Aрpellants are separate non-profit cooperative associations engaged in the distribution of electricity to their respective members. Respondent, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Idaho, distributes electriсity to residents of the City. For several years prior to these actions appellants have served member consumers in rural areas cоntiguous to the City, appellant Unity Light & Power Company in an area immediately south of respondent City and appellant Rural Electric Compаny in an area across the Snake River to the north. Beginning in October, 1959, respondent began extending its city limits, annexing portions of the areas servеd by appellants, and by reason of such annexation respondent claims the right to deliver electricity to all consumers within the annexed аreas and to exclude appellants therefrom.
Respondent commenced construction of power lines into the annexed portions of the areas served by appellants, and appellants brought separate actions for both temporary and perрetual injunction, seeking to restrain respondent from constructing its power lines within the areas served by appellants or within one thousand feеt of appellants’ lines, and from interfering in any way with appellants’ system, customers or territory, alleging threatened irreparable injury. They also asked that respondent be required to remove its lines *288 already constructed in such areas. After hearings on separate Orders to Show Cаuse, the district court denied the motions for preliminary injunction. Appeals were taken, and the cases have been consolidated for hearing and decision by this court.
I.C. sec. 13-201 permits appeal to this court from an order refusing to grant an injunction. Cases construing this section have assumed, without deciding, that the term “injunction” includes both temporary and permanent injunctions. Porter v. Speno,
Appellants urge error on two grounds. They claim to be entitled, as a matter of right, to a preliminary injunction pending hearings in the district court on the merits, relying on I.C. secs. 61-332, 61-333 and 61-334 (S.L.1957, Ch. 133), sometimes referred tо as the “Antipirating Law.” They also contend that they are entitled to injunctive relief under general rules of equity.
Respondent takes the position that a municipality is not-subject to the “Anti-pirating Law” provisions of S.L.1957, Ch. 133 (I.C. secs. 61-332, 61-333, 61-334) and that appellants have not shown a prima facie case for injunctive relief under the general rules of equity.
Construction of these sections is necessary to determine whether their provisions are аpplicable to respondent municipal corporation, so as to entitle appellants to their requested preliminary injunctions. The starute provides:
“No public utility and no cooperative association organized for the purpose of furnishing electric service to its members or consumers only, shall extend or render electric service directly or indirectly to the premises of any person already receiving electric service directly or indirectly from another public utility or another such cooperative association, or to a service location which has been previously served by a public utility or cooperative association * * I.C. sec. 61-332; 1957, Ch. 133, sec. 1, p. 226.
“No public utility and no cooperative association organized for the purpose of furnishing electric service to its members or consumers only, shall construct any electric service line to serve any consumer where the property to be served is within one thousand feet of existing central station service, electric lines or lines of another public utility or cooperative association; рrovided, that in the event two exist *289 ing thousand feet of a new consumer, the public utility or cooperative association whose line is nearest the said new consumer shall serve the same.” I. C. sec. 61-333; 1957, ch. 133, Sec. 2, p. 226. lines are within the said one
“Application on proper complaint may be made for an injunction in the district court for violation of section (s) 61-332 and 61-333. If the matter cannot be heard upon its merits immediately, the said district court shall issue a preliminary injunction, after a proper undertaking being furnished by the complaining party; if, after a trial upon the merits, sufficient cause appears therefor, the preliminary injunction shall be made permanent.” I.C. sec. 61-334; 1957, ch. 133, Sec. 3, p. 226.
This act has been codifiеd as part of the Public Utilities Law, which, in defining “public utilities,” excludes municipal corporations (I.C. Secs. 61-104, 61-119 and 61-129.) The Idaho Code Commission appеnded this statute to the Public Utilities Law even though it was enacted as a separate Act and not as an amendment. 1957, ch. 133, secs. 1-3, p. 226. Since we hаve been referred to no legislation authorizing its inclusion in the Public Utilities Law, the definitions of that Law are not necessarily applicable tо ch. 133, S.L.1957, solely by reason of such inclusion.
Appellants reason that the enactment of this law as a separate enactment is determinаtive of a legislative intent to use the term “public utilities” in a generic sense. This contention is not supported by the cases cited to us by appellants. E. g., Stoehr v. Natatorium Co.,
The evil sought to be remediеd by this Law appears, to have been the pirating of customers between cooperative associations, and public utilities subject to regulation under the Public Utilities Law. See, Clearwater Power Company v. Washington Water Power Company,
We conclude that the term “public utilities” in ch. 133, S.L.1957, is to bе construed as it is defined in the Public Utilities Law. Respondent municipality is not subject to ch. 133 (I.C. secs. 61-332, 61-333' *290 and 61-334), and appellants are not entitled to prеliminary injunction under that statute.
That appellants are not entitled to preliminary injunction under the general equity power of the courts is equаlly clear. The granting or refusing of injunctive relief rests in the sound discretion of the court. I.C. sec. 8 — 402; Price v. Grice,
The orders of the district court denying motion by appellants for preliminary injunction are hereby affirmed.
As amended on petition for rehearing. Petition denied.
Costs to respondent.