The same course of reasoning necessarily led to the decision in Nassau Gas Light Company v. City of Brooklyn ( 89 N.Y. 409), that the company engaged in producing and distributing gas was a manufacturing corporation. Nearer in some of their features to relator's case as it seems to me are the cases Matter of Alaska Amer. Fish Co. (162 Fed. Rep. 498); State v. Amer. Sugar Refining Co. ( 108 La. 603); Matter of Rheinstrom Sons Co. (207 Fed. Rep. 119); People ex rel. Standard Wood Co. v. Roberts ( 20 App. Div. 514). But these cases, even if accepted by us as authorities of weight, may be distinguished from the present one.

Byrd, Wise Smith, Jackson, for appellee. I. Appellee was entitled to a certificate of convenience and necessity and the approval of its contract with Elton Company pursuant to Section 9 of the Act, and the Commission rightly so found. Baltimore v. State Tax Comm., 161 Md. 234, 155 A. 739; David J. Joseph Co. v. Ashland, 223 Ky. 203, 3 S.W.2d 218; Indiana Service Corp., 48 P.U.R. (N.S.) 185; Middletown Iron Steel Co. v. Evatt, Tax Commr., 139 Ohio St. 113, 38 N.E.2d 585, 138 A.L.R. 426; Northern States Power Co., 2 P.U.R. 3d 114; People ex rel Standard Wood Co. v. Roberts, 20 App. Div. 514, 47 N Y Supp. 122; Southern Chem. Fert. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 48 La. Ann. 1475, 21 So. 31; State ex rel Browns v. A.W. Wilbert's Sons Lumber Shingle Co., 51 La. Ann. 1223, 26 So. 106; State v. Newman Lumber Co., 103 Miss. 263, 60 So. 215; Union Electric Co., 19 P.U.R. 3d 251; Anno. 116 A.L.R. 1116, 1123; Chap. 372, Laws 1956, Utility Act. II. The Elton Company load is an industrial load which the REA was not designed to serve but which Mississippi Power Light Company is designed to serve.

Crates manufactured for sale as containers for agricultural products exempt from provisions of act. 64 L.R.A. 55; People ex rel. Standard Wood Co. v. Roberts, 20 App. Div. 514, 47 N.Y. Supp. 122; Southern Electric Light Power Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 43 A. 123; In re Consolidated Electric Storage Co., 26 A. 983, 63 L.Ed. 1086; American Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 142 S.W. 297; International Shoe Co. v. Chapman, License Collector, 276 S.W. 32; Simmons Hardware Co. v. City of St. Louis, 192 S.W. 394. Just as the Supreme Court of the United States said, in the American Mfg. Co. case, that the manufacturer's tax imposed by the ordinance of the city of St. Louis, did not apply to certain sales, the Legislature of the state of Mississippi has said, that the manufacturer's tax levied by it, shall not apply to sales of certain commodities.

We held that, under the recitals of the articles of incorporation of said company, and the evidence with regard to the manner in which it conducted its business, it was a manufacturing corporation. That such a corporation is a manufacturing corporation, see, also, Pierce v. Yeaton, 78 N.H. 378 ( 100 A. 604); State ex rel. Browne v. A. Wilbert's Sons Lbr. S. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1223 (26 So. 106); People ex rel. Standard Wood Co. v. Roberts, 20 App. Div. 514 (47 N.Y. Supp. 122). The facts stipulated in the instant case disclose an entirely different situation.