Fogelsville & Trexlertown Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1921 |
| Docket Number | 283 |
| Parties | Fogelsville & Trexlertown Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 14, 1921
Appeal, No. 283, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from decree of C.P. Lehigh Co., April T., 1918, No. 2, on bill in equity, in case of Fogelsville & Trexlertown Electric Co. v Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. Decree modified.
Bill in equity for injunction. Before GROMAN, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
The court entered a decree for complainant. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting it.
The decree will be modified so as to preserve the status quo for thirty days, in which time appellee may complain to the commission and may secure from it such order or action as will further preserve the status quo until final determination; costs to be paid by appellant.
Reuben J. Butz, of Butz & Rupp, with him Thos. J. Perkins, for appellant.
James F. Henninger, with him Silas R. Rothermel, for appellee.
John Fox Weiss, with him Frank M. Hunter, for the Public Service Commission. -- The Public Service Commission had sole jurisdiction: St. Clair Boro. v. Ry., 259 Pa. 462; Bellevue Boro. v. Ohio Valley Water Co., 245 Pa 114; Leiper v. R.R., 262 Pa. 328; V. & S. Bottle Co. v. Gas Co., 261 Pa. 523; Klein-Logan Co. v. Light Co., 261 Pa. 526; Scranton City v. Commission, 268 Pa. 192; Bethlehem City Water Co. v. Boro., 253 Pa. 333; Pittsburgh Rys. Co. v. Pittsburgh, 260 Pa. 424.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
The Pennsylvania Power & Light Company was created June 6, 1913, by the consolidation of thirty-eight electric companies, -- one of its constituents having been incorporated in 1911, -- to furnish light, heat and power in the Township of Macungie, Lehigh County. No effort was made to comply with its charter obligations in this township until November 12, 1917, although it is proven sufficient facilities were provided at the base of operations to take care of this township, as well as any enlarged or extended business. However, before November 12th, a number of citizens, desiring to supply a demand in the township for light, heat and power, organized plaintiff company and, against the protest of defendant, secured a certificate of public convenience from the Public Service Commission on August 7, 1917. Thereupon the Pennsylvania Company got busy and within four months built a transmission line over a public highway into this township and began to furnish service March 12, 1918. This exercise of corporate powers in the township, -- crossing and using highways with their facilities, and all matters in connection therewith, -- was without the approval of the Public Service Commission, evidenced by its certificate of public convenience. Plaintiff company filed a bill, under the Act of 1871, to restrain the Pennsylvania Company from further construction of its pole line, and to remove all instrumentalities from the township. The court below, after hearing, directed an injunction to issue, requiring defendant to remove the pole line and abandon its service therein; hence this appeal.
The various contentions come to this: Inasmuch as defendant is a corporation incorporated prior to the passage of the Public Service Act, and as the determined policy of the Commonwealth is to restrain competition by procuring adequate service at reasonable rates through the regulation and control of the company already on the ground furnishing service, and as the commission has decided it is without power to limit the operating field of a company incorporated before the act, in order that this declared public policy as to utilities may not be a dead letter, it is incumbent on the court to enforce it. This may be done by declaring, under the Act of 1871, under circumstances such as here, the unused, unexercised franchises of such public service company were abrogated by the subsequent order of the Public Service Commission giving to another concern, willing to supply that field, the right and power to do so. Without franchise the old company could not compete.
It is exclusively within the legislative power to determine what the policy of the Commonwealth shall be, or it may designate an agency of the government to determine that policy. Such policy may, in itself, become a matter for judicial determination as contravening a constitutional inhibition or for other cause within judicial cognizance. But the legislature has the power to determine who shall promulgate and enforce its declared public policy, and, when an agency of the government is selected or created for that purpose, no other body, judicial, executive or municipal, can step in and, by decree, order, ordinance or otherwise, actively enforce the policy or do other acts in relation thereto, except possibly to sustain the legislatively created or designated body. By act of assembly, the Public Service Commission was the designated government agency to enforce its declared public policy, whether that policy originated by statute or was created by the commission. It is an arm of the state government, created for the benefit of the people as well as the utilities it in part controls. There has been placed under the regulation, supervision and control of the commission, generally, all matters relating to rights, facilities, service and other correlated matters of a public service company. By this act a complete system in itself is presented to enforce such powers: York Water Co. v. York, 250 Pa. 115, 118. Courts were not intended to be the administrative tribunal for this purpose. The commission has not decided this appellant is not within its regulatory control, and may not be compelled to respond to a complaint filed against it. Plaintiff had a full and complete remedy to prevent any encroachment or wrongful use of territory by defendant. Being a public service company, it could complain (section 6 of article VI) against defendant when it did an act forbidden or that it had no power to do, -- such acts as are within the field of the commission's control and subject to inquiry. The powers of control or regulation, or whatever authority the court may, in other days, have possessed over these concerns, are supplanted by the Public Service Commission. It was so decided in Rochester B. & L. Assn. v. Beaver Valley Water Co., 68 Pa.Super. 122; York Water Co. v. York, supra; St. Clair Boro. v. Tamaqua & P.E. Ry. Co., 259 Pa. 462; Bellevue Borough v. Ohio Valley Water Co., 245 Pa. 114; City of Scranton v. P.S.C., 268 Pa. 192.
It must not be understood, however, the act takes from the courts all jurisdiction over public service companies. On the contrary, all acts of this body are subject to judicial scrutiny, but through the channel ordained by the legislature and as set forth in article VI of the Public Service Act. The tribunal of first instance as to relations between public service companies and the public is the commission, not the court; and as the public is affected by conditions in this township through service, etc., and as the act specifically authorizes one service company to complain against another, the commission was the proper tribunal to hear the cause.
The Pennsylvania company suggests it is not necessary to secure a certificate of public convenience before exercising its rights in this township, and, being incorporated in 1913 there is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial