Opinion by
The plaintiff is a corporation organized for the purpose of producing, dealing in, transporting, storing and supplying natural gas for public consumption, and has its principal offices in a two-story brick building located in the borough of Butler, in which building all of the clerical work connected with the gas business is carried on, and in addition thereto, there is certain clerical work conducted by the company of its business in the production and sale of oil. The building and lot of ground on which it is situated was assessed for the purpose of local taxation at a value of $7,000, and a return of such assessment was made by the assessor to the commissioners, from which the plaintiff company appealed to the county commissioners, who refused to make any change thereon, and from this action an appeal was taken to the court of common pleas, which after hearing struck off the assessment and adjudged that the real estate was exempt from local taxa-. tion, from which judgment the county of Butler appeals.
The corporation is of a quasi public character and the court found as a fact that the building “is used exclusively
It is urged that the property is liable to local taxation for the reason that in addition to the charter purposes of the company the building is used as an office for an oil company, and that an employee of the company uses a room in the building as an engineers’ or map room for another company, call the T. W. Phillips Manufacturing Company. The plaintiff under its charter of producing and supplying natural gas, and in carrying on that business, develops and sells oil as an incident to the gas business, which while not at all certain, may be reasonably anticipated in conducting operations for gas. The primary business of the natural gas company’s charter is the production of gas, so that it may be supplied to the public for light, heat and motive power. In the development of this business, if oil is obtained, that accessory product may be cared for and utilized so as to realize a profit from its production and is not obliged to treat it as waste matter, as said in Malone v. Lancaster Gas Light & Fuel Co., 182 Pa. 309, “Undoubtedly the main business of a corporation is to be confined to that class of operations which properly appertain to the general purposes for which its charter was granted, but it may also enter into contracts and engage in transactions which are incidental or auxiliary to its main business, or which may become necessarily ex
In determining the liability to taxation in such cases', the test should be found in the distinction between that which is indispensably necessary to the operation of the incorporated business as such, and that which is necessary to profitably conduct the business of the corporation. See Western N. Y. & Penna. Ry. Co. v. Venango County, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 304. In affirming this case the Supreme Court in 183 Pa. 622, say: “The business a corporation may lawfully do must be defined by its charter. If it is to supply a municipality with water or gas, its implied or incidental powers must be such as are reasonably necessary to the proper performance of its functions as a water or a gas company. It cannot manufacture pipes, because it may need pipes in the distribution of water or of gas; it cannot engage in the manufacture of plumbers’ supplies, because it might be profitable to be able to supply its customers with such goods. Its business is one; the supply of water or gas, as it may be, to its customers, and to this it must devote its attention and confine its operations.”
See also People’s Pass. Railway Co. v. Taylor, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 156; Dela. Lack. & Western R. R. Co. v. Metzgar, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 239; Harrisburg v. Gas Co., 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 530; s. c., 219 Pa. 76.
The buildings in which the offices of the company are "assembled and its business affairs are transacted, are necessarily incident to the corporation and indispensable to the conduct and operation of its business: Western N. Y. & Penna. R. R. Co. v. Venango County, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 304; s. c., 183 Pa. 618.
Under the undisputed facts of the case we feel that the action of the court below was proper and the judgment is affirmed.
