90 public stockyards companies,86 public warehouse or elevator companies, 87 telegraph companies, 88 telephone companies,89 bridge companies, wharf companies, 91 gas companies, 92 electric light companies, 93 water companies,94 irrigation companies,95 grist mill companies,96 boom companies,97 turnpike companies,98 banking companies (semble),99 and other like companies. 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1152, 141 N. W. 623. 86 Ratcliff v. Wichita Union Stockyards Co., 74 Kan. 1, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 834, 118 Am. St. Rep. 298, 10 Ann. Cas. 1016, 86 Pac. 150. 87 Brass v. State of North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, 38 L. Ed. 757, North Dakota statute; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. Ed. 247, aff'g 117 N. Y. 1, 5 L. R. A. 559, 15 Am. 460, 22 N. E. 670; Munn v. 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; Cochrane, 264 Mo. 581, 590, W. 599. St. Rep. Illinois, State v. 175 S. 88 See 98 Fed. 3 35. Western U. Tel. Co. v. Myatt, 89 State v. Southern Tel. & Const. Co., 65 Fla. 270, 61 So. 506; Central Union Tel. Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N. E. 721. But the strictly private business of a telephone company, not a part of its business with the general public, is not subject to legislative regulaChesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v. 186 U. S. 238, 46 L. Ed. tion. Manning, 1144. So the business of in 95 Salt River Valley Canal Co. v. Nelssen, 10 Ariz. 9, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 711, 16 Ann. Cas. 796, 85 Pac. 117; McCook Irrigation & Water Power Co. v. Burtless, 98 Neb. 141, L. R. A. 1915 D 1205, 152 N. W. 334. See also, as to rates of irrigation companies, the following cases: San Joaquin & K. River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stanislaus County, 233 U. S. 454, 58 L. Ed. 1041; Id., 191 Fed. 875, 898, 163 Fed. 567; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 47 L. Ed. 892; Boise City Irrigation & Land Co. v. Clark, 131 Fed. 415; Northern Colorado Irrigation Co. v. Pouppirt, 47 Colo. 490, 108 Pac. 23; McCracken v. Montezuma Water & Land Co., 25 Colo. App. 280, 137 Pac. 903; Green v. Jones, 22 Idaho 560, 126 Pac. 1051; Jackson v. Indian Creek Reservoir Ditch & Irrigation Co., 16 Idaho 430, 101 Pac. 814; Young & Norton v. Hinderlider, 15 N. M. 666, 110 Pac. 1045. 96 See State v. Edwards, 86 Me. 102, 25 L. R. A. 504, 41 Am. St. Rep. 528, 29 Atl. 947. 97 Underwood Lumber Co. v. Pelican Boom Co., 76 Wis. 76, 45 N. W. 18. 98 Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 41 L. Ed. 560. 99The business of a banker is not juris private only, but, like that of an innkeeper or common carrier, is affected with a public interest, and therefore subject to public regulation." Meadowcraft v. People, 163 Ill. 56, 35 L. R. A. 176, 54 Am. St. Rep. 447, 45 N. E. 303. 1 Cemetery company as one "af surance in so far affected with a public interest as to justify legislative regulation.2 On the other hand, the business of mining is not affected with a public interest.3 What corporations are classified as quasi public corporations has been stated in a preceding volume.* § 4377. Insurance companies. In Illinois, it is held that the nature of the business of life insurance and the interest of the public in it are such as to subject it to regulation, and that the act prohibiting discrimination in favor of individuals between insurants of the same class and with equal expectation of life is a valid exercise of the power of regulation, and does not discriminate arbitrarily between companies in the same class because it excludes fraternal associations furnishing life insurance. In a later case in that state it was argued that the real purpose of the act was to stifle competition between life insurance companies, and compel them to have only one price for their policies, and make everybody pay that price, which is not for the public welfare; but the Supreme Court held that “a regulation designed to secure equality between those contributing to the funds and resources of life insurance companies, and to secure financial ability to meet obligations which may mature in the distant future, and adapted to that end, does not violate any prohibition of the Constitution." A like statute in Kentucky has also been upheld. So in Washington it has been held that the legislature may fix the rates to be charged by beneficial societies. And statutes prohibiting life insurance companies or their agents from paying or allowing any rebates or premium as an inducement to any person to insure, have also been upheld.10 fected with a public interest," see People v. Forest Home Cemetery Co., 258 Ill. 36, L. R. A. 1917 B 946, Ann. Cas. 1914 B 277, 101 N. E. 219. 2 German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 58 L. Ed. 1011, L. R. A. 1915 C 1189; McCarter v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 372, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1194 with note, 18 Ann. Cas. 1048, 73 Atl. 80, and see next section. 3 State v. Holden, 14 Utah 71, 94, 37 L. R. A. 103, 46 Pac. 756. 4 See § 73, supra. 5 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. People, 209 Ill. 42, 70 N. E. 643. 6 People v. Commercial Life Ins. Co., 247 Ill. 92, 93 N. E. 90. 7 People v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 252 Ill. 398, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 778 with note, 96 N. E. 1049. 8 Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Com., 113 Ky. 126, 67 S. W. 388. 9 State v. Fraternal Knights & Ladies, 35 Wash. 338, 77 Pac. 500. 10 Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Com., 113 Ky. 126, 67 S. W. 388; People v. Formosa, 131 N. Y. 478, 27 Am. St. Rep. 612, 30 N. E. 492, aff'g 61 Hun 272, 16 N. Y. Supp. 753; Com. v. Morningstar, 144 Pa. St. 103, 22 Atl. 867. See also, on this subject, 2 Joyce, Insurance (Ind. Ed.), § 1092 et seq. This power to fix rates has been extended by a recent decision to the rates of fire insurance companies, which seems to carry the doctrine to an extreme limit and to open the way to a regulation of the rates or prices of many corporations hitherto supposed to be strictly private corporations. In that case the state of Kansas passed a statute authorizing the superintendent of insurance to increase or decrease the rates of fire insurance companies. The state court upheld the constitutionality of the act which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, although there was a vigorous dissenting opinion by Justice Lamar which was concurred in by Chief Justice White and Justice Van Devanter. The contention against the validity of the statute was "that the business of insurance is a natural right, receiving no privilege from the state, is voluntarily entered into, cannot be compelled, nor can any of its exercises be compelled; that it concerns personal contracts of indemnity against certain contingencies merely. Whether such contracts shall be made at all, it is contended is a matter of private negotiations and agreeand necessarily there must be freedom in fixing their terms. where the right to demand and receive service does not exist public, the correlative right of regulation as to rates and charges does not exist.'” It was also contended that there cannot public interest which gives the power of regulation as distinct. public use. These contentions were rejected by the Supreme and after reviewing Munn v. Illinois and later cases it was said that these cases "demonstrate that a business, by circumstances and its nature, may rise from private to be of public concern, and be subject, in consequence, to governmental regulation," and that "the attempts made to place the right of public regulation in the cases in which it has been exerted # * upon the ground of special privilege conferred by the public on those affected, cannot be supported. 11 ment, And in the be a from a Court, §4378. Power to regulate not confined to corporations whose busiaffected with a public interest. It must not be supposed, ness is however, that the power to regulate is confined to those corporations Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 372, 29 L. R. A. (N. tending to support the holding of the court, North American Ins. Co. v. Yates, 214 Ill. 272, 73 N. E. 423; State Howard, 96 Neb. 278, 291, 147 N. V. W. 689; McCarter v. Firemen's Ins. enumerated in the preceding section as ones whose business is affected with a public interest. Even though the business is not affected with a public interest, the legislature may enact laws, within the scope of its police power, affecting the corporation just the same as in the case of an individual.12 All that is decided by the cases holding that a business is affected with a public interest is that such fact of itself warrants the exercise of the police power; and generally the question merely relates to the power to regulate rates or charges which exists only in those cases where the business is affected with a public interest.13 § 4379. Corporations subject to jurisdiction of public service commissions. The statute creating the commission generally expressly enumerates the public utilities over which the commission has jurisdiction.14 If "transportation companies" are within the terms of the statute, then it embraces companies transporting freight or passengers for hire on the public highways by means of motor trucks or automobile stages.15 A taxicab company has been held a common carrier within a statute defining public utilities as including every common carrier; but on the other hand, so far as it furnishes automobiles from its central garage on orders, generally by telephone, it is held not a public utility so as to be within the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia.16 A cold storage warehouse is a public utility where conducted for the benefit of all shippers and customers who may choose to avail themselves of the service.17 On the other hand, street railroads have been held not subject to regulation by a railroad commission as "railroads" or "transportation companies."'18 So, in Oklahoma, a statute giving the commis 12 State v. Holden, 14 Utah 71, 95, 37 L. R. A. 103, 46 Pac. 756. 13 See § 4464, infra. 14 An elevator from the top of a hill to the bottom, to transport passengers, is not a "railroad" nor a "common carrier' within the New York statute, so as to be within the jurisdiction of the public service commission of that state. People v. Public Service Commission, 171 N. Y. App. Div. 810, 157 N. Y. Supp. 703. Log-driving and booming companies are not within the jurisdiction of the public service commission of Washington. Wishkah Boom Co. V. Greenwood Timber Co., 88 Wash. 568, 153 Pac. 367. 15 Western Ass'n of Short Line Railroads v. Railroad Commission of California, 173 Cal. 802, 162 Pac. 391. 16 Terminal Taxicab Co. v. Kutz, 241 U. S. 252, 60 L. Ed. 984, Ann. Cas. 1916 D 765, modifying 43 App. Cas. (D. C.) 120. 17 State Public Utilities Commission v. Monarch Refrigerating Co., 267 Ill. 528, Ann. Cas. 1916 A 528, 108 N. E. 716. 18 Board of Railroad Com'rs v. Mar sion power over "transportation and transmission companies" was held not to include gas companies.19 And a public service commission has no jurisdiction over a mutual telephone association devoted to private use.20 Thus, a telephone line whose use is strictly limited. to members of the telephone company is not a public utility.21 Likewise, a company organized for the purpose of selling water to the purchasers of real property from a certain land company, and selling it to no others, is not a public utility.22 So a traction company which sells its surplus electrical power to various private buyers is not, so far as such branch business is concerned, a public service company subject to the jurisdiction of the public service commission.23 The fact that its articles of incorporation empower a corporation. to engage in public service does not, of itself, show that it is engaged in public service.24 But it is not the use which the consumer makes of the commodity furnished which constitutes the test as to whether the regulatory powers of the commission may be invoked.25 It is not essential to a public use that the benefits should be received by the whole public or even by a large part of it, although they must not be confined to specified or privileged persons.26 The fact that water lic Utilities Commission v. Noble Mut. Tel. Co., 268 Ill. 411, Ann. Cas. 1916 D 897, 109 N. E. 298. 22 Del Mar Water, Light & Power Co. v. Eshleman, 167 Cal. 666, 140 Pac. 591, 948. 23 State v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co., 89 Wash. 599, 154 Pac. 1110. 24 Del Mar Water, Light & Power Co. v. Eshleman, 167 Cal. 666, 140 Pac. 591, 948. 25 Pinney & Boyle Co. V. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 168 Cal. 12, L. R. A. 1915 C 282, Ann. Cas. 1915 D 471, 141 Pac. 620, holding that gas and electric company, in furnishing electricity for power to be used by a private person in his private business, acts in the performance of a public service which can be regulated. 26 State Public Utilities Commission v. Noble, 275 Ill. 121, 125, 113 N. E. 910; People v. Ricketts, 248 Ill. 428, 94 N. E. 71. |