Hey v. Springfield Water Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Hey v. Springfield Water Co., 207 Pa. 38 (Pa. 1903)
56 A. 265; 1903 Pa. LEXIS 441
Brown, Dean, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter

Hey v. Springfield Water Co.

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Dean,

After argument and reargument and somewhat prolonged *45deliberation a majority of the court concur in the decree entered in the court below. While we concede that the answer to the question involved is one not easily given, yet it is very clear that by the 23d section of the act of 1874, the franchises of the twelve water companies named in the bill could, by purchase, become vested in the Springfield Water Company. Neither can it be doubted that thereby the purchasing company by that act and subsequent legislation on the same subject, acquired all the powers of the pm-chased companies so far as the legislature under the constitution could confer such power, even if the authority to purchase and merge such franchises struck down the whole scheme of the legislation contemplated by the act of 1874. Once concede the legislative power, as we must, then the wisdom of its exercise in this manner is no business of ours. We can only interpret the amendatory acts and determine how far they reach. Up until the filing of this bill there has been no attempt by defendant to exercise its powers ; mere apprehension on part of plaintiffs is not sufficient to move a chancellor. We can add nothing by way of demonstration to the very clear opinion of the court below. On that opinion the decree is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Hey v. Springfield Water Company
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Corporations—Water companies—Merger and consolidation. Under the Act of April 17, 1876, see. 5, P. L. 30, which amended the Act of April 29, 1874, sec. 23, P. L. 73, water 'companies, whether created before or after the act of 1876, may sell, assign and convey their franchises and property to other water companies and such property and franchises will upon such sale and assignment become vested in the purchasing company Corporations—Water companies—Eminent domain—Bond—Compensating owner—Equity-—Injunction. A bill in equity to prevent a water company from appropriating the water of a stream without making or securing proper compensation to the riparian owners will be dismissed, where it appears that defendant had not appropriated any water from the stream, that there was no evidence to show that it contemplated the appropriation of water without first making or securing compensation to owners, but that on the contrary a resolution of the directors of the company showed that the company intended to proceed according to law. A contemplated violation of law is never to be inferred without some evidence to sustain the inference.