Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.

224 U.S. 217, 32 S. Ct. 442, 56 L. Ed. 738, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2297
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 1, 1912
Docket914
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 224 U.S. 217 (Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 224 U.S. 217, 32 S. Ct. 442, 56 L. Ed. 738, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2297 (1912).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellees in this case brought suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma against the appellants, who were the Governor, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, County Attorney and Deputy County Attorney of Washington County, Corporation Commissioners and Mine Inspector, of the State of Oklahoma, to enjoin the enforcement of certain statutes of the State of Oklahoma which undertook to prevent the complainants, now appellees, from transporting natural gas in interstate commerce beyond the borders of the State of Oklahoma. Upon final hearing in that court such statutes were held void, as against the Constitution of the United States, and the enforcement thereof was enjoined. The case came to this court on appeal, and was argued and decided at the October Term, 1911, being reported in 221 U. S. 229.

On May 29, 1911, the last day of the term, a motion was made in this court by the Attorney General of Oklahoma to modify the affirmance of the decree in the court below. The parts objected to are found in the margin. 1 *219 This motion was overruled, with leave to either party to apply to the Circuit Court from whence the case came for such modification of the decree as would make it conform to the opinion of this court. Thereafter, the present proceeding was instituted by the Attorney General’s filing a motion in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for the modification of such decree. The former complainants, defendants in this proceeding, appeared and filed a motion in the nature of a demurrer and also filed an answer in the case. The Circuit Court, treating the pleadings of the defendants as in the nature of a demurrer, without hearing evidence in support of or against the granting of the motion, and without considering the affidavits or exhibits filed, over *220 ruled the same and ordered the mandate of this court, affirming the former decree, to be spread upon the records. Thereupon this appeal was prosecuted.

In order to properly consider this motion it is necessary to notice the holding in the case in 221 U. S., supra. The original proceeding was brought to enjoin the officers of the State of Oklahoma from preventing the carriage in interstate commerce beyond the lines of the State of natural gas which had been severed from the earth by the owners of such gas, and particularly to enjoin the enforcement of a certain statute of the State passed in 1907, known as chapter 67 of the Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1907-08, which is inserted in full in the margin of the report of the case in 221 U. S., at page 239. This court held that natural gas after severance is a commodity which might ue dealt in like other products of the earth, as coal and other minerals, and is a legitimate subject of interstate commerce; and that no State by such laws as were involved in the case can prohibit its transportation in interstate commerce beyond the lines of that State. The court held, after considering and construing the provisions of the act of 1907, that it was, upon its face, a law undertaking to prohibit the transmission or transportation in interstate commerce of natural gas to points beyond the State; that it was an unconstitutional interference with the rights of the complainants, who were legitimately engaged in that commerce, and that therefore the act was null and void.

In the course of the opinion the court recognized the right of the State by proper legislation to regulate the removal from the earth of natural gas by the owner thereof, so as to prevent its undue waste, but maintained the decree of the court below, declaring this particular act unconstitutional, upon the grounds of its prohibitory character in attempting to prevent the transmission from the State through the pipe lines of the complainants of a *221 legitimate subject of interstate commerce. As to the provisions of the statute concerning the right to use the highways of the State, the court declined to discuss the extent of the rights of public or private ownership therein in the State of Oklahoma, but placed the decision in this respect upon the manifest attempt to discriminate against the appellees, engaged in interstate commerce, in giving to domestic corporations engaged in intrastate transportation of natural gas the right to the use of the highways— even longitudinally — while denying to corporations transporting the gas-in interstate commerce the right to pass under or over them, and this in the face of the admission in the pleadings that the greater use given to domestic corporations is no obstruction to the highways.

The particular parts of the Oklahoma act of 1907 which it is now contended should be excepted from the operation of the decree are comprised in §§ 5, 6 and 7 of chapter 67, which read as follows:

“Sec. 5. The laying, constructing, building and maintaining a gas pipe line or lines for the transportation or transmission of natural gas along, over, under, across, or through the highways, roads, bridges, streets, or alleys in this State, or of any county, city, municipal corporation or any other public or private premises within this State is hereby declared an additional, burden upon said highway, bridge, road, street or alley, and any other private, or public premises may only be done when the right is grapted by express charter from the State and shall not be constructed, maintained, or operated until all damages to adjacent owners are ascertained and paid as provided by law.
“Sec. 6. All pipe lines for the transportation or transmission of natural gas in this State shall be laid under the direction and inspection of proper persons skilled in such business to be designated by the chief mining inspector for such duty, and the expenses of such inspection and *222 supervision shall be borne and paid for by the parties laying and constructing such pipe lines for the transportation or transmission of natural gas.
“Sec. 7. No pipe line for the transportation or transmission of natural gas shall be subjected to a greater pressure than three hundred pounds to the square inch, except for the purpose of testing such lines, and gas pumps shall not be used on any gas pipe lines for the transportation or transmission of natural gas or used on or in any gas well within this State;” and also in the act of March 27, 1909, Compiled Laws of Oklahoma, 1909, Art. 3, c. 75, § 11, regulating domestic corporations, which prohibits the use of pumps or other artificial means in the transmission of gas, when used to the injury of other corporations, consumers and producers, producing or consuming natural gas in the same gas district.

It is contended for the appellants herein that each and • all of these sections of the law are constitutionally valid and can be enforced consistently with the opinion of this court when the case was here upon its merits.

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

Related

Leggett v. Duke Energy Corp.
308 S.W.3d 843 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2010)
Alley v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
590 F.3d 1195 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
Youakim v. McDonald
71 F.3d 1274 (Seventh Circuit, 1995)
Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling
906 F. Supp. 819 (E.D. New York, 1995)
Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
214 F. Supp. 383 (D. Maryland, 1963)
Nerney v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
83 F.2d 409 (Second Circuit, 1936)
Sioux City v. Missouri Valley Pipe Line Co.
46 F.2d 819 (N.D. Iowa, 1931)
Fagin v. Quinn
24 F.2d 42 (Fifth Circuit, 1928)
Graham v. Hollister
13 F.2d 394 (W.D. Michigan, 1926)
Floyd v. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co.
144 N.E. 703 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1924)
Dallas Gas Co. v. State
261 S.W. 1063 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Erie City v. Public Service Commission
123 A. 471 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission
79 Pa. Super. 560 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
State ex rel. Helm v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.
208 P. 622 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1922)
Myron Green Cafeterias Co. v. Kansas City.
240 S.W. 132 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)
Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.
280 F. 301 (Eighth Circuit, 1922)
In Re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.'s Gross Production Tax for 1919
1921 OK 121 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 U.S. 217, 32 S. Ct. 442, 56 L. Ed. 738, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haskell-v-kansas-natural-gas-co-scotus-1912.