Skip to main content
· 7/10/1918

Pennsylvania Utilities Co. v. Public Service Commission

Citations

  • 69 Pa. Super. 612
  • 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145

Syllabus

<p>Public Service Commissions — Appeals—Parties—Electric light companies.</p> <p>Where an electric light company complains to the Public Service Commission against the attempt of another company to construct facilities in a township, and the commission receives the complaint, directs hearings, takes evidence and dismisses the complaint, the complaining company has a standing to appeal from the order of the commission to the Superior Court.</p> <p>Corporations — Merger—Electric light companies — Powers—Certificate of public convenience — Public Service Commission.</p> <p>Where an electric light company is created on January 6, 1913, under the Merger Act of May 3, 1909, P. L. 408, by the merger of several electric light companies, and one of these companies was chartered on April 4,1911, for the purpose of serving electric light to a particular township, and neither this company nor the merger company had done any physical work in the township prior to January 1, 1914, when the Public Service Act became effective but the new company had constructed works in other townships after the merger, the company created by the merger may in 1916, construct its facilities in the township in question without securing a certificate of public convenience as provided by Sec. 2, or Art. Ill, of the Public Service Act.</p> <p>Where several corporations are merged under the Act of May 3, 1909, P. L. 408, into a new company, and questions arise concerning an act done in the field of the new company, which act is associated with powers and faculties peculiar to a part of this field because- of the scope of powers as they existed in one of the units before the merger, the legality of such act is determined from a consideration of such specific powers as they are vested in the new company as the act of the new company, however, not of the old company. If one of the constituent companies before merger possessed powers and faculties greater than the other members of the proposed consolidatio

Judges: Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams

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.