Skip to main content
· 10/12/1908

Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Company's License Fees

Citations

  • 37 Pa. Super. 151
  • 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 253

Syllabus

<p>Appeals — Telegraph and telephone companies — License fees — Reasonableness of fees — Nature of the appeal — Act of April 17, 1905.</p> <p>The appeal provided by the Act of April 17, 1905, P. L. 183, from a decree determining the reasonableness of license fees imposed by municipalities upon certain public service companies, is not a substitute for the common-law writ of certiorari, but is like an appeal from a decree in an ordinary case in equity, and brings before the appellate court the entire record made up by the exceptions filed to the conclusions of law and fact adopted by the trial court.</p> <p>In such a case the findings of fact adopted by the trial judge, when the ascertainment of such facts involves the balancing of conflicting testimony, and the credibility of witnesses, will be regarded by the appellate court as if established by the verdict of a jury. Where, however, such findings are but conclusions or inferences drawn from the testimony that is practically undisputed, it is the duty of the appellate court to examine the evidence and determine for itself whether or not the findings are warranted by it.</p> <p>Telegraph and telephone companies — License fees — Reasonableness of fees — Act of April 17,1905, P. L. 183.</p> <p>A borough imposed upon a telegraph and telephone company annual license fees which were fixed at $1.00 per pole, $2.50 per mile of wire or cable, and $30.00 per mile of conduit. The court below in proceedings under the Act of April 17, 1905, P. L. 183, found as a fact that the rates were reasonable, and entered a decree accordingly. The appellate court on examination of the testimony found that the fees paid by the company in question and other public service companies aggregated a sum which was about three times the amount paid to the borough’s single policeman during the year for inspection duties. It also appeared that after a conduit was laid and the ground had settled, that the inspection of the conduit was little more than

Judges: Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.