Carothers v. Philadelphia Co.

12 A. 314, 118 Pa. 468, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 411
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 9, 1888·No. No. 249·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Opinion,

Mb.. Justice Williams :

The plaintiff in the court below is the owner of a tract of land. The defendant is a corporation claiming the right of eminent domain and seeking by virtue thereof to enter upon the plaintiff’s land and lay under the soil, pipes for the transportation of natural gas from its wells in Westmoreland county to its customers in and about the city of Pittsburgh. The plaintiff denies that the defendant possesses this right for the purpose for which it is sought to exercise it, and asks the court to restrain its exercise; alleging that the production, transportation, and supply of natural gas is not among the objects which the company has power to enter upon, either under the provisions of the act of 1871, which created it, or those of 1885, which provided for the incorporation and organization of natural ga.s companies.

The decision of this case makes it necessary, therefore, to ascertain what powers were conferred upon this company by the act of incorporation, and to what extent they have been enlarged or diminished by the act of 1885. The act of March 22, 1871, incorporated the Empire Contract Company with power to change its name by the action of its stockholders, and then clothed it with “ all the rights, powers, privileges, [484]*484franchises, and immunities ” which had been given to the Pennsylvania Company by an act approved on April 7, 1870. Under this authority the Empire Contract Company was organized, began business, changed its name several times, and on March 11,1884, was sold by the sheriff of Dauphin county on a judgment obtained by the commonwealth for unpaid taxes. The purchasers then proceeded in May, 1884, to reorganize the company under the name of the Philadelphia Company, in accordance with the act of 1878, and filed an acceptance of the provisions of the 16th article of the constitution as required by that act.

Upon its reorganization the Philadelphia Company possessed all the powers conferred directly by the act of incorporation, and all those possessed by the Pennsylvania Company under the act of April 7,1870. Among the latter were the following:—

1. To act as a contractor or builder, and as such to build, construct, maintain or manage for others—

2. To act as principal, and as such to build, construct, maintain or manage for itself—

3. To act as a purchaser, and as such to buy, maintain, or manage in its own name or otherwise “any work or works public or private which may tend or be designed to improve, increase, facilitate, or develop ” either of the following objects, viz.: (1) trade; (2) travel; (3) transportation and conveyance of (a) freight; (i) live stock; (e) passengers ; (d~) any other traffic, by land or water from or to any part of the United States or territories thereof. It was also invested with power to “ enter upon and occupy the lands of individuals or companies on making payment therefor or giving security according to law.”

Soon after its organization the Philadelphia Company turned its attention towards the production and supply of natural gas as a fuel, and in July, 1884, began its operations in the Murraysville field. These were conducted on a large scale, and the master finds that, prior to the taking of the testimony before him, the company had thirteen lines of gas pipes conveying gas to custoihers, were supplying about eleven thousand factories and dwellings with fuel equivalent to ten thousand tons of coal per day, and had an actual cash investment in the business of over eight millions of dollars.

[485]*485If the company has the right to engage in this business under its act of incorporation, it has the right of eminent domain under the same act. If the act of incorporation does not authorize it, then, as to this business, it is a private association, and without the power to enter upon the plaintiff’s lands. The master and the court below held that the company was authorized to enter in its corporate character upon this business, and rested their conclusion upon the proposition that gas is freight, and that conducting it through pipes from the wells to the consumers is the transportation of freight. But a transportation company provides simply the means for transportation of freight for customers at certain prices. This company produces a commodity which it takes to market and sells. The gas is produced at the wells. It is wanted at the mills and dwellings of the city. The pipe-lines laid by this company serve to convey the gas from its wells to its own customers, to whom it is sold and delivered. The transportation is incidental to the production and supply of the gas. The situation is precisely the same as in the case of illuminating gas, which is manufactured, stored, and conveyed by pipes to the places of consumption. The business is that of making and supplying gas for light. The transportation to the customer is incidental. The same is also true of water companies. They produce, store, and supply to customers, water. Transportation by means of pipes is the means of delivery, and is a mere incident of the business. The business of the Philadelphia company is, in our opinion, that of a fuel-gas company, viz.: the production and distribution of natural gas ; and the transportation of the gas is the necessary means of delivery to its customers and nothing more. Had it the power to engage in this business in 1884 ? It will be seen by our analysis of the grant in the act of incorporation that the company had the power to build, etc., any work, public or private, which “ may tend or be designed to improve, increase, facilitate, or develop trade.”

In the preamble to the act of 1885 the legislature declares that natural gas has become a “ prime necessity for use as a fuel and. otherwise in the development of trade.” It thus applies to this business the very words employed in the act of incorporation to describe the powers of this company. It is, [486]*486moreover, part of the current history of the commonwealth that the discovery and use of natural gas has facilitated and cheapened and increased the production of manufactured articles of all descriptions, where heat is employed in the generation of steam or in the processes of manufacture. By cheapening and increasing production trade has been stimulated, facilitated, and developed wherever the natural gas has been made available as a fuel. We conclude, therefore, that the works by which the gas is produced from the earth, transported to the factories and dwellings of Pittsburgh, and then delivered to customers, are works that “ tend and are designed to improve, increase, facilitate, and develop trade,” and are therefore within the powers granted to this company. If so, the Philadelphia Company is rightfully engaged as a corporation in this business by virtue of its own charter.

The act of 1885 declares the transportation and supply of natural gas to be a public use, and, the days of special charters having gone by, provides by general law for “ the incorporation and regulation of natural gas companies; ” but does not diminish the powers of any corporation in existence by virtue of a special charter. This company having the right to engage in this business had by express words the right of eminent domain and could enter upon lands without the aid of the act of 1885. But it is objected that the act of incorporation did not provide the machinery by which the value of property taken or injured could be ascertained and a judgment obtained therefor; and for that reason it is urged that the grant of eminent domain cannot be sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carothers v. Philadelphia Co., 12 A. 314, 118 Pa. 468, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 411 (Pa. 1888).

12 A. 314 (Carothers v. Philadelphia Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Rankin
79 Pa. D. & C. 589 (Fayette County Court, 1951)
Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission
79 Pa. Super. 560 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Franke v. Johnstown Fuel Supply Co.
70 Pa. Super. 446 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Hagerla v. Mississippi River Power Co.
202 F. 776 (S.D. Iowa, 1913)
Page v. Carr
81 A. 430 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Sloan v. Klein
79 A. 403 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Kaufman v. Pittsburg & Castle Shannon Railroad
66 A. 1108 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.
107 N.W. 405 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)
United States v. Consumers' Gas Trust Co.
142 F. 134 (Seventh Circuit, 1906)
United States v. Northwestern Ohio Natural Gas Co.
141 F. 198 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio, 1905)
Bridgewater Borough v. Big Beaver Bridge Co.
59 A. 697 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Dailey v. Potter County
53 A. 498 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Philadelphia Co. v. Freeport Borough
31 A. 571 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1895)