license fee imposed by a municipality upon a gas company in the matter of making repairs on its pipe lines. Fort Pitt Gas Co. v. Sewickley Borough, 198 Pa. St. 201, p. 205. Where a natural-gas company has a pipe line laid in a street and the municipal authorities seek to compel the company to change its location or to replace the line with new piping because of supposedly dangerous conditions, it would be seeking to compel affirmative action by the gas company and in case of refusal a proper case would be presented by petition by the municipality to the court under section 12 of this act. Edgewood Borough v. Scott, 29 Pa. Supr. Ct. Rep. 156, p. 163. This act gives pipe line companies the power of eminent domain and provides that in case of dispute the common pleas court may, upon application of either party and upon hearing, define by its decree what precaution shall be taken in the laying of pipes and may enjoin a company from laying pipes except as decreed. This statutory procedure is not limited to cases where the public safety is imperiled, but it applies to all cases wherein the manner of laying the pipe or its character for safety gives reason for complaint to a landowner. Clemens v. American Natural Gas Co., 21 Pa. Dist. Rep. 315. 22. POWER OF MUNICIPALITY TO ENJOIN OCCUPANCY OF STREETS. A municipality can not enjoin a natural-gas company from occupying its streets with its gas mains for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of the municipality with natural gas on the ground that the pipes have been laid without the permission of the municipality and that such pipes are defective and may cause injury to persons and property, where the acts of the company do not constitute a nuisance. Borough of Butler v. Butler Gas Co. (Pa. St.), 5 Central Rep. 669. After a natural-gas company has laid its pipes in the streets and furnished natural gas to the residents, the municipality can not perpetually enjoin the company on the ground that its pipes have become defective and dangerous where an issue of fact is made as to the condition of the pipe line. Butler v. Butler Gas Co., 4 Sadler (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 19, p. 22. 23. VALIDITY OF ACT AS APPLIED TO PITTSBURGH. Municipal restrictions placed upon a natural-gas company, organized under this act for the purpose of supplying the citizens of Pittsburgh with natural gas are unauthorized by law and therefore are without force or effect. McDevitt v. Peoples Nat. Gas Co., 160 Pa. St. 367, p. 371. 24. LICENSE FEE-CHARGES BY MUNICIPALITIES. A municipality can not make an arbitrary and unreasonable charge or license fee, disproportionate to the expense incurred by it in the supervision of its streets and to the liability to which it is exposed, upon a gas company for entering upon the streets for the purpose of repairing its mains and pipes. Fort Pitt Gas Co. v. Sewickley Borough, 198 Pa. St. 201, p. 206. 25. PUBLIC SERVICE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION. The implied condition of a grant of all corporate franchise of quasi public nature is that they shall be exercised without individual discrimnation in behalf of all who desire. A discrimination can not be made on the basis of the value of the service to the customer. Baily v. Fayette Gas-Fuel Co., 193 Pa. St. 175, p. 183. Under this act and its supplement of May 11, 1897 (P. L. 50), as well as under its charter it is the duty of a natural gas company to furnish gas to persons and corporations within convenient connecting distance of its pipe line, as may desire to use the same, upon such terms and under such reasonable regulations as the company may etablish. A refusal to discharge this duty brings the company within equitable jurisdiction and there is no substitute remedy at law that could under the facts be fully adequate, complete, or reasonably convenient. Corbet v. Oil City Fuel Supply Co., 21 Pa. Supr. Ct. Rep. 80, p. 86. No distinction is made in this act between domestic consumers and other purchasers of gas and such a company can not give preference among consumers similarly situated but all patrons similarly situated must stand on the same footing. A natural gas company can not prefer one glass company using natural gas for running its factory by entering into a written contract to furnish it sufficient gas to supply its needs to the exclusion of other glass companies similarly situated which desire natural gas for their factories. The rule applies whether the companies demanding the gas were incorporated before or after the execution of the contract to supply the one glass company. Fairchance Window Glass Co. v. Star Gas Co., 18 Pa. Dist. Rep. 544, p. 547; 36 Pa. County Ct. Rep. 338. A contract made by a natural gas company incorporated under this act with its own directors and stockholders whereby they received or were to receive a preference over the public generally in the supply of natural gas, is contrary to public policy, and is void so far as it binds the company to furnish natural gas to its directors and stockholders in preference to other parties similarly situated. Fairchance Window Glass Co. v. Star Gas Co., 18 Pa. Dist. Rep. 544, p. 546, 36 Pa. County Ct. Rep. 338. See Cresent Steel Co. v. Equitable Gas Co., 40 Pittsburgh Leg. Journal (O. S.) 316. A natural gas company may be compelled on application to a court of equity to supply gas to persons along its line who have complied with its reasonable regulations. The argument that a failure to supply gas does not create such irreparable damage as would justify a resort to a court of equity is not even persuasive, under the rule that where a right invaded is secured by statute there is generally no question as to the amount of damages but simply of the right. Corbet v. Oil City Fuel Supply Co., 21 Pa. Supr. Ct. Rep. 80, p. 87. A company organized under this act for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of a city with natural gas for light, heat, and other purposes, and which it does so supply the inhabitants with can not make a difference in the price of gas to a customer depending on whether it is used for light or heat. Baily v. Fayette Gas-Fuel Co., 193 Pa. St. 175, p. 183. A preliminary injunction will not be granted to restrain a natural gas company incorporated under this act from increasing its charges over the rates established when it began business. Allegheny Heating Co.'s Appeal, 1 Monoghan (Pa. Supreme Ct. Cases) 91. Ohio Valley Gas Co.'s Appeal, 1 Monoghan (Pa. Supreme Ct. Cases) 97. 26. RIGHT OF CONSUMER TO A SUPPLY OF GAS. Section 10 requires such companies to furnish consumers within their respective districts natural gas for stated purposes. Two requirements are necessary to entitle a citizen to demand gas; he must be in the district, and along the lines. A citizen living in the district but not along the company's lines can not compel it to supply him with gas. Beck v. Pennsylvania Gas. Co., 18 Pa. Dist. Rep. 245, p. 246. Fairchance Window Glass Co. v. Star Gas Co., 18 Pa. Dist. Rep. 544; 36 Pa. County Ct. Rep. 338. A natural gas company organized under this act may be by a patron enjoined from cutting off the supply of natural gas and from refusing to furnish natural gas for lighting purposes, where it had theretofore been supplying natural gas for such purposes, but desired to cease furnishing natural gas for lighting purposes in order to accommodate another company subsequently organized for the purpose of supplying illuminating gas only. Hagan v. Fayette Gas Fuel Co., 21 Pa. County Ct. Rep. 503, p. 509. A patron of a natural gas company organized under this act may be enjoined from turning off the stopcocks or from in any way interfering with the stopcock, curb boxes, or service pipes belonging to the company until after 24 hours notice to the company; and from disconnecting and removing the meters or mixers from the pipes connecting with the company's main until after the supply of gas is shut off. Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Warren & Chatauqua Gas Co., 3 Pa. Dist. Rep. 67, p. 70. 27. CONSOLIDATION OF COMPANIES-RIGHTS. A natural-gas company organized under this act or accepting the provisions of this act, and subsequently under the act of May 29, 1901 (P. L. 349), was consolidated with another natural gas company. The consolidated company may continue to furnish natural gas to the community or borough at the rates permitted to the old company, if the new company with which it was consolidated had never in fact supplied the community or borough with natural gas at a less renumerative price. Punxsutawny Borough v. T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co., 238 Pa. St. 23, p. 32. 28. NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW SERVANT-LIABILITY OF CORPORATION. This act does not alter the rule of the common law as to the liability of employers for injuries done by one coemployee to another; and a miner injured by the negligence of a coemployee or by an engineer can not recover damages in an action against the mine operator. Mulhern v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 161 Pa. St. 270, p. 273. 29. WILFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ACT. A wilful failure to comply with the provisions of the mining law means that there must have been some knowledge that it was being violated, some knowledge which should induce the operator not to do what he did do, or some knowledge that the engineer was incompetent and not the kind of a person who should be placed in such a position, as otherwise the word "wilful" would not have any very special meaning. Mulhern v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 161 Pa. St. 270, p. 275. O'Boyle v. Coal Co., 161 Pa. St. 275. 30. PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. The public works of a corporation organized for the transportation and supplying of natural gas for public consumption, with the necessary appurtenances essential to carrying out the public purpose of the corporation are exempt from taxation. St. Mary's Gas Co. v. Elk County, 168 Pa. St. 401, p. 404. St. Mary's Gas Co. v. Elk County, 191 Pa. St. 458, p. 465. Lands owned by a corporation, organized under this act, containing gas essential to the exercise of its corporate franchises for public purposes are exempt from taxation. St. Mary's Gas Co. v. Elk County, 191 Pa. St. 458, p. 462. The collection of a tax assessed upon the real estate of a natural-gas company organized under this act may be restrained by injunction where the evidence shows the gas in the lands owned by it are essential to the exercise of its corporate franchises for public purposes. St. Mary's Gas Co. v. Elk County, 168 Pa. St. 401, p. 404. 31. POWER TO SURRENDER FRANCHISE. A natural-gas company organized under this act, may when necessity requires, surrender its franchises as to any particular territory, remove its pipe line and abandoned the easement acquired by it. When this is done by the directors and acquiesced in by the stockholders, neither the state, the creditors, nor the landowners within the territory surrendered can question the action of the corporation. Germania Refining Co. v. Alumn Rock Gas Co., 226 Pa. St. 433, p. 435. The sole object and effect of an appropriation under this statute was to secure the right to transport natural gas in the manner provided for. The proceedings do not affect the title to the pipe or impose any obligation upon the corporation to maintain the line any longer than its own interest might dictate. The damages are assessed with reference to the fact that the company thereby acquired the right to enjoy the easement indefinitely but if the gas supply should fail, it was within the knowledge and contemplation of the parties that the line would be useless and its abandoment must follow. The company on the failure of its gas supply may surrender the easement and remove its pipes from the line and the right of entry exists for this purpose and if removed with due regard to the interests and rights of the landowner, he cannot complain that the easement has been surrendered. Clements v. Philadelphia Co., 184 Pa. St. 28, p. 31. See Woods v. Greensboro Nat. Gas Co., 204 Pa. St. 606, p. 611. A landowner granted to a natural gas company organized under this act the right to lay and maintain a pipe line under his land and the right to construct and operate a telephone line over his land in consideration of receiving natural gas for his premises at a fixed price. The gas company, or a successor, can not thereafter refuse to supply the gas as agreed upon and by appropriate proceedings condemn a right of way for its pipe line. It can not surrender the part of the agreement as to the pipe line and gas and retain its rights as to the telephone line. The contract is entire and must be rescinded in toto or not at all. Evans v. American Natural Gas Co., 55 Pa. Supr. Ct. Rep. 116, p. 120. 32. RIGHT TO REMOVE PIPES-LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES. An entry for the purpose of the removal of a pipe line is upon different grounds from the right of entry for the purpose of laying the pipe line, or its maintenance and repair. In the matter of the removal of the pipe line the company can not be held liable as a trespasser. Clements v. Philadelphia Nat. Gas Co., 184 Pa. St. 28, p. 31. The right to remove a pipe line upon the termination of the easement, though absolute, must be exercised without injury to the freehold. The removal of the line is not an enjoyment of the easement but an act following its abandonment. It is not an exercise of any right vested in a natural-gas company by the proceeding under which the easement was acquired, but it is the exercise of a vested property right existing independently of the easement and to be enjoyed only upon its abandonment. The right to abandon the easement and remove the pipes not being thus acquired, there could be no claim under the statute in the appropriation proceedings for injuries apprehended from the exercise of this right. But injuries to the land caused by the removal of a pipe line and that actually occur form an independent cause of action and the natural-gas company is liable for all such injuries whether necessary or unnecessary. Clements v. Philadelphia Co., 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. Rep. 14, p. 28. By agreement between a natural-gas company and a landowner the former obtained the right to lay and maintain two lines of pipe across the landowner's farm to be used in conducting natural gas to places of consumption. The contract expressed no limit of time as to the exercise of the right and contained no obligation to continue its exercise. Upon abandonment the company had the right within a reasonable time to enter upon the farm and remove the pipes. But in doing this the company was liable for all damages suffered by the landowner. The rights and obligations thus created were substantially the same as those now incident to the acquisition of rights by pipe-line owners under this act. But if the company actually abandoned its pipe line and its pipes, it could not after ten years enter upon the land and remove the pipes. Halstead v. American Natural Gas Co., 17 Pa. Supr. Ct. Rep. 605, p. 607. A gas company that has obtained an easement and buried its pipe line through the premises of a landowner may, on the failure of its gas supply, enter upon the premises and remove its pipe line. But if the work is not properly done and the trench is left open or partially filled, or if grass or growing crops are broken down or destroyed, or the turf unnecessarily cut into or injured, the owner is entitled to damages. If it was to the interest of the company to remove its pipes in wet weather and drive over the owner's fields, injuring the crops or grass it is liable for the injury done and the measure of damages is the extent of the injury done by the removal of the pipe at an improper time or in an improper manner. Clements v. Philadelphia Nat. Gas Co., 184 Pa. St. 28, p. 31. 125672°-20-30 |