U.S. Supreme Court MIDLAND REALTY CO. V. KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO. , 300 U.S. 109 (1937)

300 U.S. 109

MIDLAND REALTY CO.v. KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO. * No. 217.

Argued Dec. 17, 1936.Decided Feb. 1, 1937.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

[ Midland Realty Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co. 300 U.S. 109 (1937) ]

[Page 300 U.S. 109 , 113]

fendant contends that the state law violates the quoted clauses of the Constitution.

These questions are to be decided upon the construction that the state supreme court put upon the statute. And that law is to be taken as if it declared that rates made in accordance with its provisions shall supersede all existing contract rates. [Footnote 3] There is here involved no question as to the validity of the rates prior to the passage of the statute. Without expression of opinion, we assume that then parties were bound by the contract. But the State has power to annul and supersede rates previously established by contract between utilities and their customers. [Footnote 4] It has power to require service at nondiscriminatory rates, to prohibit service at rates too low to yield the cost rightly attributable to it,5 and to require utilities to publish their rates and to adhere to them. [Footnote 6] Under the challenged statute, defendant had opportunity to support the contract rates and to test before the commission and in the state supreme court-

[Page 300 U.S. 109 , 114]

as others did-the validity of the filed schedules. 7 It failed to do so. And it here insists that the contracts could not be abrogated 'without a proper hearing, finding and order of the commission with respect thereto.' It does not, and reasonably it could not, contend that immediate exertion by the legislature of the State's power to prescribe and enforce reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates depends upon or is conditioned by specific adjudication in respect of existing contract rates.$8 It is clear that, as against those specified in the contract here involved, the rates first filed by plaintiff and those promulgated by the commission in accordance with the statute have the same force and effect as if directly prescribed by the legislature. [Footnote 9]

Lacking in merit is defendant's contention that the statute violates the clauses of the Constitution invoked because held by the court to require that, although before this suit the service had been furnished and paid for in accordance with the contract, defendant was bound to pay more. As shown above, the rates specified in the schedules were held applicable from and after their respective effective dates. Defendant was not injured by plaintiff's failure to withhold service or more promptly to sue for the difference between its lawful charges and the amount paid. It cannot derive any advantage from refusal to pay. [Footnote 10]

[Page 300 U.S. 109 , 115]

the Constitution or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Affirmed. Footnotes

[Footnote *] Rehearing denied 300 U.S. 687, 81 L.Ed. Ä-.

Footnote 1 Missouri R.S.1929, c. 33, 5121 et seq. (Mo.St.Ann. 5121 et seq., p. 6531 et seq).

Footnote 2 Missouri R.S.1929, 5190(12), 5209 (Mo.St.Ann. 5190(12), 5209, pp. 6607, 6635).

Footnote 3 City of Fulton v. Public Service Commission, 275 Mo. 67, 204 S.W. 386; State ex rel. City of Sedalia v. Public Service Comm., 275 Mo. 201, 209, 204 S.W. 497; Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co. v. Light & Power Co., 275 Mo. 529, 204 S.W. 1074, affirmed 252 U.S. 571; State ex rel. Washington University v. Public Serv. Comm., 308 Mo. 328, 342, 272 S.W. 971; State ex rel. Public Serv. Co. v. Latshaw, 325 Mo. 909, 917, 918, 30 S.W.(2d) 105; State ex rel. Kirkwood v. Public Serv. Comm., 330 Mo. 507, 521, 50 S.W. (2d) 114.

Footnote 4 Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia P.S. Corp., 248 U.S. 372, 9 A.L.R. 1420; Producers Transp. Co. v. Railroad Comm., 251 U.S. 228, 232, 133; Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co. v. Kansas City Light & Power Co., 252 U.S. 571; Sutter Butte Canal Co. v. Railroad Comm., 279 U.S. 125, 137, 138, 327, 328.

Footnote 5 Public Serv. Comm. v. Utilities Co., 289 U.S. 130, 135, 136, 53 S. Ct. 546, 548. Cf. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U.S. 585, 604, L.R.A.1917F, 1148, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 1.

Footnote 6 Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 81; Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 97, L.R.A. 1915E, 665.

Footnote 7 Mirrouri R.S.1929, 5191, 5232Ä5237 (Mo.St.Ann. 5191, 5232Ä 5237, pp. 6615, 6658 et seq.). See State ex rel. Washington University v. Public Serv. Comm., 308 Mo. 328, 272 S.W. 971.

Footnote 8 Louisville v. Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 671.

Footnote 9 Public Serv. Comm. v. Pavilion Natural Gas Co., 232 N.Y. 146, 150, 151, 133 N.E. 427; Town of North Hempstead v. Public Service Corporation, 231 N.Y. 447, 450, 132 N.E. 144.

Footnote 10 Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. Central Iron Co., 265 U.S. 59, 65, 44 S. Ct. 441, 442.