HOHMAN v. STATE

HOHMAN v. STATE
1926 OK 884
250 P. 514
122 Okla. 45
Case Number: 17069
Decided: 11/09/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

HOHMAN
v.
STATE.

Syllabus

¶0 Corporation Commission--Contempt--Jurisdiction of Cotton Gins--Applicant for Permit Making Preparations for Building Prior to Issuance of Permit not in Contempt. Section 2 of chapter 191, Session Laws 1923, delegates to the Corporation Commission of the state the power to determine when a ginnery is a needed utility in any particular community and whether the corporation, company, firm, or individual seeking to construct and operate such utility is competent and desirable for that purpose. When a corporation, company, firm, or individual makes application to said Commission with the view of having said Commission determine favorably its application to construct and install such utility, the mere fact that, pending the determination of said application, preliminary steps are taken with the view of erecting such plant, the completion being conditioned on the application being granted, is not such a violation of the statute or of the orders and rules in carrying out the jurisdiction thus given the Commission as would warrant holding the applicant in contempt when it clearly appears that no plant was actually constructed or installed.

S. P. Freeling and J. L. Howard, for plaintiff in error.
E. S. Ratliff and Lydick & McPherren, for defendant in error.

BRANSON, V. C. J.

¶1 This is an appeal from the Corporation Commission. An order was issued by said Commission the 24th day of June, 1925, finding and adjudging that the appellant, A. Hohman, was guilty of contempt, or rather, guilty of a violation of rule 2, order No. 2657, of said Commission. The Commission further found and adjudged that a fine of $ 250 and costs be assessed against the appellant as punishment therefor. Rule 2 of the Corporation Commission, for the violation of which the defendant was adjudged in contempt, reads:

"No gin plants shall be constructed, installed or licensed, or any old gin removed from one point to another, unless satisfactory showing shall have been made to the Corporation Commission, setting forth that such gin is a needed utility and that the proposed corporation, company, firm or individual is a competent and desirable corporation, company, firm or individual to establish and operate said gin as may appear in the discretion of said Commission. The Commission shall have the right to take into consideration the responsibility and reliability and qualifications, as the capacity of the person or persons or corporation to do such ginning business as to afford all reasonable facilities, conveniences and services to the public, and shall have the power and authority to require such facilities, conveniences and service to be afforded the public."

¶2 The order and rule of the Corporation Commission is based upon the authority delegated to said Commission by section 2, chapter 191, page 341, Session Laws 1923. This statute provides:

"No new gin plant shall be constructed, installed or licensed, or any old gin removed from one point to another until satisfactory showing shall have been made to the Corporation Commission setting forth that such gin is a needed utility, and that the proposed corporation, company, firm or individual is a competent and desirable corporation, company, firm or individual to establish and operate said gin as may appear in the discretion of said Commission."

¶3 It will be noted that rule 2, with the violation of which the appellant was charged, uses in part the same language of the statute itself, in that it provides that: