Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/319

 292

THE GREEN BAG

and sewerage, it follows the complainant sary part of the system of distributing would have to furnish water practically free electricity for the protection of the con or abandon the business; for it would be sumer. unreasonable to suppose that any one would Upon this showing the highest court held use the complainant's water and bear the that the treatment of the plaintiff by the additional expense imposed for so doing. defendant was unjustifiable. Mr. Justice These sewers of the city are for the public at Carter said: "It is entirely immaterial who large, and every one should be permitted to does the wiring of the house,— the electric use them without any discrimination in light company or some other party; the charges against him. The franchise to transformer is necessary in either case. If construct sewers being in the nature of a the company does the wiring, that is a busi public use, the duty is on the city to supply ness distinct from that of furnishing elec sewerage rates to all impartially on reason tricity for lighting purposes, just as the able terms. As is said by Mr. Bates: All putting in of gas and water pipes into a house persons are entitled to have the same is a distinct business from furnishing the gas service on equal terms and on uniform rates. or water to flow through them. The jury In addition, it is averred, as seen, that found that the appellee had not demanded citizens are notified by the city that they extra pay for the use of a transformer from cannot use its sewers unless they subscribe anyTone else, and that it was its general for the city water, and customers of com practice and custom to furnish them free to plainant, desiring to return to it, are for its consumers. Appellee, being organized to bidden by the city from disconnecting from do a business affected with a public interest, its pipes and connecting with complainant's, must treat all customers fairly and without — a threat the city has the physical power unjust discrimination. While it is not bound, in the absence of statutory enact to enforce." * ments, to treat all its patrons with absolute equality, still it is bound to furnish light at IV a reasonable rate to every customer, and without unjust discrimination.",1 Another case of the abuse of its power by a public service company to promote a. collateral branch of its business was de cided recently in Illinois — Snell v. Clinton Electric Light, Heat, and Power Company In an important case before the Inter (196 Ill. 626). The defendant company state Commerce Commission — Grain Rates in that case charged the plaintiff who had of Chicago Great Western Railway (7 I.C.C. applied for electricity an additional • price Rep.^ 33) — tne; decision- was that the for a transformer, in pursuance of their defendant 'carrier could not purchase grain, policy openly announced to supply trans even for the purpose of securing the right formers free to those who had the wiring to transport it, if that involved the evasion of their houses done by the company's own of the law which would have applied to it wiring department, but to charge appli had it been owned by any other party. It cants like the plaintiff who had theirjwiring was proved at the hearing in this case that done by other parties the full price of the the Chicago Great Western Railway Com transformer. This transformer was a neces- pany owning the entire stock of the Iowa Development Company, which had been 1 Compare Matter of Baldwinsville Telephone Co.. 24 N. Y. Misc. 221.

1 See Ladd v. Cotton Press, 53 Tex. 172.