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.

BOWER ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (09/17/64)

decided: September 17, 1964.

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



Appeal from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 90539, in case of Albert J. Bower et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.

COUNSEL

John C. Youngman, with him Candor, Youngman & Gibson, for appellants.

Anthony L. Marino, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph C. Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Vincent Butler, with him Seth McCormick Lynn, for intervening appellee.

Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent). Opinion by Ervin, J.

Author: Ervin

[ 204 Pa. Super. Page 84]

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP&L) filed an application with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission under the provisions of the Act of May 21, 1921, P. L. 1057, 15 PS ยง 1182, seeking an order of the commission that the service furnished by the company through its existing facilities over and across a tract of land owned by Albert J. Bower and Norman J. Danneker, trading as Albert J. Bower Cinder Company, is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public.

PP&L constructed the transmission line here considered in 1952. The line passes through the middle of two adjoining tracts (hereinafter called the East tract and the West tract) which lie south of the Pennsylvania Railroad track and right-of-way and which adjoin the right-of-way. The transmission line runs generally east and west, parallel with but some distance to the south of the railroad track. The line extends some 460 feet through the East tract and some 350 feet through the West tract.

When the transmission line was constructed in 1952, the East tract was owned by Williamsport Water Authority. Six years later, after PP&L had acquired a permanent right-of-way for its line over this tract, the tract was acquired by Albert J. Bower, subject to the dominant easement for the transmission line. This

[ 204 Pa. Super. Page 85]

    easement being adequate, there is no present request to condemn any of the East tract.

The portion of the line passing through the middle of the West tract was by arrangement with the owner thereof, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company (PRR). The arrangement was a lease with a 30-day cancellation clause exercisable by either lessor or lessee. This tract was sold in 1962 by PRR to the partnership, trading as Albert J. Bower Cinder Company, appellants herein, but subject to the lease with PP&L. The West tract is the only one directly involved in the proposed condemnation. It is proposed, but not yet used, for cinder piling. Appellants have for some time been using the East tract for cinder piling.

The power line has been in existence for 12 years and had been in existence for 6 years and 10 years, respectively, when the East and West tracts were acquired by appellants ...


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.