Borough of Mount Union v. Mount Union Water Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Borough of Mount Union v. Mount Union Water Co., 256 Pa. 516 (Pa. 1917)
100 A. 968; 1917 Pa. LEXIS 649
Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Stewart
Borough of Mount Union v. Mount Union Water Co.
Opinion of the Court
Nothing can be profitably added to the well considered opinion of the Superior Court, affirming the order of the Public'Service Commission (63 Pa. Superior Ct. 337), and on that opinion the appeal is dismissed, at appellant’s costs.
Reference
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Public Service Commission — Appeals—Review by Superior Court —Act of July 26,1918, P. L. 1874 — Act of June 8, 1915, P. L. 779. 1. Under the Public Service Commission Act of July 26, 1913, P. L. 1374, as amended by the Act of June 3, 1915, P. t. 779, the Superior Court is not required on appeal to fix and determine for itself the rate, charge, etc., that a public service company may exact. The inquiry on appeal is limited to the question as to .•whether the order appealed from as shown by the record and certified by the commission, is reasonable and in conformity with law. Water companies — Bates—Boroughs—Public Service Commission. 2. Where the ordinance of a borough grants to a water company a franchise to lay and maintain water pipe lines “for a period of ten years or until such time as said works may be purchased by said borough,” the duration of the franchise is uncertain and indeterminate'as to time. The acceptance by a company of such an ordinance will not estop it from advancing its rates within the period of ten years if it appear such advance does not amount to more than a reasonable rate: Turtle Creek Borough v. Penna. Water Co., 243 Pa. 415; Bellevue Borough v. Ohio Valley Water Co., 245 Pa. 114, followed. 3. An order of the public service commission refusing to disapprove of rates to consumers imposed by a water company, will not be reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal where it appears that a large amount of testimony was taken, much of it of an expert character, that the report of the commission showed a careful consideration of the question, and that the conclusions reached by the commission were supported by the preponderance of the evidence produced. In such a case where a complaint is made in the petition that the supply of water is inadequate, and that the water was not of the quality required by the ordinance, the commission in dismissing the complaint as to the rates may retain the petition pending the completion of tests directed to be made to determine the question of the adequacy of the water supply and pending a direction requiring the company to take the necessary steps to prevent further pollution of the water.