The questions for decision are whether, as construed in this case by the highest court of Missouri, the statutes of that State regulating public utilities violate article 1, § 10 of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that 'No State shall * * * pass any * * * Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,' or section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'
Appellee was plaintiff and appellant defendant below. They made a contract whereby the former for specified rates agreed to furnish the latter steam for heating its buildings in Kansas City for a term of five years ending August 31, 1913, with option to defendant to extend the contract for an additional five years. March 17, 1913, the state public service commission law was enacted. May 29, following, defendant exercised its option and so extended the term of the contract to August 31, 1918.
June 28, 1917, plaintiff in pursuance of the statute filed with the commission a schedule of steam heating rates to become effective August 1, 1917; they were higher than those specified in the contract. The city and numerous users other than defendant objected; the commission, without attempting to apportion operating expenses and values between plaintiff's heating and electric service, found that the rates filed were unreasonably high and prescribed, as just and reasonable, rates lower than those filed but higher than the contract rates and made them effective March 1, 1918. 5 Mo.P.S.C. 664. Plaintiff filed a new schedule in accordance with the commission's order.
June 11, 1918, it complained that these rates were confiscatory. The commission, after apportioning operating expenses and values between the electrical and steam services, found the rates 'inadequate, unjust and unreasonably low,' that during none of the time was 'heating revenue sufficient to even meet the fuel expense alone,' and that 'heretofore the steam heating business has been carried at a loss, and this loss has been borne either by the light and power consumers or by the company.' Thereupon, it ordered new and higher rates effective December 1, 1919. 8 Mo.P.S.C. 223, 292, 296. The findings and order of the commission were approved by the supreme court in State ex rel. Case v. Public Serv. Comm., 298 Mo. 303, 249 S.W. 955.
For steam furnished defendant after August 1, 1917, plaintiff regularly sent bills based on the rates it had filed with the commission. Claiming the contract rates still to be applicable, defendant paid amounts calculated in accordance with them. Plaintiff gave defendant credit for the payments it made. After expiration of the period covered by the contract as extended, plaintiff brought this suit. For steam furnished after August 1, 1917, and before March 1, 1918, it sought to recover on the basis of the charges specified in the first schedule filed. For steam furnished after March 1, 1918, to the end of the contract term, it sought to recover on the basis of charges of the schedule promulgated by the commission. The trial court held plaintiff not entitled to recover on its claim in respect of the first period but gave judgment in its favor in respect of the other one. Both parties appealed. The Missouri supreme court ruled the contract rates not applicable, held plaintiff entitled to recover on its claim in respect of both periods and directed that it have judgment for the sums calculated on the basis of the schedules filed with the commission.
Defendant's contention is not that the State lacked power by appropriate action to establish and enforce just and reasonable rates but that, as against the constitutional provisions invoked, the action taken under the public service commission law was not sufficient to abrogate the contract rates.
Specifically, its complaints are that the court construed the statute (1) to make (a) mere filing of plaintiff's schedule and (b) the later promulgation of a schedule by the commission effective to abrogate the contract rates, and (2) to require that, although the contract was in due time fully performed and defendant prior to the commencement of the suit had paid plaintiff the contract rates, it was bound to pay additional amounts calculated on the basis of the higher rates specified in plaintiff's published schedules. It is upon these grounds that defendant contends that the state law violates the quoted clauses of the Constitution.