Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RIDLEY TP. ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ET AL. (01/20/53)

January 20, 1953

RIDLEY TP. ET AL.
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ET AL.



COUNSEL

Joseph Sharfsin, Philadelphia, R. Paul Lessy, Chester, for appellant.

Ernest R. von Starck, Robert H. Young, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, for Philadelphia Suburban Water Co., intervening appellee.

Jack F. Aschinger, Asst. Counsel, Lloyd S.Benjamin, Acting Counsel, Harrisburg, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Reno

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 474]

RENO, Judge.

This is the appeal of the Township of Ridley and 12 property owners from an order of the Pennsylvania

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 475]

Public Utility Commission dismissing their complaint against the Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, intervening appellee, for refusing their request for an extension of its facilities.

Ridley is a township of the first class, located in Delaware County, within the Company's chartered territory. Its population of 8641 in 1940 was increased to 17,212 in 1950, an increase of 8571 or 99%, which is comparable with the increase in Delaware County of 33% and in Pennsylvania of 6%. According to the map of the United States Census Bureau it lies adjacent to the City of Chester, and of its total population, 15,636 inhabitants are included in the Philadelphia Urbanized Area.*fn1 A map of the part of the Township here involved, introduced in evidence, bears the legend, '17 minutes from Broad St. [Philadelphia].'

The appellants sought an extension of the Company's facilities in a residential section of the Township known as Faraday Park, a part of which is already served by the Company. The Township requested the installation of a fire hydrant and the property owners desired water for their homes. It is not necessary to describe further the conditions prevailing in the area, for the Commission found 'that there is need for the extension facilities and service.' Unless other substantial and competent evidence negatived that finding the Commission should have sustained the complaint, since the Public Utility Code of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1053, § 401, 66 P.S. § 1171, clearly commands that 'Every public utility * * * shall make all such * * * extensions * * * as shall be necessary or proper for the accommodation,

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 476]

    convenience, and safety of its patrons * * * and the public.'* ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.