Louisiana Gas Service Co. v. Polaris Corp.
This text of 223 So. 2d 810 (Louisiana Gas Service Co. v. Polaris Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Louisiana Gas Service Company1 prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court dismissing the two above entitled cases consolidated for trial on pleas of prematurity filed by the respective defendants, the Polaris Corporation,2 and the Dixie Gas Company,3 in both of which the Louisiana Public Service Commission4 was a party defendant.
. Counsel for appellant in arguing that the trial judge erroneously maintained the exception of prematurity contends that the courts should enjoin the Commission when it acts or threatens to act without authority, such as (1) granting exclusive franchise or privilege, or (2) prohibiting a util[299]*299ity from doing business in an area where it has a valid franchise or (3) issuing “cease and desist orders” except where the utility is violating a law of the state or any of the reasonable and lawful rules of the Commission, citing as authority therefor the decision of this court in the case of Richland Gas Co. v. Hale, 169 La. 300, 125 So. 130.
We find it unnecessary to give the sequence of the-innumerable-event's that gave rise to the litigation under controversy. Suffice it to say that when Order No. 10,-091 5 was issued on October 2, 1968 after a hearing by the Commission on the complaint of Polaris who had been negotiating for over a year to supply gas service to the Willowdale Country Club .Subdivision, the first suit was filed by Gas Service on October 9, 1968,6 bearing docket number 129,-979 of the district court, and subsequently amended on January 6, 1969, seeking to enjoin the Commission from enforcing said order and continuing with proceedings in case no. 10,379 7 on its docket and Polaris from acting under the order or in any way interfering with Gas Service furnishing natural gas in the area of Willowdale Coun[301]*301try Club Subdivision. The second suit, hearing docket number 131,619 of the district court, similarly seeks to restrain the Commission from continuing with proceedings in case no. 10,3778 on their docket and to enjoin Dixie from engaging in activities that interfere with or deprive petitioner of its rights under its franchise from the St. Charles Parish Police Jury for the distribution of gas in the Parish.
The action of the trial judge in maintaining the pleas of prematurity only affected the matter pending before the Commission with respect to cases number 10,377 and 10,379 on its docket, reported in footnotes 7 and 8 respectively, in which no hearing has yet taken place,9 thus leaving for consideration the appeal of Gas Service filed on October 9 for review of the action of the Commission in issuance of Order No. 10,091 now pending in the district court bearing docket number 129,978.10
A perusal of the Hale case will readily disclose that it is inapposite from a factual as well as a legal standpoint. While this court expressly recognized that “the commission has the power to supervise and regulate public utilities as it finds them,” it held that the Commission was without authority to grant gas franchise as that power was vested by the Legislature in the municipalities of the State.
In the instant case we find no error in the ruling of the trial judge in sustaining [303]*303the pleas of prematurity. Under the express provisions of Section 4 of Article 6 of the Constitution of 192111 the dispute between the two gas companies is clearly a matter that falls within the primary jurisdiction of the Louisiana Public Service Commission and until plaintiff has exhausted its available remedies there, it cannot resort to the courts. See, Shreveport Laundries, Inc. v. Southern Cities Distributing Co., reported in footnote 9, and Vicksburg S. & P. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 153 La. 983, 96 So. 832.
For the reasons assigned the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
223 So. 2d 810, 254 La. 297, 1969 La. LEXIS 2835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisiana-gas-service-co-v-polaris-corp-la-1969.