Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Brooklyn & C.B. Light & Water Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1914
• Citation: 90 A. 89,122 Md. 612
• Parties: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. BROOKLYN & C. B. LIGHT & WATER CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

90 A. 89

122 Md. 612

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. BROOKLYN & C. B. LIGHT & WATER CO.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 25, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; James P. Gorter, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by the Brooklyn & Curtis Bay Light & Water Company against the Public Service Commission of Maryland to set aside an order of the commission. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.

Osborne I. Yellott, of Baltimore (W. Cabell Bruce, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant. Raymond S. Williams and Martin Lehmayer, both of Baltimore, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The appellee was originally incorporated in 1892 under the general incorporation law, "for the purpose of manufacturing electricity and gas for illuminating purposes and for all and any other purposes to which electricity, gas or magnetism may be applied, and for the sale, transportation or other disposition of the same in Anne Arundel county, and also for the purpose of furnishing and supplying water for drinking or other purposes to the dwellings, stores, shops and manufacturing establishments in Brooklyn and South Baltimore, in Anne Arundel county."

By the Act of 1892, c. 471, the name of the company was changed and its powers were enlarged. That act provides that: "Said company shall also have power to dig such artesian or other wells, contract and build such works and reservoir or reservoirs as may be necessary to provide water for drinking or other purposes to the dwelling houses, stores, shops, and manufacturing establishments in Brooklyn and South Baltimore and their vicinity in Anne Arundel county, *** and also to construct and lay gas and water pipes along or under the streets, squares, lanes, roads, public highways, bridges and alleys of Brooklyn and South Baltimore and their vicinity in Anne Arundel county," etc.

South Baltimore, or Curtis Bay, and Brooklyn are unincorporated villages in Anne Arundel county, near Baltimore city. They are between one and two miles apart, and each contains about 2,000 inhabitants. The distance between the outskirts of the villages is about one mile. Under its charter the appellee constructed its water works in Curtis Bay in 1893, and since then has been supplying water to the inhabitants of said villages, but it never extended its water mains or pipes to or attempted to furnish water to Brooklyn.

By the Acts of 1896, c. 173, another company was incorporated for the purpose of furnishing light and water in Brooklyn, but it never exercised any of the privileges or franchises granted by the act.

In August, 1911, the Brooklyn Improvement Association filed its petition with the Public Service Commission of Maryland for the purpose of compelling the appellee to furnish water to the residents of Brooklyn. The appellee answered the petition alleging that, while it had always been willing to furnish water in Brooklyn, it had never "been financially able" to extend and enlarge its plant for that purpose that the investment of the company in its waterworks established in Curtis Bay had not been remunerative; that the company had not earned a dividend since 1906, and that it had a floating indebtedness of about $9,000; that it would be utterly unable to comply with an order as prayed for in said petition, and that to compel it to do so would amount to a confiscation of its property; that, while under its charter it was authorized to furnish water in Brooklyn, it was not required to do so.

There were filed with the Public Service Commission several estimates of the cost of enlarging the company's plant and of extending its water pipes to Brooklyn. Mr. Alfred M Quick, an engineer employed by the Brooklyn Improvement Association, made two estimates, one amounting to $12,431 and the other to $14, 279. Mr. Charles E. Phelps, chief engineer of the commission, estimated the cost at $23,800, and, according to the estimate submitted by the general manager of the appellee, the total cost of the necessary improvement would amount to $29,295. There was also filed with the commission an agreement of the owners of 212 houses in Brooklyn to purchase water from the appellee at the same rate the appellee furnished water to its patrons in Curtis Bay, and a statement of the appellee showing that its capital stock amounted to $100,000, "paid up in full"; that the value of the plant represented an expenditure of $75,000 on "plant and machinery," and $25,000 on land and buildings; that the total "operating revenue" of the appellee for the year 1910 or 1911 was $7,032.32; and that the total "operating expenses," for the same year, was $7,891.90, and that the appellee had a floating indebtedness of about $8,000.

In disposing of the case, the Public Service Commission, after referring to the several estimates of the cost of extending the appellee's plant, said: "Assuming that $25,000 will finance the extensions, and that the debt is now $8,000 we would have a total debt of $33,000, upon which the interest charged would be $1,650 at 5 per cent. and $1,980 at 6 per cent. Two hundred and twelve services at an average of $10 would produce a revenue of $2,120, so that the service to Brooklyn would take care of the interest upon the cost of the extension, and upon the present floating debt, and this at the minimum consumption to be expected...