Georgia Public-Service Commission v. Georgia Power Co.

186 S.E. 839, 182 Ga. 706, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 548
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 20, 1936
DocketNo. 11031
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 186 S.E. 839 (Georgia Public-Service Commission v. Georgia Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Georgia Public-Service Commission v. Georgia Power Co., 186 S.E. 839, 182 Ga. 706, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 548 (Ga. 1936).

Opinions

Gardner, Judge.

In the case sub judice it appears that the Georgia Power Company is a public-service company transmitting and distributing electric energy to communities in Sumter County and other counties adjacent thereto. This company has a high-power transmission line which passes within sixty-nine feet of the corporate limits of the City of Andersonville. There appears to have been a desire on the part of the inhabitants of this municipality to obtain service from this company, reflected by and perhaps resulting in the joint resolution of the Senate and House, approved by the Governor on February 16, 1935, requesting the Public-Service Commission to institute appropriate proceedings to require the Georgia Power Company to furnish this service. After notice to the company, the Public-Service Commission conducted a hearing in Andersonville on March 28, 1935, to determine whether or not the power company should be required to furnish electric service to the inhabitants of that municipality. Subsequently, after the hearing, and on June 4, 1935, the commission [708]*708ordered that the company construct “such distribution system within the City of Andersonville as will give the citizens electrical service, connecting the same to their transmission lines at such points as they deem necessary to give the proper service; the construction of said plant to commence within thirty days from the date of this order and to be completed as rapidly as possible.” The company filed a petition seeking an injunction against the commission and the enforcement of the order‘quoted above, praying that this order be adjudged illegal, invalid, void, unconstitutional, and violative of the constitutional rights of the company. In the petition it is alleged that no power is conferred on the commission to pass the order; that the joint resolution of the General Assembly of February 16, 1935, was not a legislative act enlarging the powers of the commission; that if any of the statutes of the State, conferring jurisdiction upon the commission, or the joint resolution of the General Assembly, be so construed as authorizing the commission to pass such an order, then such acts and resolutions as thus construed would be violative of the due-process-of-law provisions of the Federal and State constitutions, on numerous grounds in the petition set forth.

The defendants answered, denying that such acts conferring power upon the commission, and the order entered in pursuance of the powers claimed, were unconstitutional for any of the reasons alleged in the petition. They asserted that they conducted a thorough hearing, and as a result thereof determined that it is reasonable, practicable and just, fair from the standpoint of the Georgia Power Company, and advantageous from the standpoint of Andersonville, to order such service; and that a refusal to grant such service would cause discrimination against and a denial of proper facilities to consumers who are entitled,.under the facts, to receive electric service.

The case was heard, on application for interlocutory injunction, by three of the judges of Fulton superior court. The plaintiff introduced two affidavits by Charles A. Collier, in which he swore that the institution of the service ordered would involve an outlay of about eight to ten thousand dollars, and would result in an annual loss estimated by him to amount to a minimum of $806.60 and a maximum of $ll*í'6; that the Georgia Power Company, as a public utility, has npt undertaken to serve the City of Andersop[709]*709ville; that it has no franchise; that the nearest point of electrical service to the city, served by the company under a franchise, is Americus — a distance of approximately ten and one half miles from Andersonville; that during the World War there was an aviation field located at Arles, and to serve this field with lights an electric-service line was extended from Americus to Arles, a distance of approximately five miles; that the company does not serve any territory with electric energy or power nearer Anderson-ville than Arles, which is five and one half miles distant; that the company has no franchise to construct or build service lines from Arles to Andersonville, and has no distribution lines or electrical construction in Andersonville. No effort was made to show what the result of instituting such service would be upon the earnings of the entire system. The defendants introduced ordinances of. the City of Andersonville granting a franchise to the Georgia Power Company, and attempting to relieve that company perpetually from taxation in said municipality; and a deed purporting to convey the necessary right of way for the distribution line. It was stipulated that neither of the ordinances nor the deed had been delivered to or accepted by the power company. An affidavit of the mayor and' clerk of the municipality was offered, by which it appeared that no taxes had been levied by the city except a small occupation tax on merchants. Other affidavits were offered to show the distance of the high-tension transmission line to be sixty-nine feet from the corporate limits and approximately one mile from the center of the municipality.

Provisions in the charters of certain corporations to the prop- . erties of which the plaintiff company had succeeded were also offered in evidence, as follows:

In connection with Americus Gas ,& Electric Company, the charter of which was granted on September 14, 1911, the corporation prayed and received “the right, privilege, and power . . To build, erect, equip, maintain, acquire, and operate an electric-light plant in the City of Americus, for the purpose of generating electricity and supplying the same for lighting, heat, and power, with the right to erect its poles and wires in and upon the streets of the City of Americus and in the County of Sumter, for the purpose of transmitting said electricity wdierever the same is desired. ” The charter of the Americus Lighting Company granted [710]*710on March 23, 1917, by the superior court of Sumter County, contained the following: “That the principal business to be carried on by said Americus Lighting Company is as follows: . . To own and operate an electric-light plant in the City of Americus, for the purpose of generating and selling electricity for lighting and power purposes, and for all other purposes for which electricity may be employed or used, with the right to erect poles and wires in and upon the streets, alleys, and ways of the City of Americus, and upon the public roads of Sumter County, and other counties of the State; and to put in all fixtures and apparatus necessary for the erection of said plant. . . The principal office and place of business of the proposed corporation shall be in the City of Americus, said State and County, with the right and privilege to establish and maintain branch offices and businesses elsewhere.”

In the application of the South Georgia Public-Service Company, in Dougherty County (granted on December 2, 1922), the petitioner “desires the right to establish branch offices and to engage in business elsewhere, within or without the State, whenever the holders of a majority of the stock may so determine.” This application stated that “The business to be carried on by said corporation is that of . . supplying light, heat, and power to the public in counties, cities, towns, and villages of the State of Georgia.” The above 'prayers were granted.

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

Related

Loring v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp.
339 S.E.2d 372 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Georgia Public Service Commission v. Southern Bell
327 S.E.2d 726 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Upson County School District v. City of Thomaston
281 S.E.2d 537 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Moore v. Georgia Public Service Commission
249 S.E.2d 549 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Savannah Electric & Power Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission
236 S.E.2d 87 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
SAVANNAH &C. CO. v. Public Serv. Comm.
236 S.E.2d 87 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Statesboro Telephone Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission
219 S.E.2d 127 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Georgia Power Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp.
212 S.E.2d 628 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Morris v. State
211 S.E.2d 16 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Opinion No. 71-377 (1971) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1971
Gas Light Co. of Columbus v. Ga. Power Co.
171 S.E.2d 615 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1969)
J. & M. Transportation Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission
122 S.E.2d 227 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Georgia Public Service Commission v. Jones Transportation, Inc.
100 S.E.2d 183 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
GA. PUB. SERV. COM. v. Jones Transp.
100 S.E.2d 183 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Atlanta Motor Lines, Inc. v. Georgia Public Service Commission
88 S.E.2d 387 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission
85 S.E.2d 14 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Georgia Public Service Commission v. SMITH TRANSFER COMPANY INC.
63 S.E.2d 653 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
So. Bell T. T. Co. v. Georgia Pub. Ser. Comm.
49 S.E.2d 38 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 S.E. 839, 182 Ga. 706, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-public-service-commission-v-georgia-power-co-ga-1936.