Aluminum Co. of America v. Maltbie — 289 N.Y. 357

Majority

p. 357

In the Matter of Aluminum Company of America, Respondent, against Milo R. Maltbie et al., Constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, et al., Appellants, and Niagara Falls Power Company, Respondent.

Argued October 16, 1940;

reargued June 1, 1942;

decided December 10, 1942.

p. 358

Gay H. Brown, Laurence J. Olmstead, Sherman C. Ward and Martin V. Callagy for Public Service Commission, appellant.

The Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over the rates charged by the power company to the aluminum company. (People ex rel. Horton v. Prendergast, 220 App. Div. 351 ; Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Water Power & Control Comm., 267 N. Y. 265 ; Squaw Island F. T. Co. v. City of Buffalo, 273 N. Y. 119 ; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 ; Appleby v. City of New York, 235 N. Y. 351 ; People ex rel. Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 70 App. Div. 543 ; United States Light & Heat Corp. v. Niagara Falls Gas & Electric Co., 47 Fed. Rep. [2d] 567; 283 U. S. 864 ; Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U. S. 165 ; People ex rel. B. E. M. Co. v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 543 .) The aluminum company does not possess an easement or property right in the power company’s lands, water rights and generating equipment. (Nellis v. Munson, 108 N. Y. 453 ; Hess v. Roberts, 124 App. Div. 328 ; Lynch v. Murphy Hotel Co., 130 App. Div. 691 ; United Merchants Realty & Imp. Co. v. New York Hippodrome, 133 App. Div. 582 ; Market Street Ry. Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 6 Fed. Rep. [2d] 633; Matter of Althause, 63 App. Div. 252 .)

Charles E. Hughes, Jr., Augustus L. Richards, Harold L. Smith and Rowland Stebbins, Jr., for Aluminum Company of America, respondent.

The rights of the aluminum company in the power house and the water power under the lease were vested interests in real property. (Brooklyn Dock & Terminal Co. v. Bahrenburg, 135 App. Div. 799 ; 202 N. Y. 521 ; Morehouse v. Woodruff, 218 N. Y. 494 ; Stebbins v. Frisbie & Stansfield Knitting Co., 201 App. Div. 477 ; Saratoga State Waters Corp. v. Pratt, 227 N. Y. 429 ; Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450 ; Presby v. Benjamin, 169 N. Y. 377 ; Mudge v. Salisbury, 110 N. Y. 413 ; Carthage T. P. Mills v. Carthage, 200 N. Y. 1 ; Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Whiting & Co., 276 Mass. 528 ; Miller v. Clary, 210 N. Y. 127 ; Hottell & Colorado Milling & Elevator Co. v. Farmers’ Protective Assn., 25 Col. 67 .) The Commission had no jurisdiction to make the order under review. (City of New York v. Interborough R. T. Co., 257 N. Y. 20 ; Matter of Village of Mamaroneck v. Public Service Comm., 208 App. Div. 330 ; 238 N. Y. 588 ; Orinoco Realty Co. v. Bandler, 233 N. Y. 24 ; United,

p. 359

States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366 ; Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 531 ; Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Whiting & Co., 276 Mass. 528 ; Holyoke Water Power Co. v. American Writing Paper Co., 90 Fed. Rep. [2d] 509; 304 U. S. 574 ; South Carolina Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax Comm., 52 Fed. Rep. [2d] 515; 286 U. S. 525 ; Sweet v. City of Syracuse, 129 N. Y. 316 ; Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 70 App. Div. 543 ; 175 N. Y. 469 ; Danes v. State, 219 N. Y. 67 ; United Parer Board Co. v. Iroquois Pulp & Paper Co., 226 N. Y. 38 ; Little Falls Fibre Co. v. Henry Ford & Son, Inc., 249 N. Y. 495 ; 280 U. S. 369 .)

Randall J. LeBoeuf, Jr., Warren Tubbs and Chauncey P. Williams, Jr., for Niagara Falls Power Company, respondent.

Section 621 of the Conservation Law (Cons Laws, ch. 65) contains two separate grants of jurisdiction to the Public Service Commission. The first such grant empowers the Commission to fix the rates to be charged for power by the holder of a license issued pursuant to other sections of article 14 of the Conservation Law. Since The Niagara Falls Power Company is not, at least for present purposes, a “ licensee ” under that article (see Water Power & Control Comm. v. Niagara Falls Power Co., 289 N. Y. 353 , decided herewith) the Public Service Commission must rely — for authority to fix the rates to be charged by the Power Company to the Aluminiun Company — on the second grant of jurisdiction to the Commission contained in section 621 of the Conservation Law. That second grant confers jurisdiction to fix rates to be charged by any person, firm or corporation for furnishing power “ generated wholly or partly by the use of water in which the state has a proprietary right or interest.” The Aluminum Company, it plainly appears, is not a customer purchasing from the Power Company electrical power produced by the latter, but is a lessee from the Power Company of real property, with appurtenant and expressly granted rights in the lessee to take mechanical power from the hydraulic equipment of the Power Company. We hold that neither section 621 of the Conservation Law nor article 4 of the Public Service Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 48) shows any legislative intent to cover a situation where the power is produced pursuant to a lease agreement and under the special circumstances of the case at bar. It is thus unnecessary to consider or define the mean

p. 360

ing of the above-quoted language of section 621: “ water in which the state has a proprietary right or interest.”

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Cases cited

Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Water Power & Control Commission 267 N. Y. 265 N.Y. 1935-04-23 p. 358
Squaw Island Freight Terminal Co. v. City of Buffalo 273 N. Y. 119 N.Y. 1937-03-09 p. 358
Appleby v. City of New York 235 N. Y. 351 N.Y. 1923-04-17 p. 358
People ex rel. Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Mfg. Co. v. Smith 70 App. Div. 543 N.Y. App. Div. 1902-03-18 p. 358, p. 359
Niagara Falls Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Prendergast 283 U. S. 864 SCOTUS 1931-06-01 p. 358
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost 286 U. S. 165 SCOTUS 1932-05-16 p. 358
People ex rel. Brush Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Wemple 129 N. Y. 543 N.Y. 1892-01-20 p. 358
Nellis v. Munson 108 N. Y. 453 N.Y. 1888-02-28 p. 358
United Merchants' Realty & Improvement Co. v. New York Hippodrome 133 App. Div. 582 N.Y. App. Div. 1909-07-13 p. 358
In re Althause's Estate 63 App. Div. 252 N.Y. App. Div. 1901-07-09 p. 358
Morehouse v. Woodruff 218 N. Y. 494 N.Y. 1916-07-11 p. 358
Saratoga State Waters Corp. v. Pratt 227 N. Y. 429 N.Y. 1920-01-06 p. 358
Welsh v. Taylor 134 N. Y. 450 N.Y. 1892-10-01 p. 358
Presby v. Benjamin 169 N. Y. 377 N.Y. 1903-01-14 p. 358
Mudge v. Salisbury 110 N. Y. 413 N.Y. 1888-10-02 p. 358
Carthage Tissue Paper Mills v. Village of Carthage 200 N. Y. 1 N.Y. 1910-11-15 p. 358
Miller v. Clary 210 N. Y. 127 N.Y. 1913-12-30 p. 358
City of New York v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. 257 N. Y. 20 N.Y. 1931-07-15 p. 358
People ex rel. Village of Mamaroneck v. Public Service Commission 238 N. Y. 588 N.Y. 1924-06-03 p. 358
Orinoco Realty Co. v. Bandler 233 N. Y. 24 N.Y. 1922-02-28 p. 358
United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. 213 U. S. 366 SCOTUS 1909-05-03 p. 359
Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania 232 U. S. 531 SCOTUS 1914-02-24 p. 359
Holyoke Walter Power Co. v. American Writing Paper Co. 304 U. S. 574 SCOTUS 1938-05-23 p. 359
Sweet v. City of Syracuse 129 N. Y. 316 N.Y. 1891-12-22 p. 359
Danes v. State 219 N. Y. 67 N.Y. 1916-10-03 p. 359
United Paper Board Co. v. Iroquois Pulp & Paper Co. 226 N. Y. 38 N.Y. 1919-03-11 p. 359
Little Falls Fibre Co. v. Henry Ford & Son, Inc. 249 N. Y. 495 N.Y. 1928-12-31 p. 359
Henry Ford & Son, Inc. v. Little Falls Fibre Co. 280 U. S. 369 SCOTUS 1930-01-06 p. 359
Water Power & Control Commission v. Niagara Falls Power Co. 289 N. Y. 353 N.Y. 1942-12-10 p. 359