Skip to main content
· 1/6/1908

Leechburg Borough v. Leechburg Water Works Co.

Citations

  • 219 Pa. 263
  • 68 A. 669
  • 1908 Pa. LEXIS 558

Syllabus

<p>Water companies — Water rates — Boroughs—Water for fire protection.</p> <p>In a proceeding between a borough and a water company to determine what is a proper compensation for the latter for water furnished to the borough for purposes of fire protection, where it is assumed that the water company derives adequate compensation for its whole outfit on the basis it has established, the only question to determine is, does the charge which the company proposes to exact for furnishing the borough with water for fire purposes, measured by the number of hydrants employed, or by the rule by which the company has fixed its general schedule of rates, bear reasonable proportion to the rates established for other demands?</p> <p>It is wholly impracticable to determine by mathematical calculation based on cost or value of a water plant, and the expense of operating the same, whether a single rate charged by the company for a specific service, such as a supply of water to a borough for fire protection, distinct from the other hundred or more charges for as many different services, is in itself compensatory to the company. To attempt it would be carrying what has come to be known as the segregating process in questions of this kind beyond all reasonable limit. It is to be assumed that in framing its general schedule of rates, the water company has been guided by some rule or principle which would enable it to be just to itself, and at the same time enable it with reasonable approximation to make its charges for its varying services conform to some standard which would secure to the consumers reasonable uniformity in cost.</p> <p>A water company demanded from a borough an annual compensation of $3,000 for water furnished for fire protection. It appeared that the total income of the company was $6,693.22, and that this was derived from a population of 6,000. The court below reached the conclusion, by comparison with other rates charged by the company, and from considering the numb

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Patton, Potter, 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.