Madregano v. Wis. Gas & Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1923 |
| Citation | 181 Wis. 611,195 N.W. 861 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | MADREGANO ET AL. v. WISCONSIN GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenosha County; E. B. Belden, Judge.
Action by Eugene Madregano and others against the Wisconsin Gas & Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
This is an action in equity to compel defendant public utility to furnish electrical service to the plaintiffs. Upon the answer of the defendant, the plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted, and from the judgment entered the defendant appeals.Geo. W. Taylor, of Kenosha, and James D. Shaw, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Robert V. Baker, of Kenosha, for respondents.
The plaintiffs alleged that they were engaged in conducting a meat market and grocery store and were users and consumers of electricity in their place of business as well as in their residence; that they had paid all bills rendered to them in accordance with the measurements of the meter installed in their premises; that on the 8th day of September, 1922, the defendant removed the meter from the premises of the plaintiffs and ever since that day has refused and still refuses to furnish the plaintiffs with electricity for use in their place of business and residence.
The complaint further alleges that the defendant justified its conduct by the claim that the plaintiffs were guilty of stealing electrical current during the four-year period and refused to reinstall the service unless the sum of $750 should be paid, that being the amount claimed by the defendant company to be due.
The complainants further allege:
“That the said plaintiffs have been, and now are, ready, willing, and able to pay to the defendant for all current of electricity used by them if the meter of said defendant was inaccurate and did not correctly measure the amount of electricity actually used by them, but the said defendant, through its agents and officers refused to give any basis for its claim of $750, and subsequently offered to take $375 as a condition of the replacing of such meter and the furnishing of electricity to the plaintiffs.”
There were other formal allegations. Pursuant to an order to show cause, the defendant company was required by order dated September 25, 1922, to furnish the plaintiffs service pending a final determination of the action upon the same terms and conditions as it is furnished to other inhabitants of the city of Kenosha, and as a condition of the making of said order the court required the plaintiffs to execute a bond in the sum of $1,000 with sufficient sureties, conditioned that the plaintiffs would pay for all electrical service furnished by the defendant company to the plaintiffs and pay the customary charge for discontinuing and reinstalling the service to the plaintiffs in the event it should be finally adjudged that the defendant did not wrongfully discontinue the service. The defendant answered, and we set out the allegations of the answer, because upon the allegations of the answer the determination of the trial court rests. After the allegations of formal matters and that it had furnished current to plaintiffs for four years, the defendant alleges:
“That the plaintiffs wrongfully, unlawfully, and intentionally so tampered with said meters by inserting foreign substances therein and in various other ways that the meters failed to register the amount of electricity consumed by the plaintiffs; that the defendant company was deceived and misled by the acts of plaintiffs and submitted bills to the plaintiffs computed at the customary rates according to the meter readings, but erroneous in amount because of the wrongful and intentional acts of the plaintiffs in tampering with the meters as above set forth; that the plaintiffs did pay the bills so rendered, but at the time of such payments well knew that such bills were incorrect because of their own wrongful and unlawful acts in so tampering with said meter.
That upon investigation, on or about the 1st of April, 1922, the defendant became suspicious that something was wrong with the mode and method of registering electricity at the premises of the plaintiffs because of the fact that the electric bills seemed small considering the fact that plaintiffs were operating an ice machine run by a two horse power motor, a meat grinder driven by a one horse power motor, and also an electric light load aggregating 2,650 watts; that in order to determine definitely whether or not the electricity furnished at the premises of the plaintiffs was being properly measured and paid for according to the schedules of rates filed the defendant installed a tested check meter on one of their poles outside of the premises and allowed the meter in the premises to continue as it was; that in approximately four months' operation the check meter showed a consumption of 3,222 kilowatt hours, while the meter in the premises showed a consumption of 651 kilowatt hours, which would make a difference in the bills of the plaintiffs over and above that already paid by them on the erroneous measurement of electricity above set forth of not less than $205.68.
That the defendant then demanded of the plaintiffs that they pay for the electric light and power furnished them, and for which they had not paid, on the basis of an estimated bill covering the four-year period, figured according to the electric light and power actually paid for and the electric light and power which would ordinarily and customarily be used on a premises such as that owned by the plaintiffs where such an electric light and power load was installed, and based also on the amount of electricity consumed during the four months the electricity was correctly measured; that the plaintiffs refused to pay the estimated bill whereupon the service was discontinued and the plaintiffs informed that before the service would be reinstalled they must not only pay the estimated bill for service wrongfully consumed and not paid for but also the cost of disconnecting and reconnecting the service which would amount in all to about $750.
That the plaintiffs refused to pay said bill, or any part thereof, and have not paid for the electric light and power consumed by them, at the schedule of rates on file with the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin.
That it is the usual practice and custom of the defendant, in all cases involving disputes with its customers as to the amount due the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Buzard
...Gas Co., 181 Okla. 54, 72 P.2d 495; Gorham Bros. Co. v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co., 228 Mich. 273, 200 N.W. 287; Madregano v. Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co., 181 Wis. 611, 195 N.W. 861; Benwood-McMechan Water Co. v. City of Wheeling, W.Va. 373, 4 S.E.2d 300; Morrison Cafeteria v. Louisiana Public......
-
State Board of Law Examiners of Wyoming v. Brown
...Qualls v. National Bank, (Okla.) 212 P. 308; Leahy v. Trust Co., (Mo.) 247 S.W. 396; Long v. Pub. Co., (Cal.) 228 P. 873; Madregano v. Electric Co., 195 N.W. 861. As to jurisdiction to grant relief in a particular action, the following authorities are cited. Long v. Long, (Kans.) 214 P. 111......
-
State ex rel. K.C. Power & Light Co. v. Buzard, 38242.
...54, 72 Pac. (2d) 495; Gorham Bros. Co. v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co., 228 Mich. 273, 200 N.W. 287; Madregano v. Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co., 181 Wis. 611, 195 N.W. 861; Benwood-McMechan Water Co. v. City of Wheeling, 121 W. Va. 373, 4 S.E. (2d) 300; Morrison Cafeteria v. Louisiana Public Serv.......
-
All Elec. Service, Inc. v. Matousek
...v. Sol. Heavenrich Co. (1902), 115 Wis. 447, 91 N.W. 994, 60 L.R.A 585; Kilbourn v. Pacific Bank (1860), 11 Wis. 239 (*230).5 (1923), 181 Wis. 611, 195 N.W. 861.6 Id. at pages 616, 617, 195 N.W. at 863--864.7 See generally, Virkshus v. Virkshus (1947), 250 Wis. 90, 26 N.W.2d 156; Bjelde v. ......