White Oak Borough Authority Appeal

93 A.2d 437, 372 Pa. 424, 1953 Pa. LEXIS 520
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 5, 1953
DocketAppeal, 134
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 93 A.2d 437 (White Oak Borough Authority Appeal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
White Oak Borough Authority Appeal, 93 A.2d 437, 372 Pa. 424, 1953 Pa. LEXIS 520 (Pa. 1953).

Opinion

Opinion by

Me. Justice Bell,

This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which sustained preliminary objections filed by the City of McKeesport and dismissed a petition for the appointment of viewers. The following facts must be considered (for purposes of this appeal) as admitted:

White Oak Borough Authority was organized under the Municipality Authorities Act of May 2, 191/5, P. L. 382 et seq., 53 PS 2900z-l et seq. The Borough of White Oak thereafter delegated to the Authority certain specific powers including the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance, extension and operation of a water works and a water distribution system for all or any part or parts of the Borough of White Oak, including “the acquisition of such land for . . . fire hydrants ... by the exercise of the right of eminent domain ... as the Board of said Authority may authorize if necessary for said project, for a supply of water for domestic, commercial, industrial and other uses, and for fire protection, in all or any part or parts of said Township.”

Since 1907 the City of McKeesport has been furnishing (indispensable) water to the inhabitants of the Borough of White Oak with its knowledge but without any express authority or consent and without ever obtaining a certificate of public convenience from the Public Utility Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. White Oak Borough is outside the corporate limits of the City of McKeesport.

In 191/0 the City of McKeesport constructed a six-inch water line on Henderson Avenue in White Oak *426 Borough and since that time has rendered water service to the residents along Henderson Avenue. This water line was constructed and water was furnished by the City of McKeesport without any permission from the municipal authorities of White Oak Borough and without any certificate of public convenience from the Public Utility Commission. Such certificate is clearly required under Sec. 2029 of the Public Utility Law of May 28, 1937. *

On May 21, 1951, the Authority by Resolution condemned 1500 feet of the City’s water line along Henderson Avenue for the purpose of providing fire protection; nest day it filed its general bond as security for the taking and condemnation of the aforesaid property. On August 22, 1951, the Authority filed a petition for the appointment of viewers to assess damages resulting from the condemnation of the Henderson Avenue pipeline. Viewers were appointed and a view was directed to be made. ** The City of McKeesport then filed preliminary objections to the appointment of *427 viewers on the ground that the Authority was not authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain against the water lines and facilities owned or used by the City of McKeesport. These preliminary objections, as hereinbefore noted, were sustained by the lower Court, whereupon this appeal was filed.

Neither Authorities nor Municipalities are sovereigns ; they have no original or inherent or fundamental powers of sovereignty or of legislation; they have only the power and authority granted them by enabling statutory legislation. Cf. Genkinger v. New Castle, 368 Pa. 547, 84 A. 2d 303; Kline v. Harrisburg, 362 Pa. 438, 68 A. 2d 182; Murray v. Phila., 364 Pa. 157, 71 A. 2d 280.

The pertinent Act covering the unusual situation here involved is the Municipality Authorities Act of May 2, 1945, supra, as amended by Act of June 12, 1947, P. L. 571, Sec. 1, which provides in Sec. 11: “The Authority shall have the power to acquire, by purchase or eminent domain proceedings, either the fee or such right, title, interest or easement in such lands, water and water rights as the Authority may deem necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in this act: Provided, however, That water and water rights may not be acquired unless and until approval is obtained from the Water and Power Resources Board in accordance with the law in such cases made and provided: And provided further, That no property owned or used by the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, any political subdivision thereof, . . . nor any property of a public service company . . . shall be taken under the right of eminent domain.”

Where a municipality operates a water system it is, ad hoc, a private business corporation: Shirk v. Lancaster City, 313 Pa. 158, 169 A. 557; Western Saving Fund Soc. v. Philadelphia, 31 Pa. 175; Versailles *428 Township Auth. v. McKeesport, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 377, 90 A. 2d 581; Bell v. Pittsburgh, 297 Pa. 185, 189, 146 A. 567. A city in the operation of a water system is acting not in its sovereign or public or governmental, but in its private or proprietary capacity: Madden v. Borough of Mt. Union, 322 Pa. 109, 112, 185 A. 275; Gas & Water Co. v. Carlisle Borough, 218 Pa. 554, 557, 67 A. 844; Com. v. P. R. T. Co., 287 Pa. 70, 134 A. 452.

An Authority or a Municipality when acting in its private or proprietary capacity, is considered as a general rule, to be a separate entity acting for its own private purposes and not as a subdivision of the State: McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3rd Ed., Sec. 2.09, p. 462. However, when we construe an act of the legislature we must determine what that particular act means when it refers to a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

We need not decide whether the City of McKeesport — acting without any doubt for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Borough of White Oak, but outside its corporate limits and in a private or proprietary capacity — was a political subdivision within the meaning of the Municipality Authorities Act, because if it was not, it was certainly acting in the capacity of a public service company and in either event its property cannot be taken by an Authority under its power of eminent domain.

Moreover, Section 9b of the Municipality Authorities Act of May 2, 1945, supra, provides: “No Authority shall acquire by any device or means whatsoever . . . the title to or the possession or use of all or any substantial portion of any project as defined in this act, which said project is subject to the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, without the approval of the commission, evidenced by its cer *429 tificate of public convenience, first had and obtained . . . .” Sec. 2(j) provides: “The term ‘project’ shall mean any structure, facility or undertaking which an Authority is authorized to acquire, construct, improve, maintain or operate under the provisions of this Act”: “Project” undoubtedly includes the water rights and facilities which are the subject of this suit.

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

Related

Conyngham Twp. v. PA PUC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
East Dunkard Water Authority v. SWPA Water Authority
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
In re Iezzi
504 B.R. 777 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2014)
Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
57 A.3d 1154 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Highridge Water Authority v. Lower Indiana County Municipal Authority
689 A.2d 374 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Beaver Falls Municipal Authority v. Municipal Authority of Conway
689 A.2d 379 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
In Re Carroll Township Authority
119 B.R. 61 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1990)
City of Chester v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
434 A.2d 695 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Philadelphia Facilities Management Corp. v. Biester
431 A.2d 1123 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Fisher v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
431 A.2d 394 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Sewickley Water Works v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
405 A.2d 1384 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Borough of Scottdale v. National Cable Television Corp.
381 A.2d 859 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
City of Pittsburgh v. Commonwealth
360 A.2d 607 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
Municipal Control Over Hunting
64 Pa. D. & C.2d 233 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1974)
Applicability of Solicitation of Charitable Funds Act to Local Libraries
64 Pa. D. & C.2d 718 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1974)
Commonwealth v. Williamsport Municipal Water Authority
56 Pa. D. & C.2d 791 (Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.2d 437, 372 Pa. 424, 1953 Pa. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-oak-borough-authority-appeal-pa-1953.