Edgeworth Water Co. v. Sewickley Boro.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
No certificate of public convenience is necessary for the mere use of existing facilities: Barnes Laundry Co. v. Pittsburgh, 266 Pa. 24. The Act of 1873 is constitutional: Sloan v. Klein, 230 Pa. 132; Reeves v. Water Co., 287 Pa. 376; State Line, etc., R. R. Co.’s App., 77 Pa. 429.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaffer,
In its history of the case plaintiff (appellant) says: “This is an equity proceeding to restrain the defendants from supplying water to Edgeworth Club in the Borough of Edgeworth.” In the printed arguments of both sides, in the supplemental briefs and in the one submitted as amicus curiae, the scope of the proceeding would seem to be wider. We will confine our review to what appellant says is before us, perhaps incidentally making reference to one matter in a wider view.
Speaking generally, we are to decide whether the plaintiff, the Edgeworth Water Company, has…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reeves v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Beckert v. City of AlleghenySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- Broadnax v. Cheraw & Salisbury R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893