Skip to main content
· 3/8/1909

Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Co.'s Petition

Citations

  • 224 Pa. 55
  • 73 A. 175
  • 1909 Pa. LEXIS 727

Syllabus

<p>Boroughs■ — Municipalities—Telegraph and telephone companies — License tax — Inspection—Costs of inspection — Act of April 17, 1905, P. L. 183.</p> <p>1. Under the Act of April 17, 1905, P. L. 183, relating to license fees imposed by municipalities upon public service corporations which have poles, wires, conduits or cables in the public streets, the court, in determining the amount of the annual license fees that may be properly charged, is controlled by the cost of inspection and regulation to the municipality. If there be no inspection or supervision by the municipality there can be no license fee imposed, because under such circumstances no expense will be incurred for which the statute makes the company liable. Under the act no flat per pole or per mile charge can be made applicable throughout the commonwealth, because in no two cases will the cost of inspection be the same.</p> <p>2. In the exercise of their police powers, municipalities may require poles to be kept in proper condition and wires in safe repair and may see to it that the conduits and other appliances do not interfere with the public use of the street. For these purposes they may provide reasonable inspection and regulation, and impose the cost thereof on the companies.</p> <p>3. 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 Superior Court reduced the fees and found that the amount paid by the company in question and other public service companies aggregated a sum which was about three times the sum 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 in- • spection of the conduit was little more t

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Stewart

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.