Mechanicsburg Borough v. Mechanicsburg Gas & Water Co.

Citations

• 246 Pa. 232
• 92 A. 142
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 500

Syllabus

<p>Corporations — Water companies — Water rates — Reasonable rales —Boroughs—Water for fire service — Evidence—Bates in other boroughs. • ■</p> <p>1. The presumption is that the rates fixed by the schedule of a .water company are reasonable both as to compensation for the services performed by the company and as to the charges to he paid by the consumer, and the burden of showing the Contrary is on the party who alleges it.</p> <p>2. The rate fixed by a water company for'fire protection should bear a .reasonable proportion to the rates established for other demands.</p> <p>3.. A bill in equity was filed by a borough to restrain' the defendant water company from collecting an increased rate for water furnished the borough for fire service,, on the ground that the proposed new fate was excessive, unfeásonable and discriminatory. The plaintiff showed that prior to the increase of rates the water company, under an ag'reement between the parties, furnished the borough with water for fire protection for $800 per annum for forty-three fire plugs in use at the time of the contract, and a charge of $19 per year for each additional plug; that the number of plugs had been increased to fifty-three, ■ and had been installed at the borough’s expense. The former rates to other consumers and the receipts and disbursements of the defendant, were also shown. The defendant called expert witnesses, whose testimony was not controverted or qualified by any witnesses of plaintiff. It appeared that they had made an exhaustive examination of defendant’s plant and estimated the net value of the plant for fire protection at $41,255, upon which an annual return of six. per cent., together with maintenance, taxes and depreciation, would be about $3,300; that the new rate would result in an income, of $1,855 from this source, a profit of four and one-half per cent, on the investment. Held, the court did not err in dismissing the bill.</p> <p>4. In such case, the court did not err in excluding ev