Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

OVERLOOK DEV. CO. v. PUB. SER. COM. ET AL

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan 5, 1932

Judgment

CaseIQ

Constitutional law — Public service law — Statutory consideration — Water companies — Mains privately constructed — Facilities — Act of June 26, 1913, P. L. 1374 — Actions — Parties.

1. Water mains were laid and owned privately connected with a public water supply contract which provided that the mains are to remain private property, and could not be extended without permission of the owners; parties who refused to join in laying the private mains, desiring to connect therewith, was required to pay proportionate share of original cost, refused to do so, and complained to the public service commission that the public water supply company refused to furnish him water except upon unreasonable terms; the public service commission held that the privately owned mains by connecting with the public supply, became part of public system, and therefore the right of the water company to charge for connections, under agreement with the water company to charge for connections, under agreement with the owners is gone, and the party demanding connection with the private mains was entitled to it without making the installation payments demanded; the Superior Court's ruling was affirmed that article I, section 1, of the Public Service Company Act of July 26, 1913, P. L. 1374, defining facilities, could not be held to apply to private water mains receiving water from a public service company, in violation of the agreement between the private owner and the service company, as it would violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution. [51]

2. The mere fact that the main became a facility of the water company did not destroy the private character of the main, nor render it subject to use by the water company in supplying water to the public generally, or to any portion of the public as such. [49]

3. Where the private water company secures its water supply from a municipal system, the municipality should be made a party in proceedings before the public service commission. [51]

Argued November 25, 1931.

PER CURIAM, January 5, 1932:

The decision of the Superior Court reversing the order of the public service commission in this case, is affirmed on the opinion of the learned judge of that court, which sets forth clearly the facts and the correct conclusions of law applicable thereto.