Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Peoria Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Central Illinois Light Co.
Citations: 37 Ill. 2d 55; 1967 Ill. LEXIS 361; 1967 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,181; 225 N.E.2d 625Docket: No. 39905
Court: Illinois Supreme Court; March 29, 1967; Illinois; State Supreme Court
The Peoria Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association filed a complaint against Central Illinois Light Company (cilco) with the Illinois Commerce Commission, alleging that a contract between cilco and the Illinois Division of Highways violated the Public Utilities Act and the Illinois Purchasing Act, and created an illegal monopoly. The complaint requested that the contract be declared invalid and that cilco be ordered to cease performance. After a hearing, the commission denied the complaint, and the circuit court affirmed this decision. The contract, effective September 11, 1959, required cilco to provide electricity and maintenance for state-owned street lighting in Highway District No. 4. The petitioner argued that cilco's corporate charter did not authorize maintenance and repair of highway lighting facilities. However, the court noted that such services were convenient to cilco’s authorized function of distributing electrical energy, and that cilco had historically provided similar services to the city of Peoria since 1853. The petitioner also contended that the contract was void because it was not approved by the commission prior to its execution, as required by section 27 of the Public Utilities Act. The commission found that street lighting maintenance was part of cilco's established services, and the court agreed, stating that prior approval was not necessary. Finally, the court did not find evidence supporting the claim that the contract established a monopoly or constituted an unlawful restraint of trade. The court distinguished the current case from Consumers Sanitary Coffee and Butter Stores v. Commerce Commission, where a rate was deemed illegal due to including charges for light bulbs, regardless of their source. In contrast, cilco did not exploit its electricity supply control to monopolize maintenance services; the Department could opt for alternative maintenance providers for street lights, as it did for traffic signals. There is no evidence suggesting that the unit rate selected by the Department is unfair to either itself or cilco's other customers. The petitioner claimed the contract violated the Illinois Purchasing Act's competitive bidding requirements. However, the commission lacked authority to resolve contractual disputes between cilco and the Department, and the statute's applicability should not be assessed in a case where the Department is not involved. Ultimately, the circuit court's judgment was upheld.