Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1909-11-16
COURTS OPINION
IN WATER CASE
PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION
MUST MAKE TRIP FREE
AND SUPPLY WATER.
Is Owner OF All Pipes and Street Con-
nectiOns.


a decision reached several days ago.
defining the rights and the privileges
Of public service corporation and
holding that such corporation Is not
justified in assuming any OF those
whom 1t serves are dishonest. and as
sorting that it cannot safely be in
vested with a power and authority
which viii allow 1t to become both
judge and jury in the determination
of disputed claim from a consumer.
To do so, the opinion states, would
be dangerous and investing 1t with a
power that invites extortion and is
too liable to be abused
The opinion was in the case Of AL
bert H. Hatch VS.. the Consumers
company of Occur d'Alene, an orig
inal proceeding, the court issuing
peremptory writ OF mandate to COM
pei the delivery of water to the resi-
dence of the applicant.
The facts in the case as related to
the court were that the petitioner
had made an application to the water
company to connect with the pipes
in his home, rendering $3.50, the
monthly water rental, In advance.
The company refused to accept the
water rental, demanding payment OF
$3.50 additional for making the tap
of the water mains, or deposit the
sum of SIS, to be refunded when the
tap was taken out, less the actual
cost Of labor and material This the
petitioner refused to do. and the COM
pany then demanded that he deposit
sac in cash, the same to be applied
on payment of water to be used from
said tap. The defendant pleaded non
payment of an old bill and possible
discontinuance Of the service by the
applicant at the end Of one month
after the company had expended
$3.50 and received $3.50 in return.
Opinion Is Unanimous.
The syllabus of the opinion. which
is unanimous, is in part as follows:
Under the franchise granted by
the city of Occur d'Alene to the
Consumers company to occupy the
streets and alleys of the city for the
purpose of supplying the city and In
habitants thereof with fresh water,
the right and authority to dig in the
in the streets and alleys and lay pipes
therein for supplying consumers with
water is conferred upon the company
alone and no such right is conferred
upon the individual consumer, and
the consumer acquires no right to lay
pipes or acquire property in the
streets and alleys and lay pipes
trary. the duty to do SO and tbs
rights acquired thereby belong to tbs
water company. 1t is consequently
the duty of the water company t.
supply and lay the laterals from III
main to the line of a consumer
property abutting on such street, ana
such laterls are the property of tht
sumers' company, 10. Ida. 56s; ant
Pocatello Water company VS.. Stan
ley, Z Ida, 1856, followed and ap
proved.
Cannot Enforce Rule.
"A water company cannot enforce
rule requiring consumer to pa,
an old or disputed bill for water fur
nished him at some previous time. o
at some other place or residence. o
for a separate or distinct transaC
ton from that for which he is claim
ing and demanding a water supply
as condition precedent to supplyin
him with water where he tenders pay
ment OF the established water rat
in advance for the service he Is dc
handing.
In such cases the parties are no
upon equal grounds. The consumer
necessities for water for business
health, comfort, and life are sue
as to put him at q decided disat
vantage and deprive him Of the RICH
TO contest an unjust claim: and
would. therefore. be unjust. unsaf
and contrary to public policy to il
vest public service corporation wit
power to become both judge and jur
in the determination OF claims an
demands It holds against the col
sumner.
"A public service corporation o.
gained for the purpose Of supplyin
the Inhabitants Of a munieipalit
with water, is not justified In assam
ing that the people Il is to serve Al
dishonest. and that they VIII deman
and pay for 3 month's water supp