State ex rel. Randall v. Litchfield

155 P. 814, 97 Kan. 592, 1916 Kan. LEXIS 357
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided March 11, 1916·No. No. 20,418·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, C. J.:

A temporary restraining order was obtained, at the instance of the state, against R. S. Litchfield and John M. Landon, receivers of the Kansas Natural Gas Company, and also the Olathe Gas Company, preventing them from advancing the existing rate for gas in the city of Olathe and. in Johnson county. The Olathe Gas Company moved to dissolve the injunction, and it was agreed by the parties that the' hearing upon the motion should be treated as one on the application of the Olathe Gas Company to vacate and on the application of the plaintiff for a temporary injunction. The motion was denied and the temporary injunction issued, and. the Olathe Gas Company appeals.

The Olathe Gas Company was engaged in furnishing natural gas to the inhabitants of Olathe and a number of patrons along its line in Johnson county. The gas furnished was partly obtained from its local fields and an additional supply was obtained from the Kansas Natural Gas Company, with whom it had entered into a contract for a portion of its supply. The Olathe Gas Company was operated under a franchise granted by the city of Olathe on August 7, 1908, to parties whose rights, had been assigned to that company, which authorized the company to charge twenty-five cents per thousand feet of gas for one year after the franchise became effective and thereafter thirty cents per thousand. At the time of this suit the one-year limit had expired and the company had given notice of a proposed advance in the rate. At the time the. franchise was-granted the Olathe Gas Company had been supplying its. customers from the local wells which it owned, but within a few days after the franchise was obtained the company entered' into the contract with the Kansas Natural Gas Company for an additional supply of gas. In fact, the Olathe franchise was obtained in contemplation of making the contract with the [594] Kansas Natural Gas Company. Since the execution of that contract the principal part of the gas has been furnished by the Kansas Natural Gas Company, and that, with the gas obtained from the local wells, has made, we are told, an adequate supply for the people of the city. The Kansas Natural Gas Company, with which the Olathe Gas Company contracted, has been engaged in transporting gas through Kansas and into Missouri. The gas which it has sold has been delivered to consumers in the communities and cities along its pipe lines by distributing companies that were operating under franchises granted by the respective municipalities. The contract with the Olathe Gas Company differs from that made with other distributing companies in that part of the supply of gas furnished the people of Olathe and the nineteen patrons outside has been obtained from its own wells. In a litigation between the state and the receivers of the Kansas Natural Gas Company as well as the distributing companies, it was determined that the power of fixing the rates to be charged consumers was vested in the public utilities commission and that application for an increase in rates must first be presented to that commission. (The State, ex rel., v. Flannelly, 96 Kan. 372, 152 Pac. 22.) The trial court at first granted the temporary injunction preventing the proposed increase of the rate from twenty-five cents to thirty cents per thousand, but at a later time and after a showing that the public utilities commission ■had made an order permitting distributing companies to charge .twenty-eight cents per thousand, the court modified its former '¡order so as to permit the Olathe Gas Company to charge the itwenty-eight-cent rate as fixed by the utilities commission.

The contention of the Olathe Gas Company is that it has a franchise from the city of Olathe, a city of the second class, which permits it to charge the thirty-cent rate; that the company is principally engaged in supplying the people of the city of Olathe, since it furnishes gas to no one outside of the city except to nineteen farmers residing near its pipe line; and that the public utilities commission has no authority to fix the rate which it shall charge. On behalf of the state it is contended that the Olathe Gas Company, under its contract with the Kansas Natural Gas Company in contemplation of which the Olathe franchise was obtained, became the agent of the [595] Kansas Natural Gas Company and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission.

If the contention of the state is correct the order of the district court must be upheld. No question is raised as to the validity of the franchise obtained from the city of Olathe nor as to the purpose of any of its provisions. It does not appear that the city has attempted to change the rates specified in the franchise and it does appear that the public utilities commission has not authorized an increase of the rate. Neither party has offered testimony as to what would be a reasonable or compensatory rate to be charged for gas. The controlling question in the case is whether the Olathe Gas Company, in the position which it has chosen to take, is subject to the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission so that the rate to be charged for gas can not be increased except with the concurrence and authority of that tribunal. If it is an agency of the Kansas Natural Gas Company and its receivers in the sale and delivery of gas to the consumers, it is necessarily within the jurisdiction of the utilities commission.. In The State, ex rel., v. Flannelly, supra, the relation of the distributing companies to the Kansas Natural Gas Company was considered, and it was said “these distributing companies act as the agents of the Kansas Natural Gas Company in the distribution and sale of gas.” (p. 378.) The relationship of the distributing companies to the Kansas Natural Gas Company was practically conceded in that case, but it is insisted here that the Olathe Gas Company stands in a different relation because of the peculiar provisions in its contract and under which it sells and distributes more gas than is obtained from the Kansas Natural Gas Company. The provisions of the contract which it made with that gas company must determine the capacity in which it is acting.

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

State ex rel. Randall v. Litchfield, 155 P. 814, 97 Kan. 592, 1916 Kan. LEXIS 357 (kan 1916).

155 P. 814 (State ex rel. Randall v. Litchfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Golden v. Southwestern Utilities Corp.
250 P. 286 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)
State ex rel. Bristow v. Landon
165 P. 1111 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1917)