Sydnor Pump & Well Co. v. Taylor, 4982
| Decision Date | 12 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 4982,4982 |
| Parties | , 31 P.U.R.3d 161 SYDNOR PUMP AND WELL COMPANY, INCORPORATED v. PAUL N. TAYLOR, ET AL. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Richard McDearmon and Alexander Wellford (Alex W. Parker; Christian, Barton, Parker & Boyd, on brief), for the appellant.
Leonard L. Lonas, Jr. and Percy Thornton, Jr., for the appellees.
This is a statutory appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission in a proceeding instituted under the provisions of Chapter 10.2 of Title 56, Code of Virginia, entitled 'Certain Water and Sewage Systems Not Regulated as Public Utilities.' Sections 56-265.10 to 56-265.13, inclusive, 1959 Replacement Volume, Code of Virginia, 1950, Acts 1954, Chapter 669.
The pertinent provisions of the statute read as follows:
' § 56-265.10. DEFINITIONS -- (a) 'Water system' as used herein means any privately owned connected system of mains, pipes, conduits, pumping stations, reservoirs and related facilities furnishing water to fifty or more subscribers for compensation when the person who furnishes the service is not subject to regulation by the Commission as a public utility under chapter 10 (sections 56-232 et seq.) of Title 56.
'* * *
'(c) 'Commission' means the State Corporation Commission.
'* * *
(Emphasis added.)
On June 25, 1958, Paul N. Taylor and fifty or more subscribers, who have contracts to purchase water from the water system owned and operated by Sydnor Pump and Well Company, Incorporated, in the Dumfries-Triangle area of Prince William County, Virginia, filed petitions with the State Corporation Commission alleging that the service furnished by the said system was inadequate and ought to be improved. By its order entered on the same day, the Commission ordered an investigation of the complaints set forth in the petition, 'in order to formulate an opinion as to whether, in the light of the successful performance of water systems of similar design and purpose, said water system owned and operated by Sydnor Pump and Well Company, Incorporated, is capable of serving the reasonable domestic needs of the persons and properties served by said system.'
For the purpose of brevity, the appellant will sometimes hereinafter be referred to as Sydnor; the appellees, Paul N. Taylor and others, as appellees; the State Corporation Commission as Commission; and the water system as the Triangle System.
After due notice to all interested parties, a hearing was held by the Commission on September 3 and 5, 1958. At that hearing, J. K. Woolfolk, an engineer and a member of the engineering staff of the Commission, testified that, at the direction of the Commission, he had made an investigation from July 24 to August 26, 1958, with respect to the complaints against the Triangle System. He made a written report, setting out the location of its equipment and facilities, an inventory thereof, its condition and capacity, and the performance of the system during the period of his examination. He reported that Sydnor operated and serviced the system from Richmond, that it did not keep a service man in the area of the facility; but that trips were periodically made there by service personnel on telephone calls to Richmond; that in interviews with water consumers of the system, the majority of them complained mostly of low pressure, and entire lack of water at certain times; that others complained of 'discolored' or rusty water and its effect on clothes in washing machines; and of excessive air in the water pipes. He concluded his report with the following statement: 'With the water supply, mains and equipment as at present, the conclusion is that this water system is not capable of furnishing service to the major part of its consumers, such as a consumer on a system of this kind could reasonably expect.'
A number of subscribers to the system testified, without dispute, that they had made numerous complaints about service rendered by the system since 1954, principally in the summertime. They alleged a shortage of water, low pressure of water service, the presence of air, iron and rust in the water, and the failure of prompt repairs when the system was disrupted by breakage of pipes or loss of pumping power, because of lack of local service personnel.
It was shown that the Triangle System began operation in October, 1947, under a written master agreement or contract between Sydnor and B. F. Warren and his wife, the latter two acting on behalf of themselves and other persons in the Triangle area, who desired to become connected with the water system. The contract provided that for an agreed consideration Sydnor would, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, furnish the domestic and commercial needs of its customers with a supply of water 'adequate for their domestic (including lawn purposes) and business needs.'
From time to time thereafter numerous subscribers were added to the system. Originally there were thirty or more consumer connectors, and as of the summer of 1958, there was a total of five hundred and twenty-two, of whom four hundred and ninety-eight were active.
Evidence presented by Sydnor showed that the system had been increased by nine or ten wells and that a number of others were kept as standbys because of low productivity; that improvements and enlargements in the mains, pumping stations, and storage tanks had been made from time to time; that the system had a productive capacity of some six million gallons per month, or two hundred thousand gallons per day; that consumption approximated one hundred sixty thousand gallons daily; and that there was a storage capacity of more than two hundred thousand gallons, exceeding the daily consumption by twenty-five per cent.
Sydnor attributed the storage of water and loss of pressure to unreasonable consumption by the subscribers and to pipe breakage and power failure, over which it had no control. It showed that the water consumption in the Dumfries-Triangle area was one hundred sixty thousand gallons per day, an average of nine thousand gallons per connector per month, as compared with the consumption...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.W. Mcdonald Land Co. v. Eqt Prod. Co.
...excessive; not capricious or arbitrary. It means what is just, fair and suitable under the circumstances.” Sydnor Pump & Well Co. v. Taylor, 201 Va. 311, 110 S.E.2d 525, 530 (1959) (internal quotations omitted). In fact, the court in Tawney used “reasonableness” as a legal standard in this ......
-
Miller v. Commonwealth
...usage, “means ‘fair; just; ordinary or usual; not immoderate ...; not capricious or arbitrary.’ ” Sydnor Pump & Well Co. v. Taylor, 201 Va. 311, 317–18, 110 S.E.2d 525, 530 (1959) (citation omitted). Whether the appellant's absence was “unreasonable” was a question of fact for the jury. Cf.......
-
Appalachian Power Co. v. John Stewart Walker, Inc.
...v. Newport News & Hampton Ry., etc., Co. (1926) 144 Va. 24, 131 S.E. 330. * * *" More recently, in Sydnor Pump & Well Co. v. Taylor, 201 Va. 311, 317, 110 S.E.2d 525, 530 (1959), we cited this unbroken chain of precedent, 6 denied the Commission's jurisdiction, and said that '(t)he question......
-
Ashland, LLC v. Va.-Am. Water Co.
...Co. , 216 Va. 406, 409, 219 S.E.2d 677 (1975) ; Appalachian Power Co. , 214 Va. at 533, 201 S.E.2d 758 ; Sydnor Pump & Well Co. v. Taylor , 201 Va. 311, 316-17, 110 S.E.2d 525 (1959) (Virginia law "does not empower the Commission to determine and adjudicate the rights and liabilities of par......