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.

PHILLIPS ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (07/17/56)

July 17, 1956

PHILLIPS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeal, No. 22, March T., 1956, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, November 28, 1955, Docket No. 81998, in case of Alexander E. Phillips et ux. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Philadelphia Electric Company. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

William S. Bailey, with him John B. Pearson, Dallett Hemphill, Harold K. Wood, Bailey & Rupp, and Reilly & Wood, for appellants.

Howard L. Criden, Assistant Counsel, with him Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Samuel Graff Miller, with him Henry P. Sullivan and Vincent P. McDevitt, for electric company, intervening appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.

Author: Gunther

[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 626]

OPINION BY GUNTHER, J.

In March, 1955 the Philadelphia Electric Company applied to the Public Utility Commission for approval to acquire a right-of-way across appellants' farm. To this application an answer was filed stating that the condemnation was contrary to public convenience and

[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 627]

    necessity. Twenty seven other property owners who were affected by the application were allowed to intervene. A hearing was held, testimony taken, and on November 28, 1955, the commission made an order approving the application and issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity. This appeal followed.

Is the order for the proposed line supported by evidence of necessity? The record reveals that the purpose for the transmission right-of-way is to coordinate the company's system through the Bradford substation to assure adequate service to the Chester-Marcus Hook area. This proposed line will integrate the network to enable it to supplement power deficient areas from adjacent areas having available capacity. The whole enterprise, according to the testimony, will provide for the integration of the present Chester generating station and the proposed Eddystone station with other stations of the Philadelphia Electric Company and other Atlantic Seaboard utilities. This, it is asserted, is essential to national defense and industrial expansion. See Lower Chichester Twp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 503, 119 A.2d 674.

The Act of May 21, 1921, P.L. 1057, 15 P.S. 1182, provides for the exercise of eminent domain where the service is necessary for public convenience. Our Appellate Courts have held that not only existing needs are to be considered but also future necessities. Chew v. Philadelphia, 257 Pa. 589, 101 A. 915; Pittsburgh Junction R.R. Company's Appeal, 122 Pa. 511, 6 A. 564; Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company v. Peet, 152 Pa. 488, 25 A. 612. In Byers v. Public Utility Commission, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 620, 109 A.2d 232, we ruled that the ...


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.