Appeal from orders vacating order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 92171, in case of Charles S. Dunk et ux. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.
Christian V. Graf, with him John E. Fullerton, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Anthony L. Marino, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph C. Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Public Utility Commission, appellee.
Samuel Graff Miller, with him Donald Blanken, Edwin W. Scott and Vincent P. McDevitt, for utility company, intervening appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Watkins, J.
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 184]
This is an appeal from orders of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approving the application
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 185]
of Philadelphia Electric Company for the exercise of the right of eminent domain.
On March 26, 1965, the Philadelphia Electric Company filed an application for approval of the exercise of eminent domain by said company in acquiring a right of way for the construction, operation and maintenance of a line or lines for the transmission or distribution of electricity over and across a tract of land in Wallace Township, Chester County, owned by Charles S. Dunk and Bella M. Dunk, his wife, the appellants.
Hearings were held and on January 10, 1966, the Commission issued its order approving the application upon the finding that the service to be furnished by the company is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public and issued its certificate to that effect.
On January 29, 1966, a "Petition for Reconsideration, Modification of Order, Rehearing and Supersedeas" was filed with the Commission by the appellants. This petition raised for the first time the issues that jurisdiction was in the Federal Power Commission and that the company was not appropriating this property for its corporate use. The company filed an answer. The Commission denied the petition. This appeal from both orders followed and the company was permitted to intervene as a party appellee.
The questions before this Court on this appeal are as follows:
(1) Is there substantial evidence to support the finding of the Commission that the exercise of the right of eminent domain by the company is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public?
(2) Does the proposed transmission line create a danger to the appellants?
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 186]
(3) Was the appropriation of the property here involved for the corporate use of ...