the city coerce the gas company into the making of a contract with it upon reasonable terms? The fact that the appellee is engaged in selling a commodity which has become a great public convenience and has available means for its delivery does not thereby make the company different from other parties competent to enter into any other kind of a contract. The courts do not have such power of coercion, any more than they have the power to arbitrarily compel the city to enter into a contract concerning which it may exercise its own will and discretion. The Act of 1922 which is now incorporated in the statutes as section 3490, subd. 36, does not, as the appellant contends, undertake to bestow power on a municipality to coerce a public corporation to contract with it. It simply vests the power in the governing authority of a city of the fourth class to provide the inhabitants with gas and the other facilities named, either by contract with a person, firm, or corporation, or through ownership or lease and operation by the municipality. By its specific terms it purports to bestow on the cities power only to regulate rates and the quality of service being' rendered under charters or franchises granted prior to the adoption of our present Constitution. The act has no application here. The exercise of that power where the public service corporation is operating in the city by sufferance or as a mere licensee, as considered in Hardin County Telephone Co. v. City of Elizabethtown, 227 Ky. 778, 14 S. W. (2d) 162, is not involved in this case.

It is said that the company could, under the authority of Northern Kentucky Mutual Telephone Co. v. Bracken County, 220 Ky. 297, 295 S. W. 146, compel the city to advertise and sell a franchise. Therefore, says the appellant, the city ought to have the power to compel the purchase of a franchise. An examination of that case will show it is inapplicable. The facts are materially different, and the opinion cannot be given the very broad interpretation undertaken to be placed upon it.

Likewise is the recent case of United Fuel Gras Co. v. Railroad Commission of Kentucky, 278 U. S. 300, 49 *817 S. Ct. 150, 73 L. Ed. —, inapplicable. It appears in that case that, although the municipal franchises under which the companies had been operating and supplying gas to several cities in Northeastern Kentucky had expired, the companies had continued and were expecting to continue to render the same service. Upon application the Kailroad Commission of the state had fixed certain rates as reasonable and the companies appealed to the federal courts. The Supreme Court, predicating its consideration of the case upon the assumption of the validity of section 201el et seq., Kentucky Statutes (it declining to enter into the question of constitutionality), and the fact that the companies were legally doing business in the state and under the statute were subject to the state regulation and control by the commission as an agency of the state, sustained the rates fixed by it as reasonable. Obviously- that is a different case.

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

Related

Clay v. Catlettsburg, Kenova & Ceredo Water Co.
192 S.W.2d 358 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1946)
Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. City of Covington
139 S.W.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1940)
Town of Seaford v. Eastern Shore Public Service Co.
194 A. 92 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1937)
Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Paris
71 S.W.2d 1024 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
City of Covington v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co.
49 S.W.2d 580 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)
Kentucky Utilities Company v. City of Paris
35 S.W.2d 873 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.W.2d 909, 231 Ky. 813, 1929 Ky. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-ludlow-v-union-light-heat-power-co-kyctapphigh-1929.