Commonwealth ex rel. McCormick v. Russell

Citations

• 172 Pa. 506
• 37 W.N.C. 404
• 33 A. 709
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 804

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Water Companies — Public use.</p> <p>The furnishing of water to the public is like the furnishing of light and heat, a public use.</p> <p>Eminent domain — Visiiorial powers — Water company — Parties.</p> <p>To enable it to discharge its duties to the public a water company is clothed with the right of eminent domain; and to secure to the public faithful service, it is subject to the visitorial powers of the state.</p> <p>The commonwealth was regularly on the record in this case as a party plaintiff, and it was error to dismiss the bill without considering the questions raised on her behalf.</p> <p>These questions were three in number: First, To what extent does the public use served by the Water Company place it on higher ground than that of a private person or corporation serving a private use ? Second, Does a city with its thousands of inhabitants, and its duty to protect them in the enjoyment of the necessaries of life and the preservation of health, stand on no higher ground than a private citizen so far as the protection of its water supply from pollution is concerned P Third, May not the commonwealth rightfully interfere in such a case in the exercise of its police power ?</p>