Permission granted to appellant by county and state to operate and maintain electric distribution system along public thoroughfares in area adjacent to incorporated town or city ceases to have effect when such area is annexed to existing municipal corporation. Constitution 1901, Sec. 220; Code 1940, Tit. 48, § 33; Farmers Electric Co-op. Corporation v. Arkansas Power Light Co., 220 Ark. 652, 249 S.W.2d 837; Arkansas Electric Co-op. Corporation v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674; Whitaker v. Louisville Transit Co., Ky., 274 S.W.2d 391; City of Moultrie v. Colquitt County Rural Electric Co., 211 Ga. 842, 89 S.E.2d 657; State ex rel. Southwestern Gas Electric Co. v. Upshur Rural Electric Co-operative Corporation, 156 Tex. 633, 298 S.W.2d 805. An electric public utility operating within the corporate limits of a municipality has the obligation to serve all customers desiring its service in any area subsequently annexed to such municipality.
" The latter phrase has been described by this court as "what will conduce to the general public welfare. "Arkansas Elec. Coop. v. Ark-Mo Power Co., 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674 (1953). The safety of the public and the assurance that the applicant can render competent service are by Act 31 made primary; the right of the individual to possess a permit is declared secondary.
The expenditure of public funds for such purpose is in violation of federal law authorizing such expenditure. 7 U.S.C.A. 901, et seq.; Opinion No. 4506 of the Solicitor of the Dept. of Agriculture, Nov. 24, 1942; Opinion No. 5427 of the Solicitor of the Dept. of Agriculture, Nov. 3, 1948; Tampa Elec. Co. v. Withlacoochee River Elect. Coop., (Fla.) 122 So.2d 471, 473, 158 So.2d 136; Ark. Elect. Coop. Corp. v. Ark-Mo. Power Co., 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674. Before the Director of Finance can approve a proposed loan to a general welfare cooperative, the Director must give consideration to broader public interests such as loss of tax revenue to local, state and federal governments and the interest subsidy embraced in the proposed loan and not merely the desires of the cooperative. Code, Tit. 55, § 155.
The Rural Electrification Act of Florida involved in Tampa Electric Co. v. Withlacoochee River Elec. Coop., Fla., 122 So.2d 471, provides that "no cooperative shall distribute or sell any electricity, or electric energy to any person residing within any town, city or area which person is receiving adequate central station service or who at the time of commencing such service, or offer to serve, by a cooperative is receiving adequate central station service from any utility agency, privately or municipally owned individual partnership or corporation". The Arkansas Rural Electrification Act applied in Arkansas Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas-Missouri P. Co., 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674, permits a rural cooperative to transmit, distribute, sell, furnish, and dispose of electric energy "to its members only". Membership is confined to "All persons in rural areas proposed to be served by a corporation, who are not receiving central station service * * *.
Decisions are cited construing similar statutes. Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674, 98 PUR (NS) 33; Tampa Electric Co. v. Withlacoochee River Elec. Coop.,Fla., 122 So.2d 471; State ex rel. Southwestern Gas Electric Co. v. Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., 156 Tex. 633, 298 S.W.2d 805, 18 PUR 3d 53. In our view construction of these statutes is not relevant to any issue in the proceedings before us. No contract obligation is involved.
Midwest is in a position similar to that of the theater owners, who could not show pictures in their theaters unless they had the use of electricity furnished by the power company, and, no doubt, the power company could be compelled to furnish such service. The only authority appellants cite to sustain their contention that the proposed service is not in the public interest is Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Missouri Power Co., 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674. We do not think that case sustains appellants' view, and we have found no other case sustaining that view.
XII. Woodruff is now doing business in Mississippi, operating Northcentral, without authority, and without having complied with the laws of the State for qualifying to do such business; all contrary to its charter provisions and the statutes of Arkansas under which it is created. Arkansas Elec. Co-op. Corp. v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. (Ark.), 255 S.W.2d 674; Southern Elec. Securities Co. v. State, supra. XIII. Failure municipal minutes to disclose general circulation within Town of Tate County Democrat constitutes jurisdictional defect whereasto ex post facto ratification may not be. Berryhill v. Johnston, 206 Miss. 41, 39 So.2d 530; Boutwell v. Board of Suprs. Jasper County, 128 Miss. 337, 91 So. 12; Broom v. Board of Suprs. Jefferson Davis County, 171 Miss. 586, 158 So. 344; Frost v. Corporation Comm., supra; Henderson Molpus Co. v. Gammill, 149 Miss. 516, 115 So. 716; Lowndes County v. Ottley, 146 Miss. 118, 112 So. 466; Mississippi Power Light Co. v. Mississippi Power Dist., supra; Monroe County v. Minga, 127 Miss. 702, 90 So. 443; Simpson County v. Burkett, 178 Miss. 44, 172 So. 329; West v. Town of Waynesboro, 152 Miss. 443, 119 So. 809; Anno. 128 A.L.R. 620; 21 C.J.S., Sec. 24 p. 37.
This conclusion is in harmony with the adjudicated cases construing almost identical statutes. Farmers Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 220 Ark. 652, 249 S.W.2d 837; City of Moultrie v. Colquitt County Rural Electric Co., 211 Ga. 842, 89 S.E.2d 657; Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674. A large number of cooperatives intervened in this case in the trial court, making common cause with Upshur Cooperative, and a number of briefs by amici curiae have been received by this court supporting the application of the State and Southwestern.
The Act is to be and should be construed liberally. We have been cited and have considered the decisions of Farmers Electric Cooperative Corporation v. Arkansas Power and Light Company, 220 Ark. 652, 249 S.W.2d 837, and Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Company, 221 Ark. 638, 255 S.W.2d 674, and we believe that the holding in Missouri Power Light Co. v. Lewis County Rural Electric Cooperative, supra, is more appropriate when applied to the issue in our case, and shall not undertake to discuss the three cases further. Article 1436a, V.A.C.S., provides, in part: