238 Pa. 23 | Pa. | 1913
Opinion by
This was a proceeding in equity to restrain the defendant company from increasing the price of natural gas to consumers in the plaintiff borough. The bill averred, inter alia, as follows: That the plaintiffs are residents of the Borough of Punxsutawney and patrons of the defendant company; that the defendant is a corporation organized under the provisions of the Act of May 29, 1885, P. L. 29, for the purpose of supplying natural gas to the public in the Borough of Punxsutawney and places adjacent thereto; that the defend
The defendant company filed an answer admitting many of the allegations of the bill, but averring that its predecessors in title were in possession of the streets, etc., of the Boroughs of Punxsutawney and Clayville (now the Borough of Punxsutawney) for the purpose of laying and maintaining pipes and conduits for the transportation of natural gas to the citizens of these boroughs for heat, light and manufacturing purposes, and were so furnishing natural gas, prior to the alleged grants of permission by these boroughs to A. L. Cole; that the Citizens’ Fuel Company was not the sole predecessor in title of the defendant; that the Mahoning Gas and
The principal question is: — Did the defendant company acquire the right to occupy the streets of the Borough of Punxsutawney and to furnish natural gas to the inhabitants thereof from the Citizens’ Fuel Company or from the Mahoning Gas and Heat Company? For upon this depends the further question of whether or not the defendant company’s franchise carries with it the obligation not to charge more than twenty cents per thousand cubic feet of natural gas to the consumers in that borough.
A review of the evidence satisfies us that the court below was right in findinf that the defendant company was furnishing gas in the plaintiff borough by virtue of the franchise theretofore exercised by the Mahoning Company and not under the franchise of the Citizens’ Company, and in concluding that the defendant was not fixed with the restriction or limitation contained in the latter. The Mahoning Company was actually engaged in furnishing and marketing gas in the territory of the plaintiff borough prior to the passage of the Act of 1885, supra, and within that territory it was possessed of and continued to exercise all the rights conferred upon it by that act down to the time of its merger into the defendant company in 1905. (Phila. Co. v. Freeport Boro., 167
The corporation merger and consolidation Act of May 29, 1901, P. L. 349, provides in Section 3 that the new corporation shall be possessed of “all the rights, privileges and franchises” theretofore vested “in each of” its constituent corporations, and that “all debts, duties and liabilities of each of said constituent corporations shall thenceforth attach to the new corporation.” As stated by the learned court below, “The weight of the authorities seems to be that when the act of consolidation gives to the consolidated company the rights and privileges of the constituent companies or makes the consolidated company subject to the obligations of the constituent companies, the rights and obligations are not extended by the act to all of the property of the consolidated company, but only apply severally to the property of each constituent company taken over by the consolidated company”; and the following authorities seem to sustain this rule: 2 Morawetz on Private Corporations, Secs. 947 and 950; 10 Cyc. 305, par. 2; 89 American State Reports, 632 Note; Phila. & Wilmington R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 51 U. S. 376; Tomlinson v. Branch, 82 U. S. 460; Minot v. R. R. Co., 85 U. S. 206; Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 718; Pullman’s Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 115 U. S.
The only other point of importance raised by the assignments of error concerns the reasonableness of the charge for gas made by the defendant company. As to this it is sufficient to state that we agree with the court below “that the rate of twenty-five cents per thousand cubic feet proposed to be charged by the defendant for natural gas supplied by it to consumers in Punxsutawney borough is fair and reasonable considering the facts as shown by the testimony in this case.”
The assignments of error are all overruled and the decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant borough.