CHOCTAW COTTON OIL CO. v. CORPORATION COMM'N

CHOCTAW COTTON OIL CO. v. CORPORATION COMM'N
1926 OK 516
247 P. 390
121 Okla. 51
Case Number: 17337
Decided: 06/01/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CHOCTAW COTTON OIL CO. et al.
v.
CORPORATION COMMISSION.

Syllabus

¶1 Constitutional Law--Validity of Statute Providing for Licensing Co-operative Cotton Gins.
The proviso in section 3714, C. S. 1921, as amended by chapter 109, S. L. 1925, to wit: "That on the presentation of a petition for the establishment of a gin to be run co-operatively, signed by one hundred (100) citizens and taxpayers of the community where the gin is to be located, the Corporation Commission shall issue a license for said gin, * * *" does no constitute taking property without due process of law in violation of section 7, art. 2 (Bill of Rights), Constitution of Oklahoma, nor of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor does such proviso constitute denial of equal protection under the law in violation of either the state or federal Constitution.

Lydick & McPherren and Rainey, Flynn, Green & Anderson, for complainants.
E. S. Ratliff, for respondents.

HARRISON, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ prohibiting the Corporation Commission from granting to the Farmer's Co-operative Gin Company a license to construct and operate a cotton gin at Kinta, Okla. The grounds for the writ are, in substance: That petitioner, Choctaw Cotton Oil Company, is a corporation under the laws of the state, and in compliance with the statutes has procured a license to operate a cotton gin at Kinta, Okla., and that the Brown Cotton Company, a like corporation, has likewise procured a license to operate a cotton gin at Kinta, Okla.; that pursuant to such licenses, both of said cotton gin corporations have constructed cotton gins at Kinta, Okla.; that to license the construction of another gin would be to deprive petitioners of their property without due process of law, and deny them equal protection under the law, in violation of section 7, art. 2, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; that the Corporation Commission, assuming to act under authority of chapter 109, S. L. 1925, will, unless prohibited from so doing by the court, issue to said Farmer's Co-operative Gin Company a license to construct and operate a cotton gin at Kinta, Okla.

¶2 The legal basis for the foregoing allegation of facts is that the proviso in said chapter 109, S. L. 1925, to wit:

"Provided, that on the presentation of a petition for the establishment of a gin to be run co-operatively, signed by one hundred citizens and taxpayers of the community where the gin is to be located, the Corporation Commission shall issue a license for said gin * * *"

--is unconstitutional and invalid, in that it authorizes the Corporation Commission to deny petitioners equal protection under the law and to take their property without due process of law. Said proviso is part of section 3714, C. S. 1921, as amended by chapter 109, S. L. 1925, which requires applicants for license to construct a cotton gin to make satisfactory proof of the necessity for such gin.

¶3 The contention being that the foregoing proviso denies petitioners equal protection under the law and takes their property without due process of law, the question necessarily arises, What property rights are taken from petitioners by licensing another gin, under the foregoing proviso? What rights of any kind could the licensing of another gin affect? It does not disturb the property of petitioners, nor prevent the free operation of their gins. The only right which could be affected by such license is the right of petitioners to operate their gin without competition, a right which is not secured to them either by the state or federal Constitution, hence the contention as to taking their property without due process of law cannot be sustained.