Case Name: White Haven Boro., Appellant, v. Public Service Commission; Haiges, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1924-01-07
Citations: 278 Pa. 420
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 4 and 5
Parties: White Haven Boro., Appellant, v. Public Service Commission. Haiges, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission.
Judges: Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 278
Pages: 420–421

Head Matter:
White Haven Boro., Appellant, v. Public Service Commission. Haiges, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission.
Public service companies — Water companies — Bate specified in charter — Police power — Public Service Commission.
1. The rates which a water company may charge are under the exclusive control of the Public Service Commission exercising the delegated police powers of the Commonwealth.
2. The fact that the charter of a water company contains a provision limiting the rate to be charged for services, does not deprive the commission of jurisdiction to fix a different rate.
Argued October 3, 1923.
Appeals, Nos. 4 and 5, May T., 1924, by plaintiffs, from judgments of Superior Court, Nos. 15 and 16, March T., 1923, affirming order of Public Service Commission in cases of White Haven Borough and F. O. Haiges v. White Haven Water Co.
Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Appeals from judgments of Superior Court affirming order of Public Service Commission.
See White Haven Boro. v. Public Service Commission, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 536, for the facts.
Order affirmed. White Haven Borough and F. O. Haiges, plaintiffs, appealed.
Error assigned was judgment, quoting it.
W. A. Valentine, with him R. J. O’Donnell, for appellants.
Wm. B. Dandis, with him Walter W. Kohler, for appellee.
January 7, 1924:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
These appeals involve identical points; they were presented together and will be so disposed of here.
The two opinions of Judge Henderson, in Staples v. Public Service Commission, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 6, and Borough of White Haven v. Public Service Commission, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 536, sufficiently cover all the points in controversy, and, after studying the arguments of counsel for complainants, we think that nothing can be profitably added to what has already been so well stated by the Superior Court.
The judgments are affirmed.