Skip to main content
· 4/22/1918

Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Public Service Commission

Citations

  • 261 Pa. 211
  • 104 A. 605
  • 1918 Pa. LEXIS 717

Syllabus

<p>Corporations — Water companies — Application for charter — Requisites of — Act of June 7, 1907, P. L. 1¡55 — Public Service Commission — Jurisdiction.</p> <p>1. Under tbe Act of -Tune 7,1907, P. L. 455, which requires that •an application for a charter for a water company shall state the name “of the river, stream, or other body of water from which it is propo_sed to take or use water, or water power, and as near as may be tbe points on said river, stream or other body of water between which said water, or water power is proposed to be taken,” the precise location of a dam or dams proposed to be built need not be set forth. ,</p> <p>2. If an application for a charter for a water company sets forth the name of a stream, and states that it is proposed to construct a dam or dams across the stream located between two points designated, and such application has been approved by the water supply commission after the consideration of plans showing a certain number of dams at designated points, the Public Service Commission may subsequently, in passing upon the incorporation of the company, approve of the application although an amended plan is produced to them showing a smaller number of dams, and that one of the proposed dams would be constructed at a less height than that shown on the original plan.</p> <p>3. The Public Service Commission is not invested with authority to regulate the erection of dams or the development of the water power resources'of the State; that is a subject over which the Water Supply Commission has jurisdiction, and such commission may pass upon the. final plans after the incorporation of the company, and when its work is undertaken.</p> <p>4. An appellate court will not reverse an order approving the incorporation of a water company where it appears that the application had been approved by the water supply commission, that the Public Service Commission had heard evidence relating to the question in controversy, that elaborate arguments were p

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Potter, Walling

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.