CORNELL LAW LIBRARY QrZ\ ^^ 4MMKKMHBM HNHHHPPIEBJ^^^^^'' I^^^B i^m 1 ^m^ wSm(^'\ %. f-mmf "9 « ' f * ' t ' 8 ?"g4ff ^^^B^^^K - p!'- ^^: 1 '"^3^^ i lir ;fr i^^^^m '1 ! ' ^^^^^H J ^f^^ ^^^i J ») jBBir 4|Sfl'^^ ^^fc*i ^s ^■^SgHaMjl^^n jif jgH|HHH|Hp ■^^^gjl IflMP^ Ag ihBBE^ShH^ ■■■pp^^' -„ w ^^^P| ^^^^^^^^^^ ajomll Slam i'rlioal Eibratg Cornell University Library KF2130.A5G81 A digest of the reported decisions of th 3 1924 019 364 557 J A Cornell University ^ J Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019364557 A DIGEST OF THE EEPORTED DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND OF GREAT BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES, RELATING TO THE EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. TOGETHER WITH EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE VARIOUS UNITED STATES CONCERNING GAS COMPANIES- BY CHARLES P.'^GREENOUGH, COXJMSBLLOB-AT-LAW. j { ! BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 1883. 'igM, 1883, Bt Chables F. Greenovoh. Univeesitt Pbess: John Wilson and Son, Cambbidge. PREFACE. This work is essentially a book of reference and is intended primarily for the use of Gas Companies and their counsel, though it will be found of service to the general practitioner. Its object is to supply a reliable and exhaustive summary of all the cases reported in the Courts of the United States and of Great Britain and her colonies, in which the rights and liabilities of Gas Companies are discussed, and to which Gas Com- panies are parties plaintiff or defendant. Those cases only are omitted which relate solely to matters of practice in the local courts and have no general interest. No opinion is expressed by the compiler upon the decisions, and no attempt is made to reconcile those which are conflicting. The rights and liabilities of Gas Companies are in most particulars similar to those of other manufacturing corporations, and the extended treatises on the laws governing such corporations fully cover all the general rules by which Gas Com- panies must govern their business transactions. The author has therefore made no attempt to collect the IV PREFACE. cases relating to the general powers of corporations, except those in which Gas Companies are themselves parties. It is believed that the Digest is an exhaustive one, and its chief value to Gras Companies is, that when any question arises which relates to their rights or liabilities, it can be seen at once whether that par- ticular question has ever been raised and decided by the courts with reference to the peculiar business of a Gas Company. The Digest includes many cases taken from the Gas Journal, published in London, which are not reported elsewhere, and many of the important cases decided in the English Courts are reported in detail in that journal. The statutes have been brought down to cover the laws passed in the sessions of the various legislatures of the United States for the year 1882. They show exactly how far Gas Companies in this country are protected in their rights and controlled in their busi- ness by the legislative power. CHAELES P. GEEENOUGH, Counsellor-at-Law. Boston, January, 1883. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Fagb Preface iii Index to Digest . vii Table of Cases xi PAET I. Digest op Cases PAET II. Extracts from Statutes 187 Arizona . . . . 189 Arkansas 191 California 192 Colorado 201 Connecticut 202 Illinois 206 Indiana 207 Kansas 209 Maryland 209 Massachusetts . . 210 Michigan 218 Minnesota 223 Missouri 225 Nebraska . Nevada . New Hampshire New Jersey . New York . Ohio . . . Pennsylvania Rhode Island Tennessee Texas . . Vermont . Utah . . Wisconsin 226 226 227 228 239 254 261 274 276 281 282 283 284 Index to Statutes 285 INDEX TO DIGEST. Page Account 1 Action 1 Admissions 2 Agency 1. Negligence of agent ... 2 2. Authority of officers ... 5 3. Liability of agents .... 7 Annuity 8 Application for gas 8 Appointment 8 ArlntTation 8 8 9 Attachment of stock ..... 10 Audit, hoard of 10 Award 10 Bankruptcy 11 Bonds 12 Books of account 14 Certiorari, writ of 14 Charter 1. . Interpretation 14 2. Constitutionality .... 16 3. Forfeiture of. . . ,. . . 20 4. Exclusive rights under . . 20 Charter party 23 Civil war 24 Compensation 24 Composition 24 Faob Compromise 24 Condition of contract .... 24 Consolidation 24 Constitution of United States . . 25 Constitutionality 25 Contract 1. In writing 25 2. Powers of municipality to . 26 3. Care of meters 30 4. Quality and price of gas . . 31 5. Various contracts .... 32 Contractor 35 Corporations 37 Coupons 37 1. Measure and elements of . . 37 2. Injury to real estate ... 40 3. Special 41 Danger of explosion 42 Dangerous article 42 Debentures 42 Debt 42 Debts 42 Defences 43 Demurrer 43 Deposit 43 Directors 43 Dividends 48 Dockage 49 Duty of gas companies .... 49 VIU INDEX TO DIGEST. Page Easement 51 Embezzlement 52 Ejectment 52 Election 52 Eminent domain 52 Equity 53 Estoppel 63 Evidence 1. Expert testimony .... 55 2. Books of account . . ' . . 57 3. Meaning of words .... 57 4. Similar cases 58 5. Burden of proof .... 61 6. Admissions 64 7. Defences 64 Explosion 65 Fixtures 65 Forfeiture 66 Formation of company .... 66 Franchise 66 Fraud 67 Fraudulent ordinance .... 67 Fraudulent taking 67 Frost 69 Gas fixtures 1. When fixtures . . . 2. When not fixtures . . Gas-pipes 1. When personal property 2.- When real estate . 3. In highway . . . Gas, purification of . Goods sold and delivered Greenhouse, injury to . Guaranty 69 70 73 75 75 77 77 77 77 Highway 77 Hushand and wife 78 Income tax 78 Indictment 78 Infant 78 Fags Injunction 1. Against laying pipes ... 78 2. For divers causes .... 82 Inspection 83 Insurance 84 Jury trial 85 Lamp-posts 8^ Landlord and tenant 85 Larceny 87 Leaks of gas 89 Lease 89 License 90 Limitations, statute of .... 90 Malicious prosecution .... 90 Mandamus 91 Manufacturing corporations . . 94 Master and servant 94 Mechanics' lien 94 Meters 94 Misdemeanor 94 Monopoly 94 Mortgage 94 Mortmain 94 Municipality 1. Powers 95 2. Ordinances 96 3. Liability for negligence . . 97 4. Contracts 99 Navigable waters 103 Necessary of life 104 Negligence 1. Liability of gas companies for, 104 a. In pipes or machinery . 104 J. Question for jury . . 108 2. Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, a. In general .... 113 i. In not removing from the premises . . .119 c. In neglect to give notice . 119 INDEX TO DIGEST. IX Page Negligence, — continued. d. When plaintiff is a minor 120 e. Eesponsiliility of land- lord 121 3. Contributory acts of third person 123 i. Damages 126 Notice 1. Ofleak 127 2. Other notices 128 Nuisance 1. Definitions 129 2. Corruption of water . . . 130 3. Unwholesome smells . . 135 4. Use of streets 139 5. Practice, &c 141 Obligation of contract . . . . 143 Obligation to supply .... 143 Officers 143 Official, public 144 Ordinance 144 Partnership 144 Patents 144 Penalties 146 Philadelphia gas trustees . . . 146 Poor rates 146 Practice 146 Preference 147 President of company . . . . 147 Price of gas 147 Profits 147 Public or private corporation . . 147 Public nuisance 149 Quo warranto, writ of . 149 Hailroad company 150 Ratification 160 Beal estate 150 Fasi Beceirer ISO Regulations 151 Bent 151 Bescission 151 Biparian rights 151 Salary 151 Seal i51 Slander of title 151 State, rights of 151 Statutes 151 Stock of gas companies 1. Subscriptions 158 2. Sales and transfers . . . 161 Stockholders 163 Strike 163 Subrogation 163 Supervisors . 163 Supply of gas 1. Obligation to supply . . . 163 2. No obligation 165 3. Statutory obligations . . 169 Surety 173 System of company 174 Taxation 1. United States statutes . . 174 2. Great Britain 178 3. Scotch 182 4. Irish 182 Title of act 183 Trespass 183 Trover 184 'Trustee 184 U. S. revenue 184 Ultra vires 184 Waiver 185 Wells, injury to 185 Wharf 185 Words 185 TABLE OF CASES. A. Pagi AUen V. The New Gas Co L. R. 1 Exoh. Div. 251 . . 126 45 L. J. 668. Alliance & Dublin Consumers' Gas Co. V. Taaffe 27 Gas J. 206 65 Attorney General v. Cambridge Con- sumers' Gas Co L. R. 4 Ch. 71 .... 79 L. R. 6 Eq. 282. 17 Gas J. 427, 593, 811. 38 L. J. Ch. 94, 111., Attorney General v. Gas Light &• Coke Co. L. R. 3 Oh. D. 217 ... 142 L. R. 7 Ch. D. 217. 30 Gas J. 791, 827. Attorney General u. Mayor, &o. St. Helens Michael & Wells G^s & Water Supply, 11 . . . 83 Attorney General v. Sheffield Gas Con- sumers' Co 3D. McN. & G. 304 . . 79 17 Jut. 677. 22 L. J. Ch. 811. 19 Eng. L. & Eq. 639. 2 Gas J. 396, 419. ' B. Bailey v. Citizens' Gas Light Co. . . . 27 N. J. Eq. 196 ... . 163 Bailey v. Pittsburg & ConneUsyiUe Gas, Coal, & Coke Co 69 Pa. St. 334 158 Barnes v. Trenton Gas Light Co. . . . 27 N. J. Eq. 33 . . . . 6 Bartlett v. Boston Gas Light Co. . . . 117 Mass. 533 ... . 58, 86 122 Mass. 209 . . 65, 123, 128 Bedding «. Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co 7 Gas J. 418 173 XU TABLE OP CASES. Benson v. Maiden & Melrose Gas Light Page Co 6 AUen, 149 39 Beverly v. Lincoln Gas Light & Coke Co. 6 Ad. & Ellis, 829 .. . 9 Birmmgham Gas Light & Coke Co., In re Adams L. E. 11 Eq. 204 . . . . 12 Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas Light Co., J»i re Fanshaw L. K. 11 Eq. 615 . . '. . 11 Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas Co. v. RatcUff L. E. 6 Exch. 224 .. . 1 Blanchard v. Dedham Gas Light Co. . . 12 Gray, 213 161 Blenkiron v. Great Central Gas Con- sumers' Co 2 Post. & Fin. 437 .. . 110 3 L. T. E. 317. 9 Gas J. 292, 776. Bloomfleld & Eochester Natural Gas Light Co. V. Calkins 62 N. Y. 386 . . . 40, 56, 76 1 N. Y. Supreme, 549. Bloomfleld & Eochester Natural Gas Co. V. Eichardson 63 Barb. 437 ... . 17, 148 Boothman ». Mayor, &c. of Burnley . . 20 Gas J. 585 112 Boston ?). Eichardson 13 AUen, 160 .... 40, 76 Briggs V. Massey 46 Law T. Eep. N. s. 354 . 162 Broadhent v. Imperial Gas Co 7 House of Lords Cas. 600 137 7 De G. McN. & Gr. 436. 5 Jur. N. s. 1319. 9 Gas J. 751. 5 Gas J. 342. Brown et al. v. lUius 25 Conn. 583 . .118, 131, 132 27 Conn. 84. Brown v. La Crosse City Gas Light & Coke Co 21 Wis. 51 ..... . 6 Brown v. New York Gas Light Co. . . Anthon N. P. Cas. 351 . . 115 Buesching, Adm'x v. St. Louis Gas Light Co 73 Mo. 219 115 6 Mo. App. Cas. 85. 6 Cent. L. J. 85. Burrows v. March Gas & Coke Co. . . L. E. 7 Exch. 96 . . . 107, 124 L. E. 5 Exch. 67. 39 L. J. Exch. 33. 41 L. J. Exch. 46. 21 Gas J. 132. 18 Gas J. 619. 26 L. T. N. 8. 318. Butcher v. Providence Gas Co 12 E. I. 149 . . 60, 108, 124 18 Alh. L. J. 372. TABLE OP CASES. XIU Pagk Butt V. Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co. . L. R. 2 Ch. 158 .... 143 14 L. T. E. 349. 15 Gas J. 139. C. Calkins v. Bloomfleld & Eochester Nat- ural Gas Co 1 N. Y. Supreme, 541 . 76, 184 Capital City Gas Light Co. v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co 51 Iowa, 31 75 Carhart v. Auburn Gas Light Co.. ... 22 Barb. 297 ... . 131, 137 Chadwick «. Corporation of Wigan . . 28 Gas J. 562 Ill Chamberlain v. Worcester New Gas Light Co 25 Gas J. 842 49 26 Gas J. 25. Chapman v. Grays Gas Co 13 Gas J. 448 81 Chartered Gas Light Co. v. Great Central Gas Cons. Co 1 Gas J. 322 81 Chisholm v. The Atlanta Gas Light Co. . 57 Ga. 28 109 Church V. Imperial Gas Light «& Coke Co 6 Ad. & El. 846 ... . 9 Cincinnati Gas Light & Coke Co. v. State of Ohio 18 Ohio St. 237 ... . 16 Cincinnati Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Bow- man 1 Handy (Superior Ct., Ohio), 289 177 Citizens' Gas Light Co. v. Assessors of Brooklyn 6 N. Y. Transcript, Ap. 116, 74 City of Brooklyn v. Fulton Municipal Gas Co 7 Abb. N. Gas. 19 . . . 79 City of Brooklyn v. Jourdan .... 7 Abb. N. Gas. 23 . . . 66 City of Detroit v. Mutual Gas Light Co. etal , . . . 5 North "West. E. 1039 . . 30 City of London Gas Co. v. Nicholls . . 2 Car. & Payne, 365 . . 9 City of Memphis v. Memphis Gayoso Gas Co 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 531 . . 95 City of Philadelphia v. The Collector . 5 WaU. 720 174 City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gas Light Co 70 Mo. 69 .... 8, 55, 102 5 Mo. App. 484. Clarke v. Lnperial Gas Light & Coke Co. 4 Bam. & Ad. 315 ... 46 1 Nev. & M. 206. Cleveland et al. v. Citizens' Gas Light Co. 20 N. J. Eq. 201 ... . 138 Cleveland v. Spier 16 Com. B. (n. b.) 399 . . 110 Coatesville Gas Co. v. County of Chester 97 Pa. St. 476 178 XIV TABLE OF CASES. Collingwood Gas Co. v. Mayor, &c., of Pao« Fitzroy 6 W. A'B. & W. 72 . . 181 1 Aus. Jurist, 82. Colonial & General Gas Co., Limited, In re 20 Gas J. 10 43 19 W. R. 344. 23 L. J. N. s. 759. Columbus Gas Light & Coke Co. v, Free- land 12 Ohio St. 392 .. . . 130 Commercial Bank of Canada v. London Gas Co Up. Can. 20 Q. B. E. 233 . 169 Commercial Gas Co. v. Scott . . . . L. R. 10 Q. B. 400 . . . 173 25 Gas J. 889. Commercial Un. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lister 23 Gas J. 364, 398 ... 84 Commissioners v. Northern Liberties Gas Co 12 Pa. St. 318 .... 96 Commonwealth v. Lowell Gas Light Co. 12 Allen, 75 . . 74, 149, 166 Commonwealth v. Shaw 4 AUen, 308 87 Copeland v. Citizens' Gas Light Co. . 61 Barb. 60 89 Corporation of Glasgow v. Patrick, Hill- head, & Maryhill Gas Co 22 Gas J. 54 129 Crescent City Gas Light Co. v. N. 0. Gas Light Co 27 La. Ann. 138 . 20, 21, 22, 29 Croft & Hurworth Gas Co. v. Pryor .. 31 Gas J. 386 36 Crosley v. Derby Gas Light Co. ... 3 Mylne & Cr. 428 .. . 144 Custar V. Titusyille Gas & Water Co. . 63 Penn. St. 381 ... . 160 D. Davenport Gas Light & Coke Co. v. City of Davenport 15 Iowa, 6 33 Davenport Gas Light Co. v. City of Da- venport 13 Iowa, 229 . 27, 58, 61, 141 Davenport Central Railway Co. v. Daven- port Gas Light Co . . 43 Iowa, 301 5, 64 Decatur Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Howell 92 111. 19 143 Des Moines Gas Co. v. City of Des Moines 44 Iowa, 505 80 Des Moines Gas Co. v. West .... 50 Iowa, 16 12 Devine v. Tarrytown & Irvington Un. Gas Light Co 29 N. Y. Supreme, 26 . . 5 32 N. T. Supreme, 231. Dicks V. Eqtiitable Gas Co 8 Gas J. 328, 631 ... 170 Dillon V. Washington Gas Light Co. . . 1 MacArthur, 626 ... 108 Dorr V. Dansville Gas Light Co. . . . 25 N. Y. Supreme (18 Hun) 274 141 TABLE OF CASES. XV Dover Gas Light Co. v. Mayor, &c. of Pa™ Dover 4 Gas J. 129, 176 . ... 16 7 De G. McN. & G. 545. Dunston et al. v. Imperial Gas Light & Cote Co 3 Bam. & Adol. 125 . , 47 E. East Eiver Gas Light Co. v. Donnelly etal. 32 N. Y. Supreme (25 Hun), 614 30 East St. Louis v. East St. Louis Gas Light & Coke Co 98 111. 415 103 Edge ware Highway Board v. Harrow District Gas Co L. R. 10 Q. B. 92 ... 35 24 Gas J. 793. Elliott V. Bishop 10 Exch. 512 EUis V. London Gas Light Co 32 Gas J. EUis V. Sheffield Gas Consumers' Co. Elmira Gas Light Co. v. City of Elmira Emerson v. Lowell Gas Light Co. . . 10 Exch. , 512 . . . 71 32 Gas J . 849 . , . 109 2 Ellis & Bl. 757 . . 140 18 Jur. : 146 2 Alb. L , J. 392 . , , . 26 3 Allen, 410 . 50, 55, 56, 59, 60,63 6 Allen, 146 . , 56,60 3 Gas J. 596 . . , , . 34 Equitable Gas Co. v. Jonassohn F, Fare ». Bath Gas Light & Coke Co. . . 25 Gas J. 566 Ill Farquharson ». Alliance & Dublin Gas Co 22 Gas J. 1085 .... Ill Fellwood V. Pearson 23 Gas J. 248 .... 41 Ferguson v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co. 37 How. Br. 189 .... 155 Fishers. Harrisburg Gas Co 1 Penn. (Pearson) 118 . . 44 Fisken v. Glasgow Gas Light Co. . . 12 Dunlop, 757 .... 36 22 Jur. 262. Fletcher v. Titusville Gas & Water Co. 8 Phila. R. 559 ... . 44 Flint V. Gloucester Gas Light Co. . . 3 Allen, 343 3, 4 9 Allen, 552. Ford V. Brooklyn Gas Light Co. . . . 10 N. Y. Supreme (3 Hun), 621 172 Foster ». Trustees of Philadelphia. Gas- Works 12 Phila. 511 96 Fowler v. Chartered Gas Co 17 Gas J. 908 172 Funk V. Brigaldi . 4 Daly,, 359 69 XVI TABLE OF CASES. G. Page Galbreath v. Armour 4 Bell's App. Cases, 374 . 77 Garrison v. City of CMcago et al. . . . 7 Bissell, 480 100 Gas Co. V. The Charter Oak Ins. Co. . 19 Alb. L. J. 501 ... 74 Gas Light Co. of Baltimore v. CoUirlay 25 Md. 1 39, 165 Gas Co. V. Pittsburgh 101 U. S. (11 Otto) 219 . 175 Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Ttirner . . 7 Scott, 779 89 8 Scott, 609. 5 Bing. N. C. 666. 6 Bing. N. C. 324. Gas Co. V. Russell et al Up. Can. 6 Q. B. R. 567 . 159 Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Vestry of St. George, Hanover Sq 42 L. J. (N. S. Q. B.) 50 . 154 Gas Light Impi:ovement Co. v. Terrell . L. R 10 Eq. 168 . . . 45, 47 Gibbs et al., Petitioners to be incorpo- rated as Gas Company 3 Pittsburg, 499 .... 159 Gill V. Continental Union Gas Co. . . L. R. 7 Exch. 332 ... 161 Glasgow Gas Commissioners i". Solicitor of Inland Revenue 3 Ct. of Sess. R. 4th Series, 857 182 Glasgow Gas Light Co. v. Adamson . . 1 Macph. 727 182 35 Jur. 410. Grange v. Pately Bridge Gas & Water Co 14 Gas J. 309 .... 134 Gray v. Boston Gas Light Co 114 Mass. 149 41 Great Central Gas Consumers' Co. v. Clarke 13 C. B. n. s. 838 ... 156 11 C. B. N. s. 811. 11 Gas J. 89, 763. Great Central Gas Consumers' Co. v. Tallis etal 3 Gas J. 5 32 Griffiths V. City of London Gas Co. . . 16 Gas J. 139 125 Guthrie V. Jones 108 Mass. 191 72 H. Hacker v. London Gas Light Co. ... 32 Gas J. 781 109 Hacker et al. v. City of Philadelphia . 6 Phila. 94 29 Halfhide v. Worthing Gas Co 22 Gas J. 136 171 Hampton 1). Cradley Heath Gas Co. . . 14 Gas J. 606 117 Hampton /y. Oxford Gas Co 3 Gas J. 64 34 Hann «. Weymouth Gas Consumers' Co. . 18 Gas J. 186 112 Harlem Gas Light Co. v. Mayor, &c. of New York 33 N. Y. 309 loi TABLE OP CASES. XTXl Fade Haysw Doane 3 Stockton (N. J.), 84. . 73 Hays V. Gallon Gas Light & Coal Co. . 29 Ohio St. 330 ... . 43 Hemstead v. Phoenix Gas Light & Coke Co 14 Gas J. 399 127 3 Hurl. & C. 745. 11 Jurist, N. s. 621. 13 W. E. 662. Hendrie v. Lea Bridge District Gas Light & Coke Co. 21 Gas J. 949, 989 .. . 134 Heysham v. Dettre 89 Penn. St. 506 ... . 72 Hibernian Gas Light Co. v. Parry . . . Long. & Town. 344 ... 10 4 Ir. L. K. 453. Rill, Ex parte, In re 'Roberta . . . . L. R. 6 Ch. D. 63 . . . 11 Hills V. The London Gas Light Co. . . 5 H. & N. 312 .... 145 5 Gas J. 671. Hills V. Gas Light Go 13 Gas J. 877 129 Hipkins t>. Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas Light Co 6 H. & N. 250 157 5 H. & N. 74. 9 Gas J. 63, 778. Hirst V. Lbngwood Gas Co 30 Gas J. 596 83 Hoddeson Gas & Coke Co. v. Hasel- wood . 6 C. B. (n. s.) 238 . . . 168 8 Gas J. 261. Holden v. Liverpool New Gas & Coke Co 3 Com. B. 1 122 3 Man. Gr. & S. 1. Holly v. Boston Gas Light Co, . . . 8 Gray, 123 . 50,61,62,119, 120, 128 Holt V. Gas Light & Coke Co L. R. 7 Q. B. 728 .. . 41 Houghton, In re 27 N. Y. Supreme (20 Hun), 395 37 Houlgate v. Surrey Consumers' Gas Co. . 8 Gas J, 261 . . . . . 168 Hulett I). Pudsey Gas Co 28 Gas J. 663 . . . . . 116 Hunt V. Lowell Gas Light Co 1 Allen, 343 . . 58, 119, 120 3AUen, 418 .... 64,127 Hunt et al. v. Lowell Gas Light Co. . . 8 Allen, 169 .. . 57, 59, 138 Hutchinson v. Boston Gas Light Co. . . 122 Mass. 219 105 Hutchinson v, Surrey Consumers' Gas Light & Coke Ass 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 474 . . 156 21 Law J. (n. 8.) C. P. 1. Hyde Park Gas Company v. Kerber . . 5 111. App. 132 .... 151 XVIU TABLE OF CASES. Imperial Continental Gas Association v. Pa™ Nicholson 37 L. T. E. (n. s.) 717 Exch. Div 179 Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Broad- bent 7 H. L. Cases, 600 .. . 137 9 Gas J. 751. Imperial' Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Chauntler et al 2 Gas J. 362 129 Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Clarke 7 Bing. 95 57 Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Lon- don Gas Light Co 26 Eng. L. & EiJ. 425 . . 137 10 Exch. 39. 3 Gas J. 483. Imperial Gas Co. v. Porter 5 Gas J. 372, 403 .... 69 Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co. v. West London Junction Gas Light & Coke Co 1 Cox, Joint S. Co. Cases, 648 157 14 Weekly R. 1019. 15 L. J. E. 66. Indianapolis, City of, v. Indianapolis Gas Light Co 66 Ind. 396 100 J. Jarechi v. Philharmonic Society ... 79 Penn. St. (29 P. F. Smith), 403 .... 72 Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight . . . 29 N. J. Eq. 242 . . 67, 80 Johnson's Executor v, Wiseman's Exec- utor 4 Met. (Ky.) 357 ... . 70 K. Keeler v. Keeler 31 N. J. Eq. 191 . . . . 70 Kettening Gas Co. v. Leach .... 24 Gas J. 503 104 Kilgour 0. New Orleans Gas Light Co. . 2 Woods (C. C), 145 . . 161 Kilmarnock Gas Light Co. v. Smith . . 11 Ct. of Sess. Cases, 58, 3d Series 86 21 Gas J. 954. Kimmell v. Burfeind 2 Daly 155 87 TABLE OP CASES. XIX F^QE Lanigan v. New York Gas Light Co. . . 71 N. T. 29 . . . . 106, 113 Lannen v. Albany Gas Light Co. . . . 46 Barb. 264 . . . 2, 118, 120 44 N. Y. 459. Lawrence v. Kemp 1 Duer (N. Y.), 363 . . 72 Littlewood v. Equitable Gas Co. ... 8 Gas J. 541 171 Liverpool United Gas Light Co. v. Over- seers, &c. of Everton L. R. 6 C. P. 414 . . . . 181 Loan V. City of Boston 106 Mass. 450 78 Local Board of Worksop o. Worksop Gas Co 22 Gas J. 96 157 London Gas Co. v. CampbeU .... Up. Can. 14 Q. B. E. 143 . 159 London Gas Light Co. v. Vestry of Chel- sea 8 C. B. N. S. 215 . . . . 26 9 Gas J. 292. Lowden v. Drighlington & Gridlestone Gas Light Co 29 Gas J. 927 83 M. Mailing v. London Gas Light Co. . . . 12 Gas J. 99 112 Manhattan Gas Light Co. v. Barker . . 7 Robertson, 523 .... 133 Manhattan Gas Light Co. v. Ely ... 39 Barb. 174 35 Maughan v. Leamington Priors Gas Co. . 15 Gas J. 878 48 15 L. T. R. 437. Mayor of Limerick v. Commissioners . Ir. R. 6 C. L. 420 .... 183 McCamus v. Citizens' Gas L. Co. . . 40 Barb. 380 35 McCune v. Norwich City Gas Co. . . 30 Conn. 521 . . 50, 147, 166 McDougaU V. Fogg 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 387 . . . 145 Medex b. Gas Light & Coke Co. ... 15 Gas J. 75 125 Memphis City v. Dean 8 Wall. 64 158 Memphis Gas Light Co. v. State ... 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 310 . . . 75 Memphis Gayoso Gas Co. v. Williamson . 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 314 . . 91 Mersey Docks & Harbor Board v. Liver- pool Un. Gas Co 26 Gas J. 327 109 Metropolitan Gas Light Co. v. Mayor &c. of New York 4 Weekly Dig. (N. Y.) 82 . 10 MUlington v. Directors Biggleswade Gas L. & Coke Co 23 Gas J. 215 .... . 131 MiUington v. Griffiths 30 L. T. (n. s.) 65 . . . 153 Milwaukee Gas Light Co. v. Schooner "Gamecock" 23 Wis. 144 103,117 Mitcham Gas Co. v. Wimbledon Local Board 30 Gas J. 600 152 XX TABLE OP CASES. Page Montague v. Dent 10 Richardson (S. 0.) 135 . 71 Morey v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co. . 38 N. Y. Superior, 185 . 38, 169 Mose et ux, v. Hastings & St. Leonards Gas Co 4 Post. & Fin. 324 ... 106 13 Gas J. 231. Moylan v. Alliance & DubHa Consumers' Gas Co Ir. R. 6 C. L. 294 . . . 183 Municipal Chamber of Hamburg v. Gas Co 5 Gas J. 710 103 Municipality of New Orleans v. New Orleans Gas Light Co 5 La. An. 439 141 Nassau Gas Light Co, v. Brooklyn . . 32 N. Y. Supreme (25 Hun), 567 .' . 175 Nebraska City v. Nebraska City Hydrau- lic Gas Light & Coke Co 9 Neb. 339 ... . 28, 29, 177 2 North West. R. 870. New Orleans City Gas Light Co. v. Board of Assessors 31 La. An. 475 .... 175 New Orleans ». Clark 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 644 . . 13 New Orleans Gas Light & B. Co. v. Paulding 12 Robinson (La.), 378 . . 164 New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Louisiana, &o. Man. Co 11 Federal Reporter, 277 . 25 New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. ». Metropolitan Gas Light Co 63 N. Y. 326 . . . . 53, 148 12 Supreme, 201. New York Gas Light Co. v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co 2 Hall, 108 84 New York Mutual Gas Light Co, v. City .ofNewYork 49 How, Pr, 227 . ... 27 Norwich Gas Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas Co 25 Conn. 19 . 23, 81, 82, 184 0. Oil City Gas Co. v. Robinson .... 13 Reporter, 253 ... , 114 Ottawa Gas Light Co. v. Graham . . . 28 IlL 73 39 35 HI. 346 56, 59 Ottawa Gas Light Co. v. Thompson , . 39 111. 598 . . . . 132, 137 TABLE OP CASES, XXI Page Painter v. Liverpool Oil Gas Co. ... 3 Ad. & El. 433 ... . 7 Parkin v. Wirksworth Gas Co 26 Gas J. 946 120 Parry v. Croydon Commercial Gas Co. . 15 C. B. n. s. 568 . . . 152 11 Com. B. N. s. 578. Parry v. Smith L. B,. 4 C. P. Div. 325 . . 3 33 Gas J. 899. Paterson Gas Co. v. Brady 27 N. J. (3 Butcher) 245 . 167 Patterson v. Gas Light & Coke Co. . . L. R. 2 Ch. D. 812 .. . 146 30 Gas J. 948. L. R. 3 App. Cases H. L. 239. Pearson v. Phoenix Gas Co 12 Gas J. 69 . . .' . . 171 Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Thackera . 13 Reporter, 731 .... 73 11 W. N. 391. Penny v. Rossendale Union Gas Co. . . 14 Gas J. 927 173 Pennsylvania Globe Gas Light Co. v. Scranton 97 Pa. St. 538 .... 30 People, &c. ex rel. Citizens' Gas Light Co. ». Assessors of Brooklyn . . . 6 N. Y. Trans. Ap. 116 . 74 People ex rel. WiUiamsburg Gas Co. v. Assessors of Brooklyn 23N.Y. Supreme (16 Hun) 196 177 76 N. Y. 202. People, &c. of State of New York v. Bowen 30 Barb. 241 18 21 N. Y. 517. People ex rel. Kennedy v. Manhattan Gas Light Co 45 Barb. 136 ... . 93, 169 People ex rel. Maybury v. Mutual Gas Light Co. of Detroit 38 Mich. 154 ... . 67, 149 People. V. Mutual Gas Light Co. of ■ Brooklyn 74 K. Y. 434 64 136 People, &c. V. New York Gas Light Co. 64 Barb. 55 6 Lansing, 467. People, &o. ex rel. Buffalo Mutual Gas Light Co. V. Steele 56 N. Y. 664 . . . 1 Sheldon, 345. People V. San Francisco Gas Light Co. . 54 Cal. 248 .... People ex rel. San Francisco Gas Co. v. Supervisors of San Francisco ... 11 Cal. 42 ... . People ex rel. Gas Light Co. of Syracuse V. Common Council 78 N. Y. 56 . . . 9 N. Y. "Weekly R. 43. People V. Wilber 4 Parker Cr. C. 19 . 176 49 92 92 68 xxil TABLE OP CASES. Page Perdicaries v. Charleston Gas Light Co. . 1 Hughes (U. S. Circ), 69 162 Perrin v. London Gas Light Co. . . . 12 Gas J. 99 112 Phoenix Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Dethick 14 Gas J. 536 36 Phcenix Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Shillito 19 Gas J. 848 34 Pocock V. Corporation of Brighton . . 31 Gas J. 429 98 Pottstown Gas Co. v. Murphy .... 39 Pa. St. 257 . . 130, 136 Poughkeepsie Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Co. 27 N. Y. Supreme (20 Hun), 214 51 9 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 451. Preston v. Ha)'ton & Eohy Gas Co. . . 25 Gas J. 889 31 Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber . . . 2 R. I. 15 51, 75 Pudsey Coal Gas Co. v. Corporation of Bradford L. B. 15 Eq. 167 . . . . 167 22 Gas J. 54. Q. Queen v. Camhridge Gas Light Co. . . 3 N. & P. 262 .... 179 8 Ad. & El. 73. Queen v. Firth L. R. 1 Cr. Cases, 172 . . 88 Queen v. Shefiield United Gas Light & Coke Co 32L. J. (M. C.)169. . . 178 9 Jur. N. s. 623. E. Eapson v. Cubitt Car. & Marsh. 64 . . . 38, 116 9 M. & W. 710. Read v. Memphis Gayoso Gas Co. . . 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 545 . . 160 Eegina ». Colne VaUey Gas Co. . . . 29 Gas J. 498, 781 .. . 139 30 Gas J. 218. Eegina, &o. Phosnix Gas Light & Coke Co. V. Inhabitants of Lee L. B. 1 Q. B. 241 . . . . 179 Eegina v. Jenkins . . . . 5 Gas J. 214 89 Eegina v. Longton Gas Co 8 Gas J. 165 . ... 140 29 L. J. (M. C.) 118. 9 Gas J. 114. 2 L. T. E. 14. 2 El. & El. 650. 8 Cox, Cr. C. 317. Eegina v. Mitchell 22 Gas J. 137 88 Eegina v. White Dearsley, C. C. 203 . . . 88 17 Jur. 536. 22 L. J. N. s. (M. C.) 123. 6 Cox, Cr. C. 213. 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 585. TABLE OP CASES. XXIU Rex V. Birmingham Gas Light & Coke f^™ Co 1 Bam. & Or. 506 .. . 180 Eex V. Birmingham and StaflFordshire Gas Light Co 6 Ad. & E. 634 .... 181 Eex V. Brighton Ga_s Light & Coke Co. 5 Barn. & Cr. 466 .. . 180 Rex V. London Gas Light & Coke Co. . 8 Barn. & Cr. 54 . . . . 180 Rex V. Medley . 6 Car. & P. 292 . . . . 133 Richmond County Gas Light Co v. Mid- dletown 1 N. Y. Supreme Ct. 433 . 94 59 N. Y. 228. Robinson v. Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co 15 Gas J. 883 113 Roche V. Milwaukee Gas Light Co.' . . 5 Wis. 55 99 RogeiB V. Crow , • 40 Mo. 91 73 Rome Gas Light Co. v. Meyerhardt . . 61 Ga. 287 52 S. Samuel u. Cardiff Gas Co 18 Gas J. 192 170 San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco 6 Cal. 190 100 9 Cal. 453 101 Sauvage v. English Gas Co. of Paris . . 4 Gas J. 136 107 Schaus V. Manhattan Gas Light Co. , . 36 N. Y. Superior, 262 . . 65 14 Abb. Pr. n. s. 371. Schermerhom v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co 5 Daly, 144 123 Scott V. Mayor, &c. of Manchester . . 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 495 . . 98 Selby u. Crystal PaL District Gas .Co. . 11 Gas J. 398 153 6 L. T. R. 790. SOBeav. 606. Sewell V. Angerstein 18 L. T. E. n. s. 300 . . 69 Shaw V. Lenke 1 Daly, 487 71 Sheffield United Gas Co. v. Sheffield Cousumfers' Co 2 Gas J. 360 80 Sheffield Gas Co. v. Overseers of Shef- field 8 L. T. R. 692 .... 182 Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co. . 6 Wis. 539 164 15 Wis. 318 38 Shepherd v. MUivaukee Gas Light Co. . 11 Wis. 234 .... 7, 165 Sherman v. FaU River Iron Works Co. 2 Allen, 524 ... . 86, 135 5 Allen, 213 134 Shuter u. The City 3 Phila. 228 135 Smith V. Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas Co 3 Nev. & M. 771 ... . 4 1 Ad. & El. 526. XXIV TABLE OP CASES. Page Smith V. Boston Gas Light Co. ... 129 Mass. 318 ... 62, 121 Smith V. Citizens' Gas & Gas Fuel Co. . 5 Weekly Notes of Oases (Pa.) 97 33 Smith w. London Gas Co 7 Grant (Chan.), 112. (Up. Can.) Smith V. Metropolitan Gas Light Co. . 12 How. Pr. 187 . . . Soule V. San Francisco Gas Light Co. . 54 Cal. 241 South Essex Gas Co. In re, ex parte Stears Johns. 480 46 Sparling v. Parker 9 Beav. 450 94 Spratt V. South Metropolitan Gas Co. . 7 Gas J. 663 172 Stanley v. Western Insurance Co. . . . L. R. 3 Exch. 71 ... . 85 State ex rel. Attorney General v. Colum- bus Gas Light & Coke Co 34 Ohio St. 572 ... . 19 State ex rel. Hawksworth v. Crescent City Gas Light Co 24 La. Ann. 318 ... . 91 State ex rel. Phillips v. New Orleans Gas Light Co 25 La. Ann. 413 ... . 93 State ex rel. New Orleans Gas Light Co. V. Mayor, &c. of New Orleans ... 32 La. Ann. 268 ... . 92 ' State of Louisiana v. New Orleans Gas Light Co 25 La. Ann. 398 ... . 17 State of Louisiana v. New Orleans Gas Light & Banking Co 2 Robinson, 529 ... . 20 State of Ohio v. Cincinnati Gas Light & Coke Co 18 Ohio St. 262. 15,23,54,66,150 State ex rel. Attorney General v. Ironton Gas Co 37 Ohio St. 45 .... 97 State of Wisconsin ■». Milwaukee Gas Light Co 29 Wis. 454 ... . 21, 22 Stears v. South Essex Gas Light & Coke Co 3 Law T. R, 472 . . . . 47 9 C. B. N. s. 180. St. John Gas Co. v. Clarke 1 Pugsley & Burbr. 307 (New Br.) .... 153 St. Louis Gas Light Co. v. City of St. Louis 46 Mo. 121 97 Strawbridge v. City of Philadelphia . . 13 Reporter, 216 . . 62, 95, 118 Symonds v. Gas Light & Coke Co. . . 11 Beav. 283 57 25 19 175 Taylor v. Crowland Gas & Coke Co. . Terre Haute Gas Co. v. Teel et wx. . Thacher v. Boston Gas Light Co. . . 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 516 . . 154 20 Ind. 131 142 2 Lowell (U. S.), 361 . . 24 TABLE OP CASES. XXV Faoe Thompson v. Sunderland Gas Co. . . . L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 429 . . 154 29 Gas J. 378. 30 Gas J. 13. Thompson v. Thompson 1 CoUyer, 381 94 Tilly V. Slough Gas & Coke Co. . . . 17 Gaa J. 231 130 Tilson et al. v. Warwick Gas Light Co. . 4 Barn. & Cr. 962 .. . 42 Torquay Gas Co. v. Carter 32 Gas J. 490 32 Towne v. Fiske 127 Mass. 125 71 U. United Life Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. ». Foote 2 Insurance Law J. 190 85 VaUee es quaUtfe v. New City Gas Co. . 7 Am. L. Rev. 767 . . . 117 Vaughen o. Haldeman 33 Pa. St. (9 Casey) 522 . 70 Vickerman v. Leeds New Gas Co. ... 15 Gas J. 654 125 "Victoria Docks Gas Co. v. Burton ... 16 Gas J. 103 31 Virginia City Gas Co. v. Mayor, &c. of Virginia City 3 Nev. 320 15 "W. Wall V. Hinds 4 Gray, 256 71 Wandsworth & Putney Gas Light & Coke Co. V. Wright 19 Gas J. 407 45 18 W. R. 728. Ward V. Gas Light & Coke Co. ... 14 Gas J. 915 126 15 Gas J. 45, 75. 16 Gas J. 10, 38, 74, 108. Warren v. Wilder 20 Gas J. 892 4 Watson w. Gas Co 5 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 262 . . 142 Weld V. Gas Light Co 1 Starkie, 189 63 West Chester Gas Co. v. County of Ches- ter 30 Pa. St. (6 Casey) 232 . 178 Western Saving Fund So. v. City of PhQa 31 Pa. St. (7 Casey) 175, 185 28 Wetmore o. Brooklyn Gas Light Co. . . 42 N. Y. 384 . . . . 104, 185 Wheeling Gas Co. v. Wheeling ... 8 West Va. 320 ... . 14 Whitehouse v. Liverpool New Gas Light & Coke Co 5 C. B. 798 33 5 M. Gr. & S. 798. WiUiamsport Gaa Co. v. Pinkerton .. 95 Pa. St. 62 13 \ XXvi TABLE OP CASES, Worcester Gas Light Co. v. City of f^o* "Worcester 110 Mass. 353 31 Wragg V. Commercial Gas Co 33 Gas J. 119, 313 .. . 139 Wray v. Evans 80 Pa. St. 102 37 Wren v. Cosmopolitan Gas Works Co. . 9 N. Y. Supreme, 666 . . 146 5 N. Y. Supreme (T. & C.) 686. Wright V. Colchester Gas Co 30 Gas J. 336 155 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES GAS COMPANIES. ACCOUNT. Practice. — Fraud. — Statute. — The plaintiffs sued the defend- ant for the price of 7,129,300 cubic feet of gas, sold and deliv- ered during a period of nearly five years. The defendant as to part of the claim, paid money into court, and pleaded as to the residue " never indebted " and full satisfaction and payment. He then obtained an order under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, § 3, compulsorUy referring the action on the ground that the matter in dispute was wholly or in part one of "mere account " which could not conveniently be tried by a jury. The plaintiffs tried to rescind this order, alleging that they pro- posed at the trial to prove that the defendants bad been guilty of fraudulent conduct by the secret abstraction of their gas, and that upon this question, which would regulate the damages awarded, they were entitled to a verdict of a jury, but it was held that the imputation of fraud made no difference; that it was matter of " mere account," and could not be 'conveniently tried by a jury. Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas Co. v. Ratcliff, L. R. 6 Exch. 224 (1871). See DiEECTOES, 1 ; Evidence, II. ; Mandamus, 2 ; Patents, 1. ACTION. See Trover ; Assumpsit ; Quo Warranto ; Mandamus ; Debt ; Trespass; Agency, 12; Charter, 6, 11, 16; Contract, 3, 4, 5, 7, 1 2 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. 12, 14, 15; Contractor, 1, 2, 3 j Damages;. Director, 2, 7; Evi- dence ; Fraudulent Taking, 2 ; Highway ; Landlord and Tenant ; - Municipality, IV. ; Statutes, 3. ADMISSION'S. See Evidence, 21. AGENCY. I. Negligence of Agent. 1. Negligence of Agent. — Explosion. — In an action for dam- aged for injuries received from the explosion of gas, it appeared that the defendants had introduced gas into a house occupied hy the plaintiff by means of pipes leading through the cellar wall, and that an escape of gas occurred, of \?hich the company were promptly notified ; that they at once sent one of their servants — a common laborer — to ascertain where the leak was, and that he lighted a match in the cellar, causing a terrific explosion, by which the house was blown to pieces and the plaintifi' seriously injured ; and it was held that " the evidence of the defendants' negligence was clear and decisive ; that the casualty was the direct and immediate consequence of the explosion, and this was caused by the negligent act of the defendants' agent ; " that " S. wa^ exclusively the defendants' agent," and that the act done was in the line of his agency, and that " S.'s duties ex- tended to such an examination as was necessary to determine the locality of the leak wherever it was, and the catastrophe originated in the improper method resorted to by him for the purpose of pursuing such examination ; " and that it was im- material that the leak was in the brass head, a pipe belonging to the plaintiff, and not in the service-pipe, the property of the defendants. Lannen v. Albany Gas-Light Co., 46 Barb. 264 ; s. o. 44 N. Y. 459. 2. Damages. — Ezplosion. — Former Agent. — A gas-light com- pany which has nothing to do with the gas pipes and fixtures inside of the meters, except to see that they are tight when they ADMISSIONS ; AGENCY, I. 8 turn on the gas in the buildings to which it furnishes gas, is not made responsible in damages for an injury caused by an explo- sion of gas in the plaintiff's room, into which it had escaped by reason of its having been negligently turned on while the end of a gas-pipe leading into the room was open, because it has, without making any objection, merely suffered and permitted a person, employed by the gas consumers to put in their pipes and fixtures, to let on the gas after so doing : the person having been pre- viously the defendant's agent to let on gas, but such agency had terminated some time before, and the plaintiff had been, in- formed of such termination ; and such permission is not suffi- cient to constitute such person an agent of the company, for whose acts it is responsible. Flint V. Gloucester Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 343 ; 9 Allen, 552. 3. Negligence. — Explosion. — The defendant, a gas-fitter, was employed by the plaintiff's master to repair a gas-meter upon his premises, and, for the purpose of doing so, found it necessary to take away the meter, and replaced it by a temporary connec- tion, consisting of a flexible tube between the inlet pipe and the pipe communicating with the house. The plaintiff having gone, in the ordinary performance of his duty, with a light into the cellar where the meter had been, gas, which had escaped by reason of the insufficiency of the connecting tube, exploded when he opened the cellar door, and injured him. The juiy found that the work had been negligently done, and that the injury to the plaintiff proceeded entirely from such negligence, and it was field by Lopes, J., that " the plaintiff's right of action was founded on a duty which attaches in every case where a person is using or is dealing with a highly dangerous thing, which, unless managed with greatest care, is calculated to cause injury to bystanders ;'' and the action was maintained. Parry v. Smith, L. B- 4 Com. PL D. 325 (J879) ; 33 Gas J. 899. 4. Action. — Liability for Tort. — Ratification. — No Appoint- ment by SeaL ^ In an action of trover for property of the bank- rupt converted by the defendants after the bankruptcy, it appeared that the goods had been distrained for money due the 4 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. defendants for gas supplied to the bankrupt before his bank- ruptcy ; that the seizure was made by one Lumley, who, it was admitted, had no authority under seal, but the plaintiff gave evi- dence to show that the proceeds of the sale had been received by the defendants ; and it was held that a corporation is liable in tort for the tortious act of its agent, though not appointed by seal, if such act be an ordinary service, such as a distress professedly made under a statute for a debt due to the corporation; and that a jury may infer the agency from an adoption of the act by the corporation, as from their having received the proceeds of the seizure. Smith V. Birmingham & Staflfordshire Gas-Light Co., 1 Adolph. & Ellis, 52e (1834) ; s. c. 3 Nev. & Man. 771. 5. Master and Servant. — Ezplosion of Gas. — In an action for damages for injuries received from an explosion of gas, it appeared that the, plaintiff was a barmaid in the employ of the defendant, and that the latter went with a lighted candle and " swab," to bind a gas-pipe from which gas was escaping in con- sequence of a " natural defect " therein ; that an explosion followed by which the plaintiff was injured ; that there was evidence that the pipe was stopped with putty, grease, and muck ; and the defendant denied that. he had taken the "swab" to mend the pipe with ; that, after a verdict was found for the plaintiff, leave was reserved to move for nonsuit, and it was held that a master was not liable for injuries that a servant suffers in the ordinary course of his employment, and the action could not be maintained. Warren v. Wilder, 20 Gas J. 892. Q. B. N. P. 6. Estoppel. — Action of Third Party. — Where the defend- ants permitted one T., although no longer in their employ, to turn on the gas for new customers when such customers desired - it, and the plaintiff knew that his connection with the defend- ants had ceased, and the turning on of the gas was properly the business of the company, it was held that these facts did not constitute T. the agent of the defendants, or estop them from denying bis agency. Flint V. Gloucester Gas-Light Co., 9 Allen, 552. AGENCY, II. 5 7. Negligence. — Principal and Agent. — Master and Servant. — In an action for damages against a gas company for negli- gence, it appeared that the defendant employed a gang of men, and the plaintiff among them, to dig a trench in the street for the purpose of examining one of their gas-pipes ; that these men were under the control, supervision, and direction of the superintendent or foreman of the gas company, who hired the men, and that the defendant paid them ; that in doing the work the superintendent misdirected the workmen, and, after the trench was dug, ordered them to undermine the street in such a way as to make the work dangerous ; that the plaintiff was examining the pipe when the earth which had been undermined fell upon him and broke his leg ; and it was held that a nonsuit was incorrectly ordered, and that a new trial must be granted, as the question whether tl^e work was negligently done was for the jury, and that the gas company were responsible for the negligent acts of the superintendent. Devine v. Tarrytown & Irvington Un. Gas-Light Co., 29 N. Y. Supreme Ct. 26 ; afarmed, 32 N. Y. Supreme Ct. 231. 8. Estoppel. — Admission of Agent. — A book-keeper and col- lector is not such an agent of a gas company as to make his statements about the location of their gas-pipes binding upon the gas company, even though other parties, relying upon his statements, have incurred expense and laid iron rails over the true position of the pipes. Davenport Central Railway Co. v. Davenport Gas- Light Co., 43 Iowa, 301 (1876). See Notice, 2. Eepresentations of Agent. See Estoppel, 1. Evidence of Agent. See Evidence, 1, 26, 27 ; Supply of Gas, 1, 4 ; Negligence, I., ,11., III. II. Authority of Officers. 9. Admission of Agent. — Mechanic's Lien. — Authority of President. — In an action to enforce a mechanic's lien for mate- 6 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. rials, it appeared that the president of the gas company pur- chased the goods, and they were used in the construction of the gas-works. The defendants denied the authority of the president to make the purchase, because the directors had not given him any authority ; but it was held that the gas company were liable, as the acts of one claimiag to act as agent bind the principal if known to and not disapproved by him ; and it appeared that the goods sued for had been knowingly used in the gas-works : and it was further held that the admission of the president of a gas company, that certain goods were purchased for and used by it, may be put in evidence in an action for the value of the goods. Brown v. La Crosse City Gas-Light & Coke Co., 21 Wia. 51 (1866). 10. Notice to Agent. — Sale by President. — On a bill in equity by a widow to recover her dower in real estate conveyed by the executors of the will to the president of the defendant company, who conveyed the property to the gas company, it was held that the gas company did not thereby have notice of any defect in the title, and that the rule that notice of facts to an agent was constructive notice thereof to the principal himself, had no application to a case of sale to a corporation by its presi- dent of property purchased by him in his private capacity, and in such a transaction the officer, in making the sale and convey- ance, stands as a stranger to the company ; that " where an of&cer of a corporation is dealing with them in his own interest opposed to theirs, he must be held not to represent them in the transaction so as to charge them with the knowledge he may possess, but which he has not communicated to them, and which they do not otherwise possess, of facts derogatory to the title he conveys," and that the bill must be dismissed. Barnes v. Trenton Gaa-Light Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 33 (1876). 11. Waiver by Secretary. — Application for Gas. — The su- perintendent of a gas company, who acts for the company in its relations with its custoiners, has authority to waive a regulation of the company requiring applications for a supply of gas to be in writing ; and in an action for damages for refusal to supply the plaintiff with gas, the company cannot set up as a defence the fact that such application was not in writing, when its su- perintendent had, by agreeing that the plaintiff should have gas after he had signed the rules and regulations, waived the regu- lation that the application should be in writing. Shepherd v. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 11 Wis. 234 (1860). 12. Application for Gas. — Principal and Agent. — Where a gas company requires that an application for a supply of gas shall be made by the customer in writing, the general agent and man- ager of the business of a merchant residing in Buffalo, but hav- ing an extensive mercantile business in Milwaukee, has implied power to authorize one of the clerks to make the demand for the merchant for a supply of gas from the Milwaukee gas com- pany, and such demand shall be as effectual as if made by the non-resident merchant himself Shepherd v. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 11 Wis. 234 (1860). See Charter, 1 ; Directors, 2, 5 ; President, Powers of ; Sxook OF Gas Companies, 5, 6, 7 ; Bonds, 3. Ill Liability of Agent in Action of Toet. 13. Trover, — Statute. — Justification. — In an action of trover for distraining the plaintiff's goods, the gas company justified under a warrant of a justice, under a statute by which a gas company, for rent unpaid,' could obtain a .warrant and levy on the property of a debtor, and alleged that the warrant was issued on the complaint of their collector, and that he, by virtue of it and under their authority, seized the plaintiff's goods for the purpose of levying a sum owing by him to them, and duly de- manded according to the act ; but it was held that this was a justification to the clerk or officer, but not to the company. Painter v. Liverpool Oil Gas Co., 3 Ad. & E. 433 (1836). See Nuisance, 10. 8 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. ANNUITY. See Damages, 2 ; Dieectors, 5 ; Negligence, 5. APPLICATION POR GAS. See Agbnct, 11 ; Supply of Gas. APPOINTMENT. See Agency, i. AEBITRATION. Price. — Mandamus. — Bqiiity. — Under its charter and a spe- cial contract, a gas company was obliged to sell to a city its gas- works, at a certain time and at a price to be fixed by arbitrators to be chosen by the city and the company in equal numbers, with an umpire, if necessary, to be chosen by the arbitrators. When the time fixed for the sale arrived, the city appointed its arbitrators and duly notified the company, but they refused to appoint any. A suit was brought by the city to compel the company to sell at a price fixed by the commissioners appointed by the court, and it was held that the action would not lie ; that it was an equita- ble proceeding to enforce the specific performance of a contract ; that equity would grant no relief when the price of such a sale remains to be fixed by arbitrators appointed by the parties ; that this rule is stUl stronger when the obligation to sell arises from a statute ; and that the proper form of action was by mandamus to compel the company to appoint arbitrators. City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gas-Light Co., 70 Mo. 69 (1879). See Chabteb, 1 ; Nuisance, 18. ASSESSMENT. See Taxation, 3; Stock of Gas Companies; Gas Fixtures; Mandamus, 5. ASSIGNMENT. See Director, 8. ANNUITY — ASSUMPSIT. ASSUMPSIT. 1. Action. — Partners. — Liability. — Seal. — - A gas company may maiutain assumpsit for gas supplied to the occupiers of a wharf, and it is not necessary in such a case that there should have been any contract by deed executed by the company. Both of two partners are liable for gas furnished, if they have both had the use of it, although the lease of the wharf upon which it is supplied is granted only to one of them. City of London Gas-Light Co. v. NichoUs, 2 Car. & P. 365, N. P. (1826;. 2. Action. — Parol Contract. — Goods Sold and Delivered. — A corporation, as a gas company, may be sued in indebitatus assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, though the contract be not under seal, and is a parol contract executed. The contract may be implied or express, as in cases of assumpsit against an individual. The implication may arise from the object of the incorporation, as compared with the subject-matter of the con- tract, as in assumpsit against an incorporated gas company for the price of gas-meters sold and delivered to the value of £15. In the case of corporations aggregate, as in that of individuals, if goods be taken on the terms of their being returned if not ap- proved, and they be retained an unreasonable time, the corpo- ration so taking and retaining may be sued for goods sold and delivered. Beverly v. Lincoln Gas-Light & Coke Co., 6 Ad. & E, 829 (1837). 3. Promise not under Seal. — Executory Contract. — A cor- poration created for the purpose of supplying gas may maintain assumpsit for a breach of a contract by the defendant to accept gas from year to year at a certain rate per annum, the considera- tion being alleged to be the promise of the company to supply it on those terms. Such promise by the company, though not under seal, is valid, and a good consideration. It makes no difference as to the right of a corporation to sue on a contract entered into by them without seal, whether the contract be executed or executory, or whether the promises be express or implied. Church V. Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co., 6 Ad. & E. 846 (1838.) 10 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. 4. Guaranty. — Forbearance to Sue. — Receiver. — The H. gas company having supplied gas to a hotel of which M. and L. were proprietors, for the price of which gas M. and L. were in- debted to the company, the defendant, who was the receiver of the profits of the hotel for M. and L., gave an undertaking to the gas company as such receiver, with the sanction of M. and L., that the sum so due should be paid within six months from the date thereof, and also undertook that the future supply of gas to the above concern should be discharged by him as it became due till further notice ; and it was held, on demurrer, that a sufficient consideration of forbearance to sue appeared on the face of this undertaking, to entitle the gas company to maintain assumpsit. Hibernian Gas-Light Co. v. Pany, Long. & Town. 344, 4 Ix. L. K. 453 (1841). 5. Contract. — Board of Audit. — In an action to recover the price of gas furnished the city for the public lights, it appeared that the claim for such gas was presented to the Board of Ap- portionment and Audit, and the president of the company ap- peared before the board and gave them information with regard to the subject-matter of the claim ; and it was held that the board was given the power to hear and decide the claim in con- troversy, and its decision cannot be disregarded or annuUed in a collateral proceeding, and remains binding upon the parties so long as it continues unreversed. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co. v. Mayor, &c. of Kew York, 4 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 82, Supreme Ct. (1877). See Charter, 2 ; Contract, 14, 15, 21. ATTACHMENT OF STOCK See Stock of Gas Companies, 8, 9. AUDIT, BOARD OF. See Assumpsit, 5 ; Mandamus, 7. AWAED. See Charter, 1 ; Nuisance, 18. ATTACHMENT OF STOCK — BANKRUPTCY. 11 BANKEUPTCY. 1. Rent. — Injunction. — Distress. — Statute. — Under an. act allowing gas companies to levy by distress all sums due for gas, and an amendment in which such sum due for gas is spoken of as " rent," a gas company attached and sold the goods of a customer who had filed his petition in bankruptcy, and it was held that such action was illegal, and an injunction was granted restraining the sale, and it was further held that the gas com- pany was not a " person to whom rent is due " under the mean- ing of the Bankruptcy Act. Ex parte Hill, in re Eoberts, L. K. 6 Ch. D. 63. 2. Distress for Rent. — Zizecution. — Injunction. — Distress for rent is not " an execution or legal process " within the meaning of those terms in § 13 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869, &c. ; there- fore when a gas company, who, by an express section in their special act, were authorized to recover rent and charges due to them for gas " by the same means as landlords may recover rent in arrear," after notice of the filing of a petition for liquidation by arrangement, distrained upon the goods of petitioning debtors for a sum due for gas supplied, and the county court judge granted an injunction under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, restrain- ing further proceedings in the distress, it was held that the in- junction had been improperly granted, and that the distress was good against the trustee under the liquidation. Ex parte Birmingham & StaflFordshire Gas-Light Co., in re Fanshaw, L. R. 11 Eq. 615 (1871). 3. Distress. — Seizure and Sale. — Bankruptcy Act. — Compo- sition. — Distress, under a statutory power, was levied by a gas company against the goods of a debtor, who, on the day of, but after the seizure, filed a petition for liquidation by arrangement and obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the sale of the goods seized. At the first meeting of creditors a Composition under § 126 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, was resolved upon by the requisite majority of creditors, and the resolution was 12 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. afterwards duly confirmed and registered. Subsequently, on the application of the debtor, the order appealed from was made, directing the company to deliver up the goods seized by them under the distress, and it was held that the order must be dis- charged. Ex parte Birmingliam Gas-Light & Coke Co., in re Adams, L. R. 11 B(i. 204 (1870). See Agency, 12 ; Diebotoe, 7. BONDS. 1. Bona-fide Holders. — Negligence of Stockholders. — Trustee Fund. — Fraud of President. — The capital stock of a corporation was divided into 1,000 shares, of which A., the president, owned 769 shares, and the articles of incorporation limited the indebt- edness of the company to the sum of $25,000. The president of the company, having borrowed a large sum of money from the Newark Savings Bank, pledged 700 of his shares of stock as col- lateral, at the same time surrendering his certificates of stock and receiving new certificates, 700 of them being issued to him as trustee without specifying the cestui que trust. Soon after, bonds of the gas company to the amount of $100,000 were issued, secured by a deed of trust, and afterwards sold to innocent pur- chasers for value and without notice of the fraud, and the articles of incorporation of the company were amended at a pretended meeting of stockholders of which no notice was given, and which was not in fact held, though the records were made up fraudu- lently, the amendment allowing the issue of the bonds for the pretended purpose of " retiring the stock of the company." On a bill in equity it was held that the New^ark Savings Bank, although not a party to this suit, having the power to control the corporation and failing to do it, and negligently permitting A. to exercise such control, would stand in the same relation to the bondholders as A. himseK, and that the bonds issued under the amended articles were entitled to protection and must be satisfied by the property of the gas company. Des Moines Gas Co. v. West, 50 Iowa, 16 (1878.) BONDS. 13 2. Guaranty of Bonds. — Principal and Interest. — In an action upon several interest coupons annexed to bonds issued by a city and indorsed by the president of a gas company with the guar- anty of the company for the payment of the bonds and coupons, the authority of the president to guarantee the payment of the coupons was denied by the gas company, and it appeared that the bonds were issued pursuant to an ordinance of the city which provided for the payment of the interest but not of the principal, and contained the proviso that the gas company should ''guarantee the said bonds and assume the payment of the principal thereof at maturity ; " and it was held by Field -T. that " the guaranty of the bonds embraced both the principal and the interest. The payment of bonds, without other designa- tion, always implies a payment of the principal sum and its in- cident, and a guaranty in similar terms covers both." New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 644 (1877). 3. Bonds. — Coupons. — Time for payment. — Agency. — The gas company issued bonds payable to bearer at a certain banking house, with coupons attached payable to bearer at the same place. The gas company, deposited money with the bank to pay the coupons, but the bank failed before some of the coupons were presented, and the holder of one coupon demanded pay- ment of the gas company, which was refused, and this action was brought. The court held that " the corporation which issues a coupon bond is in the position of a maker of a promissory note, not of the drawer of a check or bill of exchange. There is no obligation on the holder to present and demand it within a rea- sonable time. The same rule applies to the coupons as to the bond. . . . The coupon is nothing but an acknowledgment of interest due, and it is but an incident of the principal. . . . The banking house at which it was made payable were the agents of the corporation, and the holder could not lose in any event by their insolvency." Williamsport Gas Company v. Pinkerton, 95 Pa. St. 62 (1880). See Eeceiveb. 14 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. BOOKS 0¥ ACCOUNT. See Evidence, II. CEETIOEAEI, WEIT OF. See Taxation, 6. CHAETEE. I. Interpretation of Chakteb. 1. Ejectment. — Award of Arbitrators. — Purchase of Works. — In an action of ejectment to try the title of the defendant to the real estate upon which the gas-works were erected, it appeared that in 1850 the Wheeling Gas Company were incorporated by a special act, and were granted the exclusive privilege of supply- ing the city of Wheeling for thirty years, unless the city at the end of twenty years should purchase the gas-works at a price agreed upon by the company and the city, or fixed by a board of arbitrators of three persons, one chosen by the city, the second by the directors of the gas company, and the third by the two al- ready chosen ; that in 1871 the city gave the gas company notice of its intention to purchase the works, and, the price not being agreed upon, arbitrators were appointed in the manner provided, who heard evidence and then made an award which was signed by only two of them, the' other dissenting ; that a tender of the amount found due by the arbitrators was made to the president and secretary of the gas company, with a deed to be executed, and which they refused to execute on the ground of their want of authority ; that the city thereupon took possession of the gas- works, but without notice to the gas company of their intention ; and it was held that the city had ample authority to purchase the gas-works in the manner in which it was done; that the award was valid, though signed by only two of the arbitrators ; and that the tender was legal, and this action cannot be main- tained. Wheeling Gas Co. v. Wheeling, 8 W. Va. 320 (1875). BOOKS OP ACCOUNT — CHARTER, I. 15 2. Contract. — Implied Promise to Pay. — The plaintiffs, hy their act of incorporation, were required to furnish the defendants with gas sufficient to supply five burners for the public streets for the first year, ten for the second, and so on, and were also required to complete all necessary works for the manufacture of such gas by June 1, 1864. In an action to recover the value of gas supplied to the defendants between 1864 and 1866, it was held that the act of incorporation did not intend that the plaintiffs should be compensated for the gas they were required to supply, and that the law did not raise an implied promise on the part of the city to pay for it ; also, that after the time ap- pointed for the completion of the works, the plaintiffs should be allowed a reasonable time for the laying of gas-pipes in order to supply the city, and the first year mentioned in the contract should begin after said reasonable time had elapsed. Virginia City Gas Co. v. Mayor & AM. of Virginia City, 3 Nev. 320 (1867). 3. Price of Gas. — Po-wer of Legislature and of City Council. — Fraudulent Ordinance. — Where the legislature reserved in a charter to a gas company the right to " alter, modify, or repeal " the same, it has the right to give to the city council of the city in which the gas company is situated, by subsequent acts, a right to regulate by ordinance, from time to time, the price of gas to be charged by such gas company ; and the gas company is bound by such an ordinance fixing the maximum price to be charged for one year thereafter. But this power of regulating the price con- ferred by statute must be exercised in good faith and for the purpose of limiting gas companies to a fair price; and it is competent for the gas company to show that the ordinance was passed for a fraudulent purpose, or to compel the gas company to submit to an unfair appraisement of its property, with a view to its purchase by the city by fixing the price of the gas at a sum for which they knew it could not be manufactured and sold by the gas company, and in such case such fraudulent ordinance would be of no effect, and would impose no obligations upon the gas company. State of Ohio v. Cincinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262 (1868). 16 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. 4. Right to lay Pipes. — Permission of Local Companies. — A gas company's act provided that the company might break up the highways and streets and lay their gas-pipes upon obtain- ing the consent of certain local commissioners, — which consent was obtained and the pipes duly laid. The powers held by said commissioners were afterwards transferred to the defendants. The consumption of gas increased, and plaintiffs erected a new gasometer and began to lay down pipes to the same ; but the defendants prevented them, and plaintiffs brought this bill for injunction and to have their rights declared to lay down pipes ; and it was held that, the consent having been once given by the commissioners, the gas company, under the wording of their act, had the right to go on and lay other pipes without obtaining a new permission of the defendants. Dover Gas- Light Co. v. Mayor, &c. of Dover, 7 De G. M. & G. 545 ; 4 Gas J. 129, 176 (1855). See Dividend, 2. II. Constitutionality of Charters, and Laws affecting them. 5. Inspection of Gas-Meters. — Statute. — Tax. — The legisla- ture of Ohio passed an act creating the of&ce of Inspector of Gas- meters, &c., whose salary was to be paid by assessment upon the various gas companies in the State. The plaintiffs refused to pay the assessment made upon them in the manner provided by the statute, and claimed that it was illegal and contrary to the section of the Constitution which provides that taxes should be assessed upon property by a uniform rule. But it was held that the act was constitutional ; that the assessment upon the plain- tiffs was not a tax for purposes of general revenue, but was a charge for a special purpose growing out of the supervisory power of the State over their business, and was not a tax on property. Cincinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co. ii. State of Ohio, 18 Ohio St. 237 (1868). 6. Act of Legislature extending Charter. — Premature Action. — The legislature of Louisiana passed an act extending the char- 17 ter of the defendants from the year 1875 to the year 1895, and it was held that a suit could not be brought, if at all, before the year 1875 to test the constitutionality of the above act, and that the court could not theoretically declare the act of a co-ordi- nate branch of the government illegal, there being no allegation of present illegal exercise of privileges by the gas company. State of Louisiana v. New Orleana Gas-Light Co., 25 La. Ann. 398 (1873). 7. Public Use. — Eminent Domain. — The conducting, by gas- pipes, of illuminating gas for the purposes of sale, and to supply gas for lighting the streets, public parks, and dwellings of the city of Eochester by the plaintiffs, under a special charter author- . izing them to take private property upon making compensation therefor, is within the category of those public improvements, to enable which to be carried out, the legislature may confer upon the parties engaged in the enterprise the right to take private property necessary to effect the object upon making compensa- tion therefor ; and if any business can fairly be supposed to be a matter by which the public of a particular community ma)' be benefited, then such business is a " public use " within the mean- ing of the Constitution of New York. The plaintiffs' charter was therefore held to be constitutional. Bloomfield & Rochester Natural Gas-Light Co. v. Eichardson, 63 Barb. 437 (1872). 8. Charter. — Constitutionality. — Monopoly. — Quo Warranto. — Compensation. — In an action in the nature of a guo warranto, the complaint alleged that the special act of incorporation under which they assumed to act was unconstitutional, 1st, because it created a monopoly in the trade or business of supplying gas in the city of New York ; 2d, because it takes for the uses of the gas company the streets or easements or privileges in the streets of the city without making compensation to the city therefor ; and 3d, because the creation of corporations by special, acts is prohibited, except where the object of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws ; it was held that the legislative authority given to the two boards of the common council of New York to "grant and vest exclusive authority" in and to 2 18 BIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. the said company simply related to the granting to the company of the right to lay pipes in the streets, and that if such exclusive use were given, it was a matter solely between the city and the gas company. Such act would not affect the constitutional right of the legislature to incorporate the company, and it was further held that the act itself did not provide that the gas company should use the streets without compensation, and was not un- constitutional on that ground ; and that it being left to the leg- islature themselves to decide whether the objects of a corporation can be attained under a general law, whether a special act of in- corporation is necessary or not is a matter entirely within the judgment and discretion of the legislature. People of New York v. Bowen, 30 Barb. 24 (1859) ; affirmed, 21 ¥. T. 517 (1860). 9. Special Act of Incorporation. — General Act. — The Met- ropolitan Gas-Light Company was incorporated by a special act of the legislature, and it was contended that this act was uncon- stitutional, because there was a general act [1848, ch. 37] under which it could have been organized ; but it was held that the special act was not unconstitutional by reason of the general law for the organization of such companies in any city, village, or town, and that whether a special act was necessary or not rests wholly in the discretion of the legislature. People of State of New York v. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 517 (1860). 10. Injunction. — Property of City. — 'Power of Corporation. — The defendants were chartered under an act which inhibited them from digging up the streets of the city until the consent of the city government was obtained. On an application for an injunction by the plaintiffs, who are taxpayers of the city, to pre- vent the defendants from doing anything under this charter, on the ground that the act of incorporation was void, that the right to grant permission to lay down pipes in the street is vested in the city, and is of great value, and, if sold, would realize a large pecuniary beneiit to the city, and that in various ways corpora- tions of New York would be injured, it was held that "the Corporation of the City of New York has an undoubted right to CHARTER, II. 19 give permission to the (Jefendants to lay down their pipes be- neath the surface of the streets, as a means of furnishing the citizens with an increased supply of gas; that they are not obliged to sell such permission or treat it as a part of the city property which is to be used for purposes of city revenue;" that this power to authorize the laying down of gas-pipes is in no true sense of the word a part of the city property, to which the corporate authority of the city is to resort for purposes of revenue, and that the injunction prayed for must be refused. Smith V. Metropolitan Gas-Light Go., 12 JIow. Pr. 187 ,(1855). 11. Legislative Supervision. — Monopoly. — Quo Wsirranto. — Meter-rent. — The charter of the Columbus Gas-Light Company, granted prior to the adoption of the new constitution, gave them the exclusive right to supply the city with gas for twenty years, and there was no reference or restriction in the charter as to the price of gas. An act was afterwards passed by the legislature, which by its terms was to apply to all companies then manufac- turing gas for sale, and restricted the charge for meter-rent. The defendants claimed that they were not subject to the operation of this statute, and asserted their right to charge meter-rent con- trary to the provisions of the statute ; but it was hsld that an action of quo warranto could be maintained, and that the company were subject to legislative control and the act restricting the price of meters, and that corporations invested with franchises to sub- serve the public interest were subject to legislative control and su- pervision unless it clearly appeared from the terms of the charter that it was the intention to exempt them from such interference. State 60! rel. Attorney-General v. Columbus Gas-Light & Coke Co., 34 Ohio St. 572 (1878). 12. Title of Act to express Object of Law. — The Constitu- tion (art. 115, 116, of 1852) of Louisiana requires the object of every law to be expressed in the title. The defendants' charter was extended for twenty years from 1875 by an act passed in 1860 and entitled "An act to extend the area of gas-lighting in the city of New Qrlefins, and to wduce 'the price now paid by gas consumers." It was held that such .extension was un- 20 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. constitutional and void, and no rights accrued thereunder to de- fendants, because not disclosed in the title of the act ; and it was Jield further that the act of legislature creating the plaintiff company, under the title of " An act to incorporate the Crescent City Gas-Light Co.," was not unconstitutional nor repugnant to art. 114 of the Constitution of 1868, similar to the former article, because it was not disclosed in the title that the exclusive and sole right to make and vend gas in the city of New Orleans was conferred thereby. Crescent City Gas-Light Co. v. New Orleans Gas-Light Co., 27 La. Ann. 138 (1875). • See Easement, 1; Malicious Prosecution; Municipality, 15; Nuisance, 16. III. FOEFEITUKE OF ChAETEK. 13. Abuse of Privilegea. — On a petition for the forfeiture of the defendants' charter, it was held by G-aeland J. that " an act of incorporation may be forfeited for a misuse or abuse of the powers intrusted to it. It is a tacit condition of a grant of incorporation that the grantees shall act up to the end or design for which they were incorporated. If they do not, the rights and privileges granted may be withdrawn. But this misuser or non- user of its franchises must be iirst judicially ascertained. . . . The existing law of the State forms as much a part of the con- tract in every act of incorporation, so far as it is applicable, as it does of a contract between individuals." The abuse which was held to be sufficient cause of forfeiture in this case was the suspension by the defendants of specie pay- ments for eighty days. State V. New Orleans Gas-Light & Banking Co., 2 Eob. (La.) 529 (1842). IV. Exclusive Right; Monopoly. 14. Interpretation of Charter. — Exclusive Right in a City. — The charter of a gas company provided that "said company CHARTER, IV. 21 shall have power and fuU and exclusive authority to manufac- ture, make, and sell gas ... for the purpose of lighting the city of Milwaukee. . . . Provided that no permanent injury shall be done to any street . . . agreeably to the terms and conditions of a contract now existing between the city of Milwaukee and " one Lockwood. By the terms of this contract the city granted said Lockwood the exclusive right to make all necessary excava- tions and to lay pipes for conducting gas through the streets for the term of fifteen years from the date of the contract, and it was held that the legislature had conferred upon the gas com- pany the exclusive privilege to manufacture and sell gas in the city of Milwaukee without limitation of time, and that the refer- ence to the contract with Lockwood did not restrict the privi- lege granted to the period of fifteen years. State of Wisconsin v. The Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 29 Wis. 454 (1872). 15. Monopoly held to be Constitutional. — The legislature of Louisiana has the right under the Constitution to grant to a gas company the sole and exclusive right to manufacture and sell gas in the city of New Orleans for fifty years. Crescent City Gas-Light Co. v. New Orleans Gas-Light Co., 27 La. Ann. 138 (1875). 16. Injunction. — Slander of Title. — Exclusive Franchise. — In an action brought before April, 1875, by the plaintiffs, praying for an injunction and for damages from the defendants on the ground that the claim of the defendants to a pretended extension of their charter for twenty years from 1875 was a slander upon the title of the plaintiff company to the exclusive privilege to make and sell gas in New Orleans for fifty years from April 1, 1875, it was held that the action could be maintained, and the injunction was issued forbidding the defendants from setting up any claim under their pretended extension, or from in any manner impeding the plaintiffs in the fuU enjoyment of their franchise ; and the court says, " The franchise of the plaintiff is property, and it has been injured in the enjoyment thereof by the claims and pretensions of defendant, founded on a statute alleged to be unconstitutional and void. The right to sell shares 22 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. of its capital stock, and the duty to erect works, buildings, ma- chines, lay gas-pipes,, and prepare everything necessary to begin the enterprise or business, vested the moment the corporation began, and a void title set up to defeat plaintifPs' right to pre- pare for their business, invades their charter as effectually as if set up to obstruct th6 business after it had begun." Cresceni City Gas-Light Co. v. New Orleans Gas-Light Co., 27 La. Aim. 138 (1875). 17. Monopoly. — Exclusive Franchise constitutional. — Quo Warranto. — In an action in the nature of a quo warrtmto for the purpose of vacating the charter of a gas company, on the ground that they had exercised and usurped the exclusive fran- chise of manufacturing and furnishing gas for lighting the city of Milwaukee, and laying pipes therein, it appeared that the legislature had by special act conferred such exclusive right, and it was held that the legislature had the right to and had conferred upon the defendants the exclusive right to manu- facture and seU gas, and to erect works and lay pipes therefor within the limits of the city of Milwaukee, and that such act was not unconstitutional as granting to them a monopoly, and that, whenever such a monopoly became oppressive, the legisla- ture, under the constitution, could repeal the special privilege it had granted. State of Wisconsin v. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 29 Wis. 454 (1872). 18. Mohoipoly. — Exclusive Right to use Streets of a City. — Quo Warranto. — The charter of a gas company conferred the power to manufacture and seU gas in a city, and to lay pipes in the streets, provided that the consent of the city council was obtained, arid the city council, by contract, gave such consent and granted the iexclusive privilege of using such streets for twenty-five years for such purpose ; but on an information in the nature of a quo warranto to test the right of such company to the exclusive right to supply gas to the city, it was held that no such right was granted to them by their charter, and that the city council had no power to grant the exclusive right without CHAETEB, IV. — CHARTER-PARTY. 23 direct legislative authority so to do, and that they had no such authority. State of Ohio v. Cinciimati Gas-Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262 (1868). 19. Injunction. — Grant of Exclusive Use of Streets uncon- stitutional. — The charter of the plaintiff company, granted by the legislature, provided that the plaintiff's right to lay down gas- pipes in the streets of Norwich should be exclusive as against any and aU other persons and corporations, except those who might hereafter be invested by the General Assembly with power to use said streets for the same purpose ; and on a bill praying for an injunction against the defendants, it was held that this was a restriction upon the free manufacture and sale of gas, and was a monopoly, and therefore unconstitutional and void ; and an injunction against the defendants, a corporation organized under a general law, and without a charter from the general assembly, forbidding them from laying gas-pipes in said streets, was refused. Norwich (Jas-Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas Co., 25 Conn. 19. See Municipality, 15 ; Supply op Gas, II. CHAETEE-PAETY. Charter. — Coal. — "Quick Despatch." — The respondents char- tered the HbeUant's vessel to bring a cargo of gas coal from Nova Scotia to Boston. The charter-party contained the following words : " Vessel to take her turn in loading, as customary, at Albion Coal Co., and quick despatch discharging." On a libel for demurrage it was held by Lowell J. that an agreement for quick despatch supersedes any custom of discharging vessels by which they are to take their turn at the wharf, and that the charterer has the right to name any suitable and convenient wharf, if the name had not been inserted in the charter-party, and such wharf must be unincumbered, and that the " default " of charterer, which would save the respondents from liability for 24 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. demurrage, refers " only to causes beyond his control, acting di- rectly to retard the discharging." Thacher v. Boston Gas-Light Co., 2 Lowell, 361. See Damage, 5. CIVIL WAR See Stock op Gas Companies, 11. COMPENSATION TO OWNER OF EEAL ESTATE. See Gas-Pipes, 7, 8, 9 ; Statutes, 8. COMPOSITION. See Bankruptcy, 3. COMPROMISE. See Insurance, 1 ; Municipality, 15. CONDITION OE CONTRACT. See Contract, 11, 16. CONSOLIDATION. Cousolidation of Gas Companies. — Statutes. — The New Or- leans Gas-Light Company was incorporated in 1835 with the exclusive privilege of making and vending gas-lights in the city of New Orleans until April 1, 1875, and the Crescent City Gas- Light Company was incorporated in 1870, with a similar exclusive privilege, for fifty years after the date of the expiration of the charter of the New Orleans Gas-Light Company. In 1874 an act was passed by the legislature of Louisiana allowing any two manufacturing corporations, existing under general, or special laws, to amalgamate and consolidate when their objects or busi- ness were in general of the same nature ; and under this act the two gas companies consolidated upon March 29, 1875, and formed a new corporation under the name of the New Orleans CIVIL WAR — CONTRACT, I. 25 Gas-Light Company, and it was held by Pardee C. J. that the law of 1874 did not authorize the consolidation of the two com- panies ; that at the time of the consolidation the Crescent City Gas-Light Company was not an existing manufacturing corpora- tion, and that the act did not apply to corporations created by the legislature and endowed with peculiar and exclusive fran- chises. New Orleans Gas-Light Co. v. Louisiana L. & H. P. & Manuf. Co., 11 Fed. Eep. 277. Circuit Court, Louisiana (1882). See Stock of Gas Companies, 13 j Conteact, 12. CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES. See Contract, 9. CONSTITUTIONALITY. See Charter ; Municipality, 10. CONTEACT. L In Writing. 1. Injunction. — Supply of Gaa. — Contract in Writing. — A company incorporated under provisions of stat. 16 Vict. c. 173, for supplying a city with gas, will be temporarily restrained, during the currency of a quarter, from cutting off the gas from a house, the occupant of which has paid the rent for the preced- ing quarter ; but a special contract for continuing to supply the gas will not be binding on the company unless in writing under the corporate seal. Smith V. London Gas Co., 7 Grant (U. C), 112 (1859). 2. Condition precedent. — Supply of Gas. — In an action to recover the amount alleged to be due for gas supplied the de- fendants under a contract by deed in which the plaintiff cov- enanted to supply gas-light for each lantern of the parish of Chelsea, to the satisfaction of the defendants or their surveyor, in certain manner and form set out in said deed, the defendants 26 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. pleaded that the plaintiff did not light said lanterns to the satis- faction of the defendants or their surveyor and did not perform the other covenants of the deed. On demurrer it was held that the defendants could not refuse to pay the bill for the reasons set forth in their plea, and that the performance of all the several stipulations by the plaintiff was not a condition precedent to their right to receive the money. London Gas-Light Co. v. Vestry of Chelsea, 8 C. B. n. s. 215; 9 Gas. J. 292 (1860.) See Assumpsit, 1, 2, 3 ; Dieectors, 5, 7 ; Supply op Gas. II. Powers OF Municipality to conteact. 3. Price of Gas. — Ultra Vires. — Powers of Trustees of Vil- lage. — The plaintiffs, when about to erect their gas-works in the village of Elmira, obtained leave from the village trustees, who were the commissioners of highways, to lay gas-pipes under the village streets upon condition that the plaiatiffs should furnish gas to the village at $2.50 per 1,000 feet. In an action to re- cover for gas furnished, it was held by Paekee J. that the con- tract was ultra vires on the part of the trustees, and that the plaintiffs could recover what the gas was worth, not being limited to the sum natned ; that the village has no proprietary interest in the streets, but holds them in trust for the benefit of the community, and has no power by contract to embarrass its legislative powers even for the sake of a benefit to itself. Elmira Qas-Light Co. V. City of Ehnira, 2 Albany, L. J. 392. New York Supreme Ct. (1870). 4. Action. — Inability to pay. — No Defence to City. — In an action against a municipal corporation for gas supplied by the plaintiff for the public lamps, it appeared that under their char- ter the city was not authorized to levy a tax above a certain amount unless the question was submitted to the voters ; that all the taxes had been appropriated ; that no petition had been pre- sented requesting that a specific tax should be raised for lighting the streets ; and tha,t the plaintiffs were notified of these facts, and 27 it was held that the inability of the city to pay for the gas sup- plied under a contract made by competent authority and bind- ing upon the city, cannot defeat an action therefor, and that the corporation cannot annul such a contract by notifying the other party that it cannot and will not pay the debt caused by carry- ing out the provisions of the contract. Davenport Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. City of Davenport, 13 Iowa, 229. (1862.) 5. Frivolous Answer. — Uzhaustion of Appropriation no De- fence. — In an action against the defendant to recover the price of gas furnished it, the city filed an answer alleging that the gas furnished by the plaintiff was used by the Department Of Parks, that the appropriation for that department had been ex- hausted, and that the debt had been incurred, if at all, by that department in excess of the amount appropriated ; but it was held that these facts constituted no defence to the action and that the answer was frivolous. New York Mutual Gas-Light Co. v. City of New York, 49 How. Pr. 227 (1875). 6. Philadelphia Gas-Works. — - Injunction. — Ordinance. — City acting as Gas Company. — The Philadelphia gas-works were con- structed by private individuals, and were afterwards taken pos- session of by the city, and the stock replaced by certificates of loan which were issued by the city to the stockholders, and the gas-works were held by trustees who were to have full control and management of said works, and were to create a sinking fund to pay off the certificates and the interest on the loans. By a later ordinance a chief engineer of the gas-works was provided, who should be the head of the gas-department, and directing that all moneys received for gas should be paid to such officers as such engineer shoiald designate. On the petition of the creditors an injunction was issued restraining the city of Philadelphia from attempting to take possession of the gas-works, or from in- terfering with the trustees in the control and management of the - said works, and it was held that the contracts which a municipal corporation may make for the purpose of supplying the inhabi- 28 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. tants with gas-light in their houses are made by such corporation in its capacity as a private corporation and not by virtue of its powers of local sovereignty, and cannot be impaired because it may deem it for the benefit of its citizens to do so. Western Saving Fund Soc. of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia, 31 Pa. St. (7 Casey) 175 (1858). 7. Act of Legislature cannot authorize Violation of Contract by Municipality. — Where a municipal corporation enters into the business of manufacturing and selling gas, it acts as a private corporation and not as a local sovereign, and does not legislate, but contracts, and is as much bound by its engagements, as is a natural person, and the legislature has no power to authorize the city to violate its contracts, and the act of legislature author- izing the city of Philadelphia to elect additional trustees of the gas-works was held unconstitutional Western Saving Fund Soc. of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia, 31 Pa. St. (7 Casey) 185 (1858). 8. Rescission. — Breach. — Damages. — A contract existed be- tween the defendants and plaintiffs whereby the former were to furnish the city, at a stated price per month, gas-light for its streets, and the plaintiffs undertook to rescind this contract and, by a resolution of the common councU approved by the mayor, declared said contract to be at an end, and notified the defendants of said action ; and it was held that this was not a rescission of the contract, as the company had not assented, but only a breach for which the gas company in a proper action would be entitled to recover adequate damages. Nebraska City v. Nebraska City Hy. Gas-Light & Coke Co., 9 Neb. 339 ; 2 N. W. Eep. 870. 9. Contract. — Philaaelphia Gas-Works. — Injunction. — City Ordinances. — On a petition for an injunction forbidding the carrying, out of a contract for the sale of coal to the trustees of the Philadelphia gas-works, on the ground that all contracts were required by the city ordinances to be made by advertisement and to the lowest bidders, it was Md that the Philadelphia gas- CONTRACT, 11. 29 works are not a department of the city government within the proviso of the act of May 13, 1856, and the city is only inter- ested in them as a private owner, and injunction refused. Hacker et al. v. City of Philadelphia, 6 Phila. 94 (1865). 10. ConBtitat:ioii of United States. — Obligation of Contracts. — The legislature of Louisiana, in incorporatiag a gas company in New Orleans, reserved in the charter a privilege to the city to purchase the gas-works and operate them at the expiration of the charter, and before that date incorporated a new company, giving it the sole and exclusive right to make gas in the city of New Orleans for fifty years, and it was hsld that they had the right to recall or withdraw their grant to the city, and that the act incorporating the new company was not void as impairing the obligation of any contract protected by the Constitution of the United States. Crescent City Gas-Light Co. v. New Orleans Gas- Light Co., 27 La. Ann. 138 (1875). 11. Contract. — Illegal Provisions. — Defence. — Ultra Vires. — Where contracts for supplying gas to a city contained illegal provisions respecting the exemption of the gas company's prop- erty from taxation, and the payment of money out of the sinking fund of the city devoted bylaw to another purpose, it was held that this would be no defence to an action for the price of gas supplied to the city under such contracts ; that under their char- ter the city could contract for lighting the streets with gas, and could bind itself for the payment of the price agreed upon ; and that the contract was not ultra vires ; and that so long as the city voluntarily received gas-light under its provisions it could not resist payment because of the alleged illegal promises as to the particular fund from which the money should be drawn. Nebraska City v. Nebraska City Hydraulic Gas-Light & Coke Co., 9 Neb. 339 (1879). 12. Forfeiture. — Breach of Condition. — Illegal Combination of Oas Companies. — A city ordinance authorized the defendant, the Mutual Gas-Light Company, to lay pipes in its streets. 30 BIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. upon the condition that such gas company would not enter into combination with any other gas company concerning rates to he charged for gas, and it was hdd that an agreement with another gas company in the same city for a division of the territory to be lighted was a violation of this condition, but that such breach of the condition did not work a forfeiture of the right, to lay pipes and use the streets granted by the city. City of Detroit v. Mutual Gas-LigM Co. et al, 5 N. W. Eep. 1039 (Mich. Sup. Ct., 1880). 13. Public Officers. — Award of Contract. — Action. — In an action by a gas company against the defendants, who were alder- men of Long Island City, for damages for their failure or refusal to award to it the contract for lighting the city, the gas company being the lowest bidder, it was held that no action lay, the duty of the aldermen being a judicial one. East Eiver Gas-Light Co. v. Donnelly et al, 32 N. Y. Supreme Ct. (25 Hun) 614. 14. Ordinance. — Veto. — Officer. — Where a contract with a gas company to light the streets of a city was duly executed by. the president of the city council under an ordinance directly em- powering him to make such contract, and such ordinance was vetoed by the mayor, but not within the time req[uired by law, it was held that such contract was valid. Pennsylvania Globe Gas-Light Co. v. Scranton, 97 Pa. St. 538 (1881). See Bonds, 2; Charter, 14; Estoppel, 3; Mandamus, 7; Munici- pality, 4, IV.; Nuisance, 26 ; Stock of Gas Companies, 1. III. Care of Meters. 15. Care of Meters. — Measurement of Gas. — Action. — TJbe plaintiff sued the defendants to recover money paid for gas in excess of what was due, and the question whether or not the action could be maintained depended upon whether the meters registered correctly. The evidence showed that at correct level the meters registered correctly ; that they .registered in favor of CONTRACT, III., IT. . 31 the company at the high-water level, and in favor of the consumer at the low- water level ; and that since the putting in of dry- meters the bills had much diminished. And it was held that gas consumers must take proper care of their meters, and that, taking into account the conflict of evidence, the decision should he for defendants. Preston v. Hayton & Roby Gas Co., 25 Gas J. 889. 16. Measurement of Gas by Meter. — Action. — In an action for the conversion of a quantjity of gas, and for the price of .gas sold and delivered to the defendant, it appeared that in some way the met^r in the defendant's premises had been tilted so that the water ran out and the gas passed through the meter without being registered. The suit was brought to recover the price of the estimated amount of gas which had passed through the meter and been used, but had not been registered, and the defendant claimed he was liable only for what was registered, and that he had not used more than that- amount. The CLuestion was sub- mitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiffs. Victoria Docfa Gas Co. v. Burton, 16 Gas J. 103 (Q. B. 1867). IV. As TO Quality of Gas and Price. 17. Price of Gas. — Intention of Parties. — A city ordinance passed in 1849 provided that a gas company might erect gas- works, and lay gas-pipes in the streets upon various conditions, and. among others that "they shall furnish the city and citizens with gas as cheap per cubic foot and of as good quality as is fur- nished in Boston, New York, or Baltimore," and the company accepted the conditions and obligations of the ordinance. In an action to recover the price of gas sold to the city, it was held that the meaning of the contract between the city and the gas company was that the company should be obliged at all times to furnish gas as cheap as it was furnished at the same time in the said cities, and not at the price for which it was sold in those cities at the time of the passage of the ordinance and acceptance thereof Worcester Gas-Light Co. v. City of Worcester, 110 Mass. 353 (1872). 32 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. 18. Quality of Gas, — No Defence. — In an action in which the plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendants the sum of £244 3s. 6d. for gas supplied to their establishment for one year, it appeared that the defendants paid £115 into court, and pleaded that that sum was sufficient to cover the plaintiffs' claim, and pleaded that the plaintiffs had failed to perform their contract in not supplying pure gas and of a sufficient heating and illuminat- ing power ; but it was held that this was not a defence to the action. Great Central Gas Consumers' Co. v. TaUis et ah, 3 Gas J. 6 (Exch. 1852). 19. Quality of Gas. — Defence. — Action. — In an action where the plaintiffs sued the defendant for gas supplied him, the defend- ant claimed that the gas was of very inferior quality ; but it was held that this was no defence, but only a ground for claiming a fine from the gas company. Torquay Gas Co. v. Carter, 32 Gas J. 490. See Municipality, 13; Statutes, 11. Various Contracts; Interpretation. 20. Damages. — Loss of Profits. — Breach of Contract. — The plaintiff made a contract to supply defendant with gas for a time therein named for a specific consideration. It appeared that be- fore the completion of the contract a litigation arose between the parties to determine the validity of the contract ; and before this question was decided (the plaintiff being ready and willing to furnish the gas according to contract) an agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein it was stipulated that " said company shall have the privilege of shutting off the gas from the public lamps until the question of the validity of the contract shall be decided by the courts, and no existing right of said com- pany, or of the city, shall be prejudiced or affected, but the con- tract, if now valid, shall be and remain so to the same extent as though said company had not shut off the gas." It was held that the company was not prevented by the terms of this agreement from recovering against the city, as damages for the breach of CONTRACT, V. 33 the contract, the profits they would have made, viz., the differ- ence between the cost of furnishing the gas and its value accord- ing to the terms of the contract, the validity of the contract having been sustained in said litigation. The agreement made pending the litigation did not destroy any right which accrued to either party, by reason of a refusal to perform the contract on the part of the other. Davenport Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. City of Davenport, 15 Iowa, 6 (1863). 21. Agreement under Seal. — Supply of Pipes. — By an agree- ment under seal, plaintiff engaged during the period of three years to supply the defendants, a gas company, incorporated by act of Parliament, with such quantities of pipes, &c., as should from time to time during the said period be required by the de- fendants, at given prices, and it was held that the, plaintiff was bound to supply all such pipes as the company might reasonably require for all such works as they were actually carrying on under the authority of their act. Whitehouse v. Liverpool New Gas-Light & Coke Co., 5 C. B. 798; s. c. 5 M. Gr. & S. 798 (1848). 22. Supply of G-as-Pipes. — Defect. — Defence- — In an action of assumpsit for the price of gas-pipes the defendant pleaded that the order for the goods stated that they were to be made by the plaintiff himself, of the best material and workmanship, but that the pipes delivered were made by another man, and inferior in quality, being fuU of flaws ; that the defect could not. be ascer- tained by inspection, and was not discovered until the pipe was put into the ground, and that then the pipe had to be taken up at great expense, and that these facts should be considered as a set-off to the plaintiff's claim, and it was held that this was a good plea to the action. Smith V. Citizens' Gas & Gas Fuel Co., 5 Weekly Notes, 97 (Pa. C. C. P. 1878). 23. Balloon. — Breach of Contract. — Damages. — The plaintiff, an aeronaut of some celebrity, sought to recover damages esti- mated at upwards of £100, for non-performance of a contract by a gas company to supply his balloon with gas on occasion of 3 34 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. an intended ascent at Oxford. The defendants denied the con- tract, and also alleged that the, plaintiff prevented them from performing it, by not being ready to receive the gas ; but it was held that the action could be maintained. Hampton v. Oxford Gas Co., 3 Gas J. 64 (1853), 24. Breach of Contract — " Strike " no Ezcuse. — Coal. — In an action brought by the Equitable Gas Company against the de- fendant, an extensive coal proprietor, for a breach of contract, the defendant not having delivered a certain quantity of coal accord- ing to agreement, the defendant pleaded that he could not fulfil his agreement owing to a strike in the mines ; but it was held that this was no defence to the action. Equitable Gas Co. v. Jonassohn, 3 Gas J. 596 (Queen B. 1854). 25. Breach of Contract — Fraudulent taking of Gas. — Statute. — The defendant was summoned under a special act, for unlaw- fully laying a pipe to communicate with the company's pipe in the street. He had once been a customer of the company, but, being a bankrupt and in arrears, his gas had been cut off, and it was held that the company could also have proceeded against the defendant for a fraudulent taking. PhcBnix Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Shillito, 19 Gas J. 848 (Police Court). 26. Surety. — Application for Gas. — Notice. — In an action to recover the price of gas sold, it appeared that one C. applied to the plaintiff for gas and a meter for the premises known as the Gramercy Park House, and signed the usual application for the same, and that the defendant signed the application as surety, and that subsequently, but without notice to the plain- tiff, C. ceased to be the owner of the Gramercy Park House, and W. succeeded as landlord and occupier, and it was held that the defendant, by signing the application as surety, undertook to pay for gas and meter supplied to 0. at the Gramercy Park House, if C. did not pay ; but .that he was not liable for gas furnished to W. after he became the landlord, nor could he be held respon- sible for the gas furnished to W., on account of C.'s neglect to give notice of the change of the proprietorship of the hotel, as CONTRACT, V. ; CONTBACTOB. 36 his only responsibility was for any default of C. in not paying for the gas furnished him. Manhattan Gas-Light Co. v. Ely, 39 Barb. 174 (1863). 27. Opening Highway. — Consideration for Contract. — Nui- sance. — The plaintiffs, a highway board, agreed with the de- fendants, a gas company, that if the plaintiffs would give the defendants a license to open a highway in their jurisdiction, the defendants should make good the surface of the road, and would pay to the plaintiffs Is. per yard of the highway so broken up, and it was held that the contract was valid ; for that the agree- ment of the plaintiffs to allow the defendants to interfere with the surface of the highway was a good consideration, and the contract was not illegal and did not necessarily contemplate the creation of a nuisance by the defendants. The Edgeware Highway Board v. The Harrow District Gas Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 92 ; 24 Gas J. 793 (1874). See Aqbnot ; Director, 6, 7, 8 ; Stock of Gas Companies, 2 ; Landlord and Tenant, 3 ; Navigable Waters, 1 ; Notiob, 5 ; Patent, 3; Statutes, 12; Taxation, 2, 8; Supply op Gas. CONTEACTOE. 1. NegUgence of Contractor. — Nuisance. — Liability of Gas Company. — The defendant obtained permission from the proper authorities to lay gas-pipes in the street, and contracted with C. to lay them. The trench in which the pipes were laid having been improperly refilled, the earth settled, and the plaintiff's horse was injured by a fall into the trench. In an action to recover damages for the injury to the horse it was held that the plaintiff -could maintain his action against the gas company, on the ground that they were obliged to restore the street to a safe condition, and for failing to do so, after having by their act ren- dered the use of the highway hazardous, they would be guilty pf nuisance, and that they cannot avoid the consequences of a failure to restore the street by showing that they contracted with others to perform their duty for them. McCamus V. Citizens' Gas-Light Co. pf Brooklyn, 40 Barb. 380 (1863). 36 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES, 2. Damage to Gas Mains by Contractor in constructing Se-ro-ers. — The plaintiffs had laid their gas-pipea under the authority of a vote of the vestry, confirmed by the proper authorities. The defendant was a contractor, who, in laying sewerage-pipes and acting under statutory authority, had caused the plaintiffs' gas- pipes to break. In an action to recover damages for the injury to the gas-pipes, it was held that as the damage was caused by the contractor's negligence, and as the proprietors had allowed the gas-pipes to be laid in their land, judgment should be en- tered for the plaintiffs. Croft & Hurworth Gas Co. v. Pryor, 31 Gas J. 386. 3. Action by Contractor. — Damage to Street Sweepings by Gas Company. — The police commissioners of the city of Glas- gow sold to a contractor the whole dung and sweepings of the city, as the same should be laid down in their depot, for the period of a year, and during the year a gas company opened up several streets to lay pipes, and the sand and rubbish raised by them, being mixed with the police sweepings, considerably di- minished their value. In an action by the contractor for dam- ages, it was held that the contractor had a title to sue the gas company for damages on account of the deterioration caused by their operations, notwithstanding the injury was done before the sweepings were brought to the depot. ■ Fisken v. City & Suburban Gas Co. of Glasgow, 2d Series Court of Sess. C. Vol. 12, p. 757 ; 12 Dunlop, 757 ; 22 Jurist, 262 (1850). 4. Negligence. — Explosion. — Where damage was caused by an explosion of gas, the gas company claimed that the defendant, a contractor, was the cause of the accident, and that he had been at work at the sewer near where their main was laid, and had not properly filled in the earth. The question was submitted to the jury, viz. : Did the defendant produce a state of things that ended in a rupture of the company's pipe, and so let out the gas into the premises and caused an explosion ? The jury found for the defendant. Phoenix Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Dethick, 14 Gas J. 536 (Exch. 1865). CONTRACTOR — DAMAGES, I. 37 5. Damage to Pipes. — Liability to Gas Company. — Under a special contract to build a sewer for a city, the contractor was held to be liable for any damage done by him to the pipes of the Harlem Gas Light Company in constructing the sewer. In re Houghton, 27 N. Y. Supreme (20 Hun), 395. 6. Contractor. — Liability of Sub-Contractor. — Laying Gas- Pipes. — Gordon J. : " By agreement between the Pittsburg Gas Go. and Wray, the latter undertook to dig a trench in -which to lay gas-pipes of said company. This work was to be done under the supervision of the company's engineer. By a sub-contract, Wray passed the job to Davis. In the execution of his contract with Wray, Davis proceeded to dig the trench, into which the plaintiff fell and broke his leg. Davis employed and supervised the hands who did the work, and Wray had no control whatever over them." And it was held that the action could not be main- tained against Wray. Wray ». Evans, 80 Pa. St. 102 (1875). See Damages, 1 1 ; Nuisance, 25 ; Negligence, 25. COEPOEATIONS. See Assumpsit ; Charter ; Contract, II. ; Ultra Vibes ; Debts ; Bonds, 3; Consolidation. COUPONS. See Bonds, 3. DAMAGES. I. Measure and Elements of. 1. Loss of Profits. — Action for Damages. — Refusal, to supply Gas. — Waiver. — The plaintiff applied to the defendants for gas, and was required to sign a written application stating the number of burners needed, which he refused to do, because it was so connected with an agreement to abide by the rules that 38 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. he could not sign it without being bound by the latter, which the court had held in another action to be unreasonable ; and in an action for damages it was held that his refusal to sign it did not prevent him from maintaining an action for damages for re- fusal to supply gas, for the company by presenting the applica- tion in that shape for signature waived their right to insist on his making the application in any other shape ; and it was further lield that the plaintiff was entitled to such damages as would compensate him for his pecuniary loss, and also for the incon- venience and annoyance experienced by him in his mercantile business arising out of defendants' refusal to furnish gas to him ; and that he might give evidence to show the nature and extent of his business, and that it was inconvenient and difficult to transact it without gas, and that the want of gas, he alone being deprived of it, made his store less attractive to customers, and tended to diminish his business. Skepard v. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 15 Wis. 318 (1862). 2. Annuity not Measure for Damages. — Where the plaintiff, a butler in the employ of a club, was injured by the defendants' negligence, and incapacitated from performing the duties of that office for the rest of his life, it was held that the measure of damages was not the amount of an annuity which would be equal to his annual salary as such butler, as it could not be proved that he would have retained his situation for life. Rapson v. Cubitt, Carrington & Marshman, 64 ; 9 Meeson & Welsby, 710 (1841). 3. Loss of Profits. — Measure of Damages. — In an action for damages for unlawfully cutting off her supply of gas, where the plaintiff, who kept a boarding-house, claimed a loss of profits and that her boarders left her house because the gas supply was cut off, it was held that the law allows the loss of profits to be assessed as damages only when such loss can be traced directly to the immediate breach of contract or omission of duty declared upon, and that in this case the loss of profits was too remote, uncertain, and unreliable, upon the plaintifif's evidence, to form a basis for damages. Moray «;. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 38 N. Y. Superior, 6 J. & S. 185 (1874). DAMAGES, I. 89 4. Breach of Contract to supply Gas. — Depreciation of Real Estate. — Cost of removing Fixtures. — In an action for damages for injuries to the plaintiff in consequence of the illegal cutting off the gas from the plaintiff's store under a contract to supply the same, it was hdd that in estimating the damage the jury- may consider the depreciation in the value of the estate either for sale or rental, and may include the cost of removing the gas fixtures and replacing them, and of restoring the premises, Gas-Light Co. of Baltimore v. Colliday, 25 Maryland, 1. 5. Obstruction of Vessel by Gas- Pipe. — Elements of Damage. — The charterer of a vessel who was subjected to expense in getting the vessel off from and over a gas-pipe of the defendants, which was an unlawful obstruction to the navigation of Mystic Eiver and upon which the vessel had caught in passing along the river, can recover as damages the actual expense of getting the vessel free from the obstruction, but not for any delay in his business or other consequential damage. Benson v. Maiden & Melrose Gas-Light Co., 6 Allen, 149 (1863). 6. Nuisance. — ^ Elements of Damage. — Injury to 'Well. — In an action for damages for injury to the plaintiff's well and to his premises by the noxious odors and substances from the gas- works, it was held that, in ascertaining the true measure of damages, all the circumstances connected with the injury can , be considered by the jury ; that the cost of obtaining a sufficient quantity of water equally pure with that supplied from his well before its injury by the gas-works, and the cost of keeping the conductors and other machinery for so doing in repair, would be proper elements of damage ; that the depreciation of the value of the property by reason of the erection of the gas-works was also a proper element of damage, but if the property would sell for the same amount, independent of a rise in similar property, then there would be no loss, but if it would not, then the differ- ence would be the damages sustained. Ottawa Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Graham, 28 111. 73 (1862). See CoNTBACT, 20; Nuisance; Negligknce, I., IV. 40 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. II. Injury to Eeal Estate. 7. Damages for Use of Highways. — Gas-Pipes. — " So far as the laying of gas-pipes and street railways is incidental or similar to the use of land for highway, owners of land could claim no damages therefor. So far as either must be considered as a new and distinct use of the soil, not contemplated when owners of lots on either side of highway acquired their titles, there is no more reason for inferring an intention in the Gen- eral Court or the town to reserve such a use, than if land had heen taken for a highway after these possessions had been granted." Gkay J. in Boston V. Richardson, 13 Allen, 160. 8. Injury from laying Gas-Pipes in Highway. — Depreciation of Value of Farm. — Injury to Vegetation. — In proceedings before a commission to estimate damages sustained by the owner of a highway from the laying of gas-pipes through the same, evi- dence of the cost of sinking a drain in the land, and of keeping it in repair, to a greater depth than a drain then in existence, was held to be admissible and competent, and evidence was also admitted as to the amount of depreciation of the farm land caused by laying gas-pipes therein ; and it was further held that questions upon cross-examination with respect to the effect of escaping gas upon vegetation were competent. Bloomfleld & Rochester Natural Gas-Light" Co. v. Calkins, 1 N. Y. Su- preme, T. & C. 549. 9. Depreciation of Value of Land. — Stopping a Rifle Range. — Statute. — In proceedings under act 8 Vict. c. 18, to assess com- pensation for the taking of land of the plaintiffs, and for injuri- ously affecting other land, the plaintiffs, who were a volunteer rifle corps, claimed damages under the second head for the stop- page of a rifle range. It appeared that they had leases of several pieces of land, and of another portion behind their rifle butts they had only a verbal agreement with the owner, which was terminable by either party on giving proper notice, and which III. 41 was a necessary part of their rifle range. The defendants took land for a road which made the use of this latter lot impossi- ble as a rifle range, and it was abandoned by the plaintifi's ; and it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the stoppage of their range, and that their precarious title to the land only affected the amount of compensation. Holt V. Gas-Light & Coke Co., L. R. 7 Q. B. 728. 10. Indemnity. — Real Estate. — Fall of Chimney. — The owner of a building, who has paid to the party injured by the fall of a chimney the damages caused thereby, may recover the amount paid by him from a gas company which without the owner's consent has af&xed for use in its business a telegraph wire to the said chimney, which made it unsafe and finally caused it to fall upon a passer-by. Gray v. Boston Gas-Light Co., 114 Mass. 149 (1873). See Trespass ; Mandamus, 3. III. Special Damages. 11. Internal Injury. — Shock to Nervous System by Explosion. — Contractor. — The plaintiff's husband was passing through a street in which a terrific gas explosion occurred, and, although not externally injured, some hours after was seized with black vomit, and went raging mad, and died in about four months, frequently raving about explosions. The defendant was a con- tractor for paving and repairing the road, and'by the negligence of some of his workmen the gas-pipes were injured and gas escaped. He contended that he was not liable for an injury of this kind, but it was held that the question of injury was for the jury, and that the plaintiff might have a good cause of action, though there was no appearance of external injury ; and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Fellwood V. Pearson, 23 Gas J. 248. See Agency, 1, 2. 42 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. For Damages in Cases of Contract, see Conteiact, 8, 20, 23 ; Con- TRACTOB, 2, 3, 4 ; Navigable Water, 1, 2. In Cases of Nuisance, see Nuisance. For Refusal to supply Gas, see Supply of Gas. V DANGEE OF EXPLOSIOK Not Cause for Injunction. See Nuisance, 21 ; Negligence, II. DANGEEOUS AETICLE. See Agency, 3 ; Duty op Gas Companies. DEBENTUEES. See Debts, 1. DEBT. Action of Debt. — Maintainable against Gas Company. — De- murrer. — Where an act of Parliament for incorporating a gas- light company enacted that all the costs of obtaining the act should be paid and discharged out of the moneys described in preference to all other payments, it was held that the attorneys ■who obtained the act might maintain an action of debt against the gas company, founded upon the statute, for their costs. The declaration contained other counts stating that the de- fendants were indebted to the plaintiffs for work and labor, and it was held upon general demurrer that, even assuming that a corporation could not contract but by deed, the omission to set out a deed was a mere matter of form, and therefore ground for special demurrer only. Tilson V. Warwick Gas-Light Co., 4 Bam. & Cr. 962 (1825). DEBTS. 1. Debentures. — Uncalled Capital — Preference. — A gas com- pany, incorporated with a nominal capital of £250,000, had issued debentures charged on all the property and effects of the com- pany, of what nature or kind soever, which the company should then hold or' be possessed of, such charge to rank equally with DANGER OP EXPLOSION — DIRECTORS. 43 other securities of the like kind issued by the company. The company being -wound up by order of the court, it was held that the debenture holders were entitled to be paid before other cred- itors out of the calls made or to be made. In re Colonial & General Gaa Co. Limited, 19 W. R. 341; 23 Law T. E. N. s. 759; 20 Gas J. 10 (Stoart V. C. 1870). 2. Right to Borrow. — Mortgage. — Ultra Vires. — A corpora- tion organized under a general incorporation act, which declares that persons organizing gas companies shall have the same gen- eral corporate powers as are provided by § 3 of the act, which section gives corporations the right to inake contracts for the purpose of manufacturing and supplying gas to the inhabitants of a city or village, may borrow money and secure the payment of the same by note and a mortgage, when this is done solely to carry forward its business of manufacturing and selling gas ; and it cannot set up as a defence to its own mortgage notes the plea that it had transcended the limits of the powers granted by its charter in executing such mortgage. Hays V. Galion Gas-Light & Coal Co., 29 Ohio St. 330 (1876). See Bonds, 1, 2; Taxation, 7. DEFENCES. See Evidence ; Municipality, 9 ; Nuisance, V. 5 Patent, 3 ; Stock OP Gas Companies, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9. DEMUEREE. See Debt ; Dividend, 1 ; Municipality, 8 ; Supply op Gas, 8 ; Fraudulent Taking, 1. DEPOSIT. See Statutes, 9. DIEECTOES. 1. Illegal Formation of Gas Company. — Election of Direc- tors. — Equity. — Account. — LowRlE J. : " The act of legisla- ture authorizing nine men and their associates to erect and manage 44 EIGHTS AND LUBILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. gas-workSj did not create a corporation, but only authorized the formation of one. Such a corporation can only be constituted by persons voluntarily associating together and contributing funds for a given purpose." It appeared that these nine persons met, and six of them subscribed for the whole stock, and then elected officers, but no directors. Later, four of the nine met (as direc- tors) and adopted by-laws. The president then resigned, and a new man was elected director in his place ; and then the direc- tors and all the corporators assigned their stock to. new men, and resigned and adjourned sine die. This left aU the stock in the hands of three new men. These three assigned a Little stock to two others, and they then met and elected themselves directors ; and they then assigned all their stock to the company, and then opened books for subscriptions of stock. They then made a con- tract for land and building of works. There were some lond fide subscribers of stock after this date, and it was Jidd that this organization was invalid and illegal, and on a bill in equity the court ordered an account from the directors. Fletolier v. TitusviUe Gas & Water Co., 8 Philadelphia, 559 (1871). 2. Quorum. — Agency. — Power of President. — Where a meet- ing of the president and two directors of a gas company was called informally to give sanction to the action of the company's counsel in compromising a controversy then on trial, and no notice of such meeting was given, and one of the directors was intentionally not notified, and the meeting was held at an unu- sual place, and a resolution approving of the compromise was prepared and was afterwards submitted and formally adopted by the board of directors on the same day, the director not notified being present, it was held that this was not a valid act of the board, as it consisted of a president and five directors, and a quo- rum was not present and voting, and was not a lawful meeting of the board for want of notice, and that the president, as such, had no authority to approve such a contract. Fisher v. Harrisburg Gas Co., 1 Pennsylvania (Pearson), 118 (C. C. P. 1857). 3. Security to Director. — Undue Preference. — Equity. — ' A security given by an insolvent company for payment of a debt DIRECTORS. 45 due to a director cognizant of the state of the company's affairs may be set aside as an undue preference, under § 164 of the Companies Act 1862, even although the director may have pressed for payment of his deht. A director desiring to obtain payment of his debt under such circumstances ought to resign his of&ce before applying for pay- ment. A biU to set aside such a security may be filed in the name of the company as plaintiff. Gas-Light Improvement Co. v. Terrell, L. E. 10 Eq. 168 (1870). 4. Election. — Quo Warranto. — At the annual meeting, where two directors were to be chosen, after a show of hands had been declared in favor of L. and S., a poll was demanded, which was declared by two scrutineers appointed by the chair to have re- sulted in favor of W. and P., and this result was declared by the chair and entered on the minutes. At the first meeting thereaf- ter of the board of directors, resolutions were passed ordering the minutes to be altered by making it appear that the scrutineers had reported in favor of L. and S., and ordering the solicitor to take legal proceedings to restrain W. from acting as director. The seal of the company was affixed to a retainer for that pur- pose, and the solicitor filed a biU in the name of the company to contest W.'s election. The defendants moved to take the bill off the file, on the ground that it was filed without authority. Pend- ing the decision, the bill in chancery was disavowed and the election of W. confirmed at a stockholders' meeting. The motion to take the bill off the file being now pressed, it was hsM that the return was good, in the absence of fraud, imtil questioned before a proper tribunal in a proper manner, but SemUe, that the court would have interfered if actual fraud had been shown, and Qucere, whether a scrutiny of votes can be tried on quo war- ranto. Wandsworth. & Putney Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Wright et al., 19 Gas J. 407, James V. C. (Ch.), 18 W. E. 728; 5. Annuity. — Po'wer of Directors. — Contract under Seal. — Under statute 1 and 2 Geo. IV. c. 117, directors of gas compa- 46 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. nies have the custody of the seal, and power to use it for affairs of the company ; but no power was expressly given to grant an- nuities. At a general meeting of the gas company, a vote was passed authorizing the directors to grant an annuity to an old and sick clerk, but no order was made under seal. The directors, by deed, granted the annuity, and affixed the corporate seal to it ; and it was held that the seal was properly affixed by them, and that the granting of the annuity was warranted by the statute. Clarke v. Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co., 1 Nev. & Man. 206, 4 Bam. & Adolph. 315 (1832). 6. Contract with Director. — Statute. — A contract between a company and a person who acts as director, whether legally ap- pointed or not, is within the prohibition of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, § 29. The exception, in that section, of contracts for articles or services — the subject of the proper business of the company — refers to articles and services supplied or rendered by the com- pany to a director, and not those supplied by a director to the company. Be South Essex Gas-Light & Coke Co., Ex parte Stears, Johns. 480, Wood V. 0. 7. Action to recover. — Salary of Directors. — Bankruptcy. — Contract — A suit for the services of a director for attend- ance at court and ■ elsewhere, was brought by his assignees in bankruptcy, and it appeared that the gas-light company was incorporated by an act of Parliament, which provided that eigh- teen shareholders should be directors, and as such should use the common seal, manage the affairs of the company, lay out money, purchase lands, &c., and make contracts for lighting and for the sale of materials; that the company was empowered to make ly-laws under seal for its government and for regulating the pro- ceedings of the directors, officers, servants, &c. ; and that at a meeting of the company a resolution was passed, rwt under seal, that a remuneration should be allowed to every director for his attendance on courts, committees, &c. ; but it was held that a director who had attended courts, &c., could not maintain an action for payments according to the above resolution, for it was not a by-law within the statute, nor a contract (if such DIRECTORS — DISTRESS. 47 could have been available) to pay the directors, or any of them, for their attendances, and the directors could not be considered as servants to the company, and as such entitled to remuneration for their labor according to its value. . Dunston v. Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co., 3 Bam. & Ad. 125 (1832). 8. Assignment to Director. — Fraudulent Preference. — LORD EoMiLLY M. K. : " The directors borrowed money perfectly bond fide for the sake of the company ; and as the persons who lent them money would not lend it to the company without the se- curity of the directors, the latter became the creditors of the company. B., a creditor, sued the company, which offered a judgment, provided execution was not issued before July 16. This was accepted, and judgment signed July 4. On the 15th B. was not paid ; on the 17th the directors resolved to make a call and to assign all. the property in favor of the directors who were creditors of the company, which was done two days after a fi. fa. issued." Meld, that the directors knew that the company was in a state of insolvency, and that the assignment was a fraud- ulent preference, and should be set aside under clause 164 of the Companies Act, though the directors may have pressed for pay- ment of their debt. Gas-light Improvement Co. v. Terrell, L. E. 10 Ect. 168 (1870). 9. Contract with Director. — Void under Statute. — Under the statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, a contract made by a director with the defendants to pay him for the erection of gas-works and lay- ing down pipes, and also a certain percentage upon all contracts and outlay in which he should be concerned, either as engineer or contractor, was held void, unless approved by a meeting of stockholders, although the work had been done by the plaintiff. Stears v. South Essex Gas-Light & Coke Co., 9 Com. Bench, N. s. 180. See Evidence, 8 ; Stock of Gas Companies, 5. For Liability for Pollution of Wells and Eivers, see Nuisance, 6, 10. DISTRESS. See Bankeuptct ; Agency, 12. 48 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. DIVIDENDS. 1. Division of Profits between Old and New Stockliolders. — Demurrer. — Under the Gas Works Clauses Acts 1847, the divi- dends of gas companies were not allowed to exceed 10 per cent per annum. The original capital of the defendant gas company was enlarged, but the subscribers to the. additional stock were never to receive dividends of over 7 per cent. The profits of the company were not sufficient to pay 10 per cent on original shares and 7 per cent on the new shares, and at the last general meet- ing of the company it was resolved that a dividend should be declared at the rate of 8 per cent on the original shares, and 7 per cent on the new shares. The meeting rejected an amend- ment to the effect that a dividend on the former should be 8 per cent, and on the latter £5 12s. per cent, which would be the pro- portionate share. A bill was filed by the plaintiffs in behalf of themselves and all the proprietors of original shares, for the purpose of preventing a division of profits being made on the footing of the above-mentioned resolution, claiming that the profits should be apportioned among the different shareholders in proportion to the maximum rates of dividend. The company demurred, and the demurrer was sustained. Maughan v. Leamington Priors Gas Co., 15 Law T. n. s. 437 ; 15 Gas J. 878 (1866). 2. Charter. — Contingent Fund. — Making good Previous Divi- dends. — In the act of incorporation of the W. gas-light com- pany, it was provided that the profits to be divided should not exceed 10 per cent in any one year, and the excess, if any, should be accumulated up to .£5,000, which should be a contin- gent fund, to answer for any deficiency in profits, &c. ; that, if the divisible profits exceeded 10 per cent, a ratable reduction in the price of gas should be made ; that, if profits did not amount to 10 per cent, then, whether such deficiency should occur before or after formation of contingent fund, a sum might be taken from it to make up a 10 per cent dividend. Up to 1862 the company paid 5 to 9 per cent; since then 10 per cent; and about £4:ft00 had been accumulated for contingent fund ; and it DIVIDENDS — DUTY OF GAS COMPANIES. 49 was hdd by the Master of the Eolls that this £4,000 could not be appropriated to making up the deficiency previous to 1862. Chamberlain v. Worcester New Gas-Light Co., 25 Gas J. 842 ; 26 Gas J. 25 (1862). See Taxation, 7, 13j Stock op Gas Companies, 13. DOCKAGE. Dockage. — The Board of State Harbor Commissioners leased to the defendant for fifteen years a certain portion of the water front of San Prancisco, to be used only for wharf purposes in the business of the company, and it was agreed that the lessee should do all the dredging required. In an action to recover amounts of dockage received, it was held that defendants could collect dockage for their own use upon vessels landing at their wharf, and the State had no right to such payments. People V. San Francisco Gas-Light Co., 54 Cal. 248. DUTY OF GAS COMPANIES. 1. Duty in General. — Responsibility. — " The defendants (a gas company), under their charter, were in the enjoyment of a great and peculiar privilege, that of supplying the means of light to all parts of the city. This devolved upon them a correspond- ing degree of responsibility in the conduct of their business and in the preservation of every part of their apparatus from defects by which the public might be subjected to ,great inconvenience, and individuals be exposed to imminent peril and danger in re- spect to property and their lives. They are therefore under the highest degree of obligation to be at all times in a state of the most ample preparation to meet, with all reasonable promptitude and despatch, whatever exigency might occur. It is manifestly impossible that they should have at their service, at every mo- ment and at every point of exposure, an adequate force to over- come a sudden fracture of their pipes, or any other casual and unexpected obstacle in the conduct of their affairs in the short- est possible time. All that they are required to do is to afford ample opportunities to all parties interested to make communi- 4 5'0 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. cations to them, to institute and maintain an efficient system of oversight and superintendence, and to be prepared with a suffi- cient force ready to be put in action, and fully competent to sup- ply and furnish a prompt remedy for all such accidents, defects, and interruptions in their affairs, as from experience and char- acter of their works there was reasonable ground to anticipate might occur." Shaw C. J. in Holly V. Boston Gas-Light Co., 8 Gray, 123 (1857). 2. Not Public Corporations. — "The manufacture and sale of gas is a business which may be prosecuted or discontinued at the will of the party engaged in it. The relations between the maker and the consumer originate in the contract between them, and their respective rights and obligations are controlled entirely by the stipulations of such contract, and as (where no contract prohibits) the one may refuse to take the article at his pleasure, so may the other at his pleasure refuse to supply it. We dis- cover no reason for subjecting the maker of gas to duties or liabilities beyond those to which the manufacturers and vendors of other commodities are subjected by the rules of law." San- FOED J. in McCune v. Norwich City Gas Co., 30 Conn. 521. 3. Care to be exercised. — " It is the duty of gas companies, which are invested, for their own profit and advantage, with the great and important privilege of supplying the community with light for private habitations, and for other places dj^oted to pub- lic or private use, to exercise due care and dilig«ce in keeping the gas constantly under their control and preventing it from escaping into a dwelling-house or place of business, where the inmates or occupants are in such cases involuntarily subjected to its effects, whether they are positively injurious or merely dis- gusting and offensive. If its effect is noxious:' as well as dis- agreeable, the diligence required to take care of and control it should be still more active and unremitting." Merrick J. in Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 410 (1862). See Estoppel, 1 ; Evidence, 24 ; Notice, 1 ; Supply op Gas ; Nbg- LIGENOH, I., IT., III. EASEMENT. 51 EASEMENT. 1. Easement. — Right to lay Pipes. — Not License. — Estoppel. — The charter of a gas company authorized them, with the con- sent of the Board of Aldermen, to lay pipes in the streets for the purpose of selling their gas. Their charter was repealable by the legislature, and it was lield by Greene C. J. that the right which the gas company took under their charter, when exercised, was an easement, an incorporeal easement and not a mere license, and that the gas company were estopped from claiming that their grant under the charter was void, because no compensation was provided thereby for the owners of the land through which their pipes passed. Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber, 2 R. I. 15 (1861). 2. License. — Injunction. — Real Estate. — The plaintiffs laid a main at their own expense through a lot of land, at the request of the owner, the pipe remaining by agreement the property of the plaintiffs, who supplied gas to the owner of the land. After- wards the owner sold the block of houses on his land to various owners, all of whom took gas from the plaintiffs. The defend- ant company, having obtained consent of the various occupants of the houses, severed the plaintiffs' pipe from their main, and used such pipe to supply their own gas. The plaintiffs brought this action for an injunction and damages, and it was held that the parol license given by the original owner was a good license until revoked by the original owner or his grantees ; ahd the employment of another gas company by subsequent grantees was not a revocation of the license, nor an authorization of the second gas company to use these pipes for that purpose ; and the new company were ordered to reconnect the said main with the plaintiffs' street main, and a perpetual injunction against in- terfering with the pipe granted. Poughkeepsie Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Co., 27 N. Y. Supreme (20 Hun), 214 ; 9 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 451 (1880). 3. Easement. — Injunction. — Not mere License. — On a bill for an injunction against the use of complainant's land by a gas 62 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP SAS COMPANIES. company, without his consent, it was held that if the gas com- pany had a verbal license from the former owner of the land to locate its gas-pipe on the lot, and had expended money or in- curred expense in preparing for use of such easement, such license would be irrevocable ; and it was held further that if the com- plaiuant had notice of such easement when he purchased the land he would be bound thereby, but if he had no notice, the injunction should be granted. Rome Gas-Liglit Co. v. Meyerhardt, 61 Ga. 287. See Franchise ; Injunction, 4 ; Nuisance, 7 ; Quo Warranto. EJECTMENT. See Charter, 1. ELECTION. See Directors, 1. EMBEZZLEMENT. See Larceny. EMINENT DOMAIN. Gas Companies not Public Corporations. — Eminent Domain of Railroad Company. — A gas company, chartered by the legisla- ture, with authority to manufacture and sell gas to individuals and for the purpose of lighting the public streets, is not a public corporation, nor does it serve such a pubKc use as exempts it from the exercise of the right of eminent domain on the part of a railroad company, when such exercise is necessary and for a proper purpose ; and it was held by Miller J. that " there is nothing in the charter of the gas-light company which entitles it to exemption from the power of eminent domain, as exercised under the statute, in acquiring real estate. Its land is not held by virtue of any such right ; nor is it required to serve any public use which confers upon it any especial privilege in this respect. It is a private manufacturing corporation which furnishes gas EMINENT DOMAIN — ESTOPPEL. 53 to individuals and for the lighting of the public streets, on such terms as are agreed upon. This, of itself, does not make it a public corporation. It is not public merely because it has a public character. " The land in question is not now, and has not been, devoted to gas purposes by the company, and it is not clear that it is abso- lutely indispensable for their use at the present time. That it may become so hereafter does not necessarily deprive the peti- tioner of the right to acquire it if the public exigencies require it." N. Y. Central & Hudson R. R. R. Co. v. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 63 N. Y. 326 (1875); b. c. 12 Supreme, 201 (1875). See Charter, 7. EQUITY. See Director, 1, 2, 3 ; Stock of Gas Company, 10. ESTOPPEL. 1. street Rail-way. — Injunction. — Agent. — Location of Gas- Pipes. — In a suit brought by the plaintiffs, with a prayer for an injunction against the defendants' disturbance of the street to mend their pipes, it appeared that the plaintiffs obtained per- mission to lay their tracks in the street, and knowing defend- ants' pipes were laid in said street, for the purpose of laying their track upon some other portion of the street, inquired of the book- keeper and collector of defendants where their pipes were, and were informed by him that the pipes were laid in the centre of the street ; that they thereupon laid the track on one side, and, as it appeared, directly over the pipe, the of&cers and agents of the gas company being ignorant of the location of their own pipes, and that the defendants thereupon attempted to take up the track to repair the pipe, and notified plaintiffs of their intention : and it was held that the gas company were not estopped, either by the action of their agent or by their silently allowing the track to be laid, from disturbing the railway track, and that the injunction must be refused ; and the court said that " it was the defendants' duty to know the precise location of their pipes, and to be able to give correct information concerning the same to those who 54 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. had a right to demand it ; and if a gas company wrongly rep- resents the location of its pipes, so as to lead a railway com- pany to lay its track over them when it was seeking to avoid them, then such gas company would be estopped from claiming the right to disturb the track, even though the gas company was mistaken in regard to the location of the pipes at the time the representations were made," but that a book-keeper and collector was not such an agent of a gas company as to make his state- ments about the location of a gas-pipe binding upon the gas com- pany. Davenport Central Railway Co. v. Davenport Gas-Light Co., 43 Iowa, 301 (1876). 2. Use of Streets for Twenty Vears. — Iizclusive Right. — The fact that a gas company has used for twenty years the streets of a city for the purpose of laying its pipes and to sup- ply gas to its customers, under a permission from the city coun- cil, does not prevent the court from inquiring into defendants' right to such exclusive use of the streets, "and the fact that others have not exercised a similar right does not make defend- ants' user, the .exercise of a right to exclude others." State of Ohio v. Cincinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262 (1868). 3. Corporation. — Contract. — Right to Purchase. — The legis- lature of Missouri gave to the defendants the exclusive right to make and sell illuminating gas to the city of St. Louis, giving the city the right to purchase the gas-works in either twenty or twenty-five years, viz. : either in 1860 or 1865, under certain conditions, and providing that if the city did not purchase at either of those times, then the charter was to be in force until 1890. In 1846 the plaintiffs made an agreement with the de- fendants to give up the right to buy in 1860, the defendants agreeing, without the consent of the stockholders, that if plaintiffs should not buy in 1865 they might do so in 1870, or at the end of any five years thereafter. In 1859 the city took steps to pur- chase defendants' property in 1860, but defendants refused to sell in consequence of the contract of 1846, and, relying upon this contract, the city took no further steps in 1860 or 1865, and lost their rights to purchase at both these times. In 1870 the city EVIDENCE, I. 55 again took steps to purchase, and brought this suit to enforce their rights, which the company resisted, alleging that the con- tract of 1846 was void, and that the time to buy appointed by the charter had expired; and it was held that the defendants were estopped to deny the validity of the contract of 1846. City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gas Co., 70 Mo. 69 ; 5 Mo. App. 484. See Agency, 6 ; Easement, 1 ; Trespass ; Municipality, 5 ; Nui- sance, 12; Stock of Gas Company, 1, 3; Trespass, 1. EVIDENCE. Expert Testimony. 1. Expert. — Opinion of Agent of Gaa Company. — In an ac- tion against a gas company for damages to the plaintiff's health caused by an escape of gas from the main pipe in the street into the plaintiff's cellar, if it be a fact that inhalation of gas will produce sickness or generate disease (and this question is to be determined upon conflicting evidence by the jury), it was held that evidence that the defendant's agent, who had charge of the works, did not know or believe that gas was noxious to health, is inadmissible for the purpose of affecting the question of care and diligence which it was the duty of the gas company to exercise ; and it was further held that he was a competent expert, and his opinion upon the general question as to the alleged deleterious effect of gas upon the health of persons exposed to it was admis- sible. Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 410. 2. Expert. — Digging Holes. — In an action against a gas com- pany for damages for injury to the plaintiff's health, caused by escape of gas from their main pipe in the street, which escaped into the plaintiff's cellar, a witness who is experienced in dig- ging holes through frozen earth may testify how long a time and how much labor it would take to dig such holes as have been made through frozen earth by the defendants in searching for 56 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. the leak, for the purpose of showing whether they have exercised reasonable diligence iu finding and stopping the same. Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 410. 3. Damages. — Injury to Vegetation. — Evidence. — Upon pro- ceedings to estimate the damages suffered by the owner of land through which gas-pipes were laid, evidence of the effect of escaping gas upon vegetation was held to be admissible upon cross examination, where the witnesses had testified that laying pipes through the soil did not injure the land. Bloomfleld, &c. Gas-Light Co. v. Calkias, 1 N. Y. Supreme (T. & C), 549. 4. Nuisance. — Expert. — Injury to Well. — In an action against a gas-light company for damages for injury to the plain- tiff's premises by noxious odors, &c., from their gas-works, a wit- ness for the plaintiff was asked, " Give your views of the damage done to Graham's premises on account of the gas-works ? " and it was held that his evidence was admissible. Ottawa Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Graham, 35 111. 346 (1864). 5. Expert Testimony. — Physician. — Inhalation of Gas. — In an action* against a gas company to recover damages for injury to plaintiff's health by escape of gas from the main pipe in the street into the plaintiff"s premises, a physician who has been in practice several years, but has had no experience as to the effects upon the health of breathing illuminating gas, cannot be allowed to testify in relation thereto as an expert ; and experience in at- tending upon other persons who, it is alleged, were made sick by breathing gas from the same leak is insufi&cient for this purpose. Nor can he testify that the plaintiff told him of gas entering his house the year before, and that the inhaling of it made him sick. Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 6 Allen, 146. 6. Expert Testimony. — Physicians. — Inhalation of Gas. — In an action for damages for injury to the plaintiff's health caused by an escape of gas from the main pipe in the street, from which it passed through various sewers and drains into the house oc- cupied by the plaintiff, the plaintiff called three physicians, who EVIDENCE, II., III. 57 had heard the testimony on the part of plaintiff, and asked each of them the following question : " Having heard the evidence, and assuming the statements made by plaintiff to be true, what in your opinion was their sickness, and do you see any adequate cause for the same ?" The witnesses answered, that "their sick- ness was of a low typhoid tj^e, and that the breathing of gas, as stated by them, was the cause of it," and it was held that both the question and answer were proper and admissible. Hunt V. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 8 Allen, 169. II. Books of Account. 7. Action. — Superintendent's Books of Account. — Admissi- ble. — One Symonds was the superintendent of the gas company, and his duties were to pay the wages of the workmen, to seU coke, make minor disbursements, &c. The company became dis- satisfied with his returns and general conduct, and discharged him, and he thereupon claiined a balance due him, and the com- pany filed a counter-claim. He offered in evidence his own books of account kept for the company, and it was held that they were admissible as evidence in favor of the party writing them, though special circumstances must be stated under which they are received. Symonds v. Gas-Light & Coke Co., Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Symonds, 11 Beavan, 283 (1848). 8. Company's Books. — False Entries by Directors. — Where the defendants were sued by a corporation for making, while di- rectors, false entries in the books of the corporation, it was held that they were not entitled to inspect the books of the corpora- tion, at all events not without an af&davit that such inspection was necessary to their defence. Imperial Gas Co. v. Clarke, 7 Bingham, 95 (1830). III. Meaning of "Words. 9. Printed Regulations. — " Shut off the Gas." — In an action against a gas company for injury caused by explosion of gas 58 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. escaping into a house from the main pipe in the street, on the question whether defendants' servants were negligent in their action after the leak was discovered, the defendants put in evi- dence printed regulations given by them to their servants, and among them was the following : " The person sent to attend to such case ... is authorized to shut off the gas," and then offered to show that the direction to " shut off the gas " in this connection applied only to shutting off gas from houses and not from the streets ; and this evidence was held to he admissible. Bartlett v. Boston Gas-Light Co., 117 Mass. 533. 10. Meaning of Words "Public Posts." — Contract. — The phrase " public posts " in a contract with a gas company, made by a city for a supply of gas, includes posts used and erected for the benefit of the public, as well as those actually owned by the city. Davenport Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. City of Davenport, 13 Iowa, 229. See Insurance, 3 ; Nuisance, 1, 2 ; Statutes, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15 ; Words. IV. Other like Eesults and Cases. 11. Damages. — Inhalation of Gas. — Other Illnesses. — Nui- sance. — In an action for damages for injury to the plaintiffs caused by inhalation of the defendants' gas, which had entered the plaintiffs' house through a leak in the pipe, evidence that the plaintiffs and the other members of their families who were living with them had been in good health before the influx of the gas, and that afterwards they all became iU, and that one of the daughters died, is admissible; but the defendants' evi- dence that the sickness of the plaintiffs and their families was, in fact, typhoid fever ; that former occupants of the house in ques- tion had been afflicted with much illness of the same character ; that various families had been obliged to remove from it on that account; that its location was low, and upon made land, and that it was generally regarded and reputed to be unhealthy, is incompetent. Hunt V. Lowell Gas-Liglit Co., 1 Allen, 343 (1861). EVIDENCE, IV. 59 12. Nuisance. — Injury to other Wells. — la an action for damages for injury to the plaintiff's well, in which the plaintiff alleged that the gas manufactured by the defendant company escaped and passed through the earth into his weU, and cor- rupted the water thereof, evidence that the water in other wells at the same or greater distance from the gas-tank was affected and corrupted by the defendants' gas was held to be admissible, but only for the purpose of showing that gas could pass through the earth as far as the plaintiff's well from the gas-tank. Ottawa Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Graham, 35 Illinois, 346 (1864). 13. Similar Illness. — Inhalation of Gas. — In an action against a gas-light company to recover damages for an injury to health caused by an escape of gas from a main pipe in the public street, from which it passed through various sewers and drains into the cellar of the house, and thence into the house occupied by the plaintiff, evidence is competent to show that all the other per- sons living in the same house had been, in good health before the time complained of, and had afterwards become ill ; but no particulars of the illness of these parties are admissible for the purpose of showing the nature of the gas and its effects upon others who inhaled it at the same time with the plaintiff. Hunt V. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 8 AUen, 109. 14. Escape of Gas into other Houses. — Similar Illnesses. — In an action against a gas company to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff's health by an escape of gas from the main pipe in the street into the plaintiff's premises, evidence that wherever the gas entered other houses in the neighborhood, the drains of which connected with the sewers through which the gas leaked into the plaintiff's house, sickness followed, was hdd not to be admissible. Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 410. 15. Escape of Gas into other Houses. — In an action against a gas company to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff's health by an escape of gas from the main pipe in the street into the plaintiff's cellar, evidence that there was an escape of gas 60 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. into a block of houses directly opposite the premises of the plaintiff, and that the defendants were negligent in relation thereto, before it has been shown that gas came into the plain- tiff's house, was held not to be admissible. Emerson, v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 6 Allen, 146. 16. Other Leaks. — Injury to Greenhouse. — In an action for damages for injuries to the plaintiff's greenhouse, caused by a leak of gas from the defendants' pipes, it vr&s held that evidence of the presence of gas in other greenhouses which were con- nected with the same sewers was admissible. Butcher v. Providence Gaa Co., 12 R. I. 149 (1878); 18 Alb. Law J. 372. 17. Escape of Gas into other Houses. — Locality and liztent of Leak. — In an action against a gas-light company to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff, caused by the escape of gas from the defendants' main pipe in the street, and thence through the sewers and drains into the plaintiff's cellar, the plaintiff, after introducing evidence for the purpose of showing that the defendants did not use due diligence in finding and stopping the leak after they had received notice thereof, may prove by witnesses who were passing along the street, or lived in the neighborhood of the plaintiff's house at the time, the ex- tent to which the gas escaped into the street, and also that it escaped from the same sewer through which it reached the plain- tiff's house into other houses at points beyond, as this evidence tended in some degree to show how rapidly and in what quanti- ties the gas was escaping, and the place where the leak occurred, and afforded some means of judging as to the amount of force and labor to be applied to arrest its further escape, and also whether the defendants had been negligent in not discovering the leak sooner. Evidence, however, that gas was in houses other than those into which the defendants had knowledge that it had en- tered, was inadmissible, because their action could not be influ- enced by facts of which they were ignorant. Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 AUen, 410. IS. Leaks of Gas. — System of Company admissible to sho'w due Preparation. — In an action against a gas company for 61 injury occasioned by their neglect to repair a leak in their pipes from which gas escaped and injured the plaintiff's health, evi- dence in defence of defendants' system in regard to complaints of leaks, and what was the course of business in regard to such complaints, was held to be admissible for the purpose of show- ing that due preparation for accidents had been made by the company, but held not to be admissible for the purpose of show- ing that the company exerted the same degree of diligence in this as they did in other like instances. Holly V. Boston Gas-Light Co., 8 Gray, 123 (1857). 19. Former Bills for Gas. — Validity of Contract. — Number of Lights. — In an action by a gas-light company against a munici- pal corporation for the value of gas furnished, under a contract, for two months named, it was held_ that the biUs for gas furnished during the months immediately preceding, iinder the same con- tract, approved by the council of the corporation, were admissi- ble for the purpose of showing, (1) the number of lamps lighted; (2) that the city recognized the validity of the contract under which it was furnished and its liability to pay for the same. Davenport Ga3-Light & Coke Co. v. City of Davenport, 13 Iowa, 229 (1862). See Municipality, 7 ; Nuisance, 2. V. Burden of Proof in Cases of Negligence. 20. Proof of Negligence. — Nuisance. — Doctrine of Rylands V. Fletcher not applicable to Gas Companies. — The business of manufacturing and distributing illuminating gas is not a nuisance per se. A business which is lawful and is carried on reason- ably, and which does not necessarily affect health, comfort, or the ordinary uses and enjoyment of property in the neighborhood, cannot be a nuisance. The transmission of gas through pipes of good quality, laid under the streets, is not carrying on such busi- ness in an unreasonable way, and does not necessarily affect the health or comfort of the neighborhood. Unless the business of a gas company is carried on so as to constitute a nuisance, negli- 62 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. genoe on their part in an action for damages for injuries from an explosion of gas must be proved by the plaintiff, and the rule in Eylands v. Fletcher, L! K. 3 H. L. 330, does not apply. A gas company is not liable for damages caused by a leak of gas from their pipes, without evidence of negligence on their part in the management of their business. Strawbridge v. City of Philadelphia, 13 Reporter, 216. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1882. 21. Negligence of Gas Company must be proved by Plaintiff. — In an action against a gas company for injury caused by their neglect to keep their gas-pipe in proper repair, whereby the gas leaked into the premises occupied by the plaintiff and injured his health, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that defendants failed to exercise due care in keeping their pipes in a sound and safe condition for the transmission and distribu- tion of gas, and he must establish their failure as a fact, in order to maintain his action. Holly V. Boston Gas-Light Co., 8 Gray, 123. 22. Negligence of Gas Company. •: — What constitutes prima facie Evidence. — Inhalation of Gas. — In an action against a gas company for injuries received by the plaintiff, by the inhala- tion of gas which escaped from the defendant's pipes, it was field that " the fact that the gas escaped was prima facie evidence of some neglect on the part of the defendant ; that the pipes were made to contain the gas and conduct it safely, and it was the defendant's duty to see that they were constructed in a proper form and of proper material, and that they were laid in the ground at a suitable depth and in a suitable manner, and kept in proper repair for that purpose. The construction and care of the works were exclusively in the hands of the defendant, and no cause independently of some negligence on its part is shown to have produced the defect." Smith V. Boston Gas-Light Co., 129 Mass. 318 (1880). 23. Evidence to prove Plaintiff's due Csure. — In an action against a gas company for damages to the plaintiff's health from 63 an escape of gas from a main pipe in the street into the plain- tiff's premises, evidence that the defendants' agent went to the house of one C, into whose house the gas had leaked at the same time, and gave him directions what to do to avoid ill conse- quences from the gas, and that at his house the plaintiff did the same things so advised to C, was held not to be admissible to prove plaintiff's due care, he having testiiied that the agent gave him certain directions which he followed. Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 410 (1862). 24. Negligence of Gas Company in leaving Trench in Street. — Duty of Company.^ — The defendants dug a trench in the street for the purpose of laying gas-pipes, and the rubbish taken out thereof made a mound on the side of the ditch. There was no light put upon the mound, and no guard placed over the trench. The plaintiff drove his horse along the street in the evening, did not see the trench, and drove his horse into it, which was killed. In an action to recover damages for the in- jury to his horse, -it was lield that a gas company which has been entrusted by the legislature with the execution of a power from which mischief may result to the public, is bound to take special precaution to guard against such mischief, and in default is re- sponsible in damages, and the action could be maintained. Weld V. Gas-Light Co., 1 Starkie, 189 (1816). 25. Inhalation of Gas. — Delay. — Plaintiff's Admissions. — In an action against a gas company for damage to the plaintiff's health, caused by an escape of gas from the main pipe in a street into the premises of plaintiff, the defendants may show that the plaintiff made no claim on them for damages for more than two years after the injury complained of; but they may not show that the plaintiff while sick in bed, in conversation about his sickness, did not then ascribe it to the effects of gas, and said nothing as to the cause of it. Emerson v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 410. See Negligence, I., II. 64 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. VI. Admissions and Deolaeations. 26. Admission of Agent of Gas Company. — Inhalation of Gas. — In an action against a gas-light company to recover dam- ages for an injury to the plaintiff's health, caused by an acci- dental escape of gas from a main pipe through various sewers and drains into the plaintiff's house, if the defendants introduce evidence that one of their agents went to the different houses where the smell of gas was perceived, and especially to a house in the vicinity of the plaintiff's house, and did not find gas es- caping in great or dangerous quantities, for the purpose of show- ing that gas was not escaping in great or dangerous quantities, evidence of the occupant of one of such houses that he informed him that there was gas enough in his cellar to blow up the house if he should go down with a light, is admissible for the purpose of contradicting him. Hunt V. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 418. 27. Examination of Defendants' Agents, and OiScers. — Di- rector. — " Party." — Under the new code of New York, authoriz- ing the examination of a " party " to an action before trial, at the instance of the adverse party, the word " party " does not include the ofiicers, servants, agents, or employees of a corporation, and a director of a gas company cannot be thus examined. People V. Mutual Gas-Light Co. of Brooklyn, 74 N. Y. 434 (1878). See Agency, II. VII. Defences. 28. Former Judgment. — 'When no Bar. — Landlord and Ten- ant. — In an action of tort for injuries to the plaintiff's (the land- lord's) reversionary interest in a dwelling-house by an explosion of gas, the defendants offered in evidence the record of an action brought by the tenant against them for injuries to his person and property from the same explosion, in which case a trial by jury EVIDENCE, VI. — PIXTUEES. 65 was had, and the jury found for the defendants, and judgment was entered upon the verdict, and it was contended that such judgment was a bar to the action brought by the landlord ; but it was held that it was not a bar, was not between the same parties or their privies, nor was the cause of action the same, and was not conclusive evidence between the parties of the facts in issue. Bartlett v. Boston Gas-Light Co., 122 Maas. 209 (1877). 29. Evidence admissible under Greneral Issue. — In an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages sustained by the de- fendants' negligence in laying gas-mains in the streets, whereby water was let into plaintiff's premises, evidence at the trial that the water did not come from the ditch in which the pipes were laid, but from the sewer, and that the injury was the result of the defective sewerage system in that neighborhoodi was held to be admissible under the general issue. Schaus V. Manhattan Gaa-Light Co., 14 Abbott's Pr. E. (n. s.) 371,. 36 N. Y. Superior Ct. 262 (4 Jones & S.). 30. Disputed Gas Account. — ITotioe. — Meter. — In an action to recover the price of gas, the defendant claimed that he had ceased to use gas, although he admitted he had given no notice to the gas company, and his meter showed a consumption of 2,000 feet; and it was held that, although the act of Parliament made a meter prima facie . evidence of the amount consumed, the defendant's testimony was conclusive. Alliance & Dublin Consumers' Gas Co. v. Taaffe, 27 Gas J. 206. See Damages, 8 ; Fraudulent Taking ; Notice, 3 ; Nuisance, 13 ; Negligence, II. ; Lease, 2. EXPLOSION. See Agenot, 1, 2, 3, 5 ; Contbactob, 4; Damages, 11; Insub- ANCE, 3, 4: ; Landlord and Tenant, 2, 4 ; Municipalitt, 7 ; Neg- ligence, I., IL, III. nXTUEES. See Easement, 1; Insubancb, 2; Gas Fixtures; Landlord and Tenant. s 66 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. FOEFEITUEE. See Chaeteb, 13 ; Contract, 12 ; Consolidation. rOEMATION OF COMPANY. See Director, 1 ; Stock of Gas Companies, L, II. FEANGHISE. 1. Not mere License. — Injunction. — Receiver. — On a mo- tion for an injunction against the defendant, who was the receiver of the Mutual Gas-light Company, to restrain -him from opening streets to lay gas-pipes, the plaintiff claiming that the permission given to such gas company was a mere license, and could not be exercised by a receiver, it was held that when the legislature grants to a gas-light company the right to use the streets of a city, subject to the condition of obtaining the consent of the lo- cal authorities, and this consent has been obtained, the company is vested with the right to use the streets as a franchise conferred by the State ; that this franchise was covered by the mortgage upon the property of the Mutual Gas-Light Company, and the purchaser under the foreclosure sale may organize a new corpo- ration, and proceed to make and sell gas without a new consent of the city, and that the injunction must be refused. City of Brooklyn v. Jourdan, 7 Abbott's New Cases, 23 (1879). 2. Right to lay Pipes. — Monopoly. — The right of a gas com- pany to lay its pipes and to use the streets of a city for the pur- pose of laying pipes to convey gas, is a franchise, and can only be conferred upon a corporation by the legislature. The city coun- cil of a city has no power to grant the exclusive use of the streets for such purpose to any person or corporation without direct authority from the legislature. State of Obio v. Cincinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262 (1868). 3. Right to lay Gas-Pipes. — State alone can grant. — VAN Fleet V. C. : " The right to use the public streets of a city for FORFEITURE — FRAUDULENT TAKING. 67 the purpose of laying gas-pipes therein is, in my opinion, a franchise which the State alone can confer." Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 (1878). 4. Right to lay Gaa-Pipes. — Easement. — Not Franchise. — Quo "Warranto. — On a petition for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto to deprive a gas company of the franchise of laying its pipes and distributing gas through the streets of Detroit, it was held that the " exercise of the power of using streets for laying gas-pipes was an easement rather than a franchise, and a matter peculiarly local in its character, and which should always he to a reasonable extent under municipal super- vision," and that it is a mere grant of authority which, coming from private owners or public agents, rests in contract or license only. People ex rd. Maybury v. Mutual Gas-Light Co. of Detroit, 38 Mich. 154. See Chaetee, 16, 17, 18 ; Easement ; Highway; Municipality, I.; Injiinction, 6 j Quo Waebanto ; Taxation, i, 6. FEAUD. See Account ; Bonds, 1 ; Patent, 3 ; Eeceiveb ; Stock of Gas Companies, 7, 10, 131 FEAUDULENT OEDIFANCE. See Chartee, 3. FEAUDULENT TAKING. 1. Misdemeanor. — Demurrer. — Taking of Gas 'without Meter. — Evidence. — On the trial of an indictment under the Statutes of the State of New York, which make it a misdemeanor to con- nect the gas-pipes in the street and building, and to take gas without having it pass through the meter, a demurrer was sus- tained on account of an imperfection in the indictment ; and it was held by Brown J. that, " to convict the defendant upon this indictment, the prosecution would be bound to prove: Ist. The incorporation of the gas-light company. 2d. That the company was supplying him, by means of a pipe for conducting 68 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. it, with illuminating gas, which was consumed at the burners mentioned in the indictment. 3d. That a meter was there pro- vided for the measuring and registering the quantity of gas con- sumed at the burners. 4th. That the defendant connected the pipe which supplied the burners with a service-pipe in such manner as to be calculated to supply the gas to the burners without passing through the meter. 5th. That the act of so connecting the pipes was done with intent to injure or defraud the company ; " but that the fact that the company supplied gas would afford evidence of intent to defraud in such case. People V. Wilber, 4 Parker's Grim. C. 19 (1857). 2. Statute of Iiimitatioiis. — Taking of Gas. — Action. — The plaintiffs in their declaration alleged that the defendants bored into certain gas-pipes of the plaintiffs and affixed their gas-pipes thereto, and kept them so affixed for a long time, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, by means whereof large quantities of the plaintiffs' gas flowed out of their pipes ; that the defend- ants, maliciously contriving to prevent the plaintiffs from discov- ering the trespasses so committed till six years should have elapsed, fraudulently, and without the plaintiffs' knowledge, cut off from the plaintiffs' gas-pipes the gas-pipes of the defendants, so affixed thereto, and fraudulently, and without the plaintiffs' knowledge, stopped and plugged up the gas-pipes of the plaintiffs where the defendants' pipes had been so affixed, by means whereof the plaintiffs were prevented from discovering the tres- passes until six years from their commission had elapsed, and thereby the remedy of the plaintiffs by action became barred ; and it was held that the declaration set out a good cause of action. Imperial Gas-Light & Cote Co. v. London Gas-Light Co., 10 ExcL 39 (1854) ; 26 Eng. L. & Eq. 425 ; 3 Gas J. 483. 3. Action. — Tampering with Meter. — Inspector. — In an ac- tion against the defendant to recover the value of gas which the defendant was alleged to have used, and which at the same time was not registered by the meter in consequence of its having been tampered with, it appeared that the defendant in 1844 in- creased the number of burners used by him, but that the amount, FROST ; GAS FIXTURES, I. 69 of gas measured by the meter sensibly diminisbed ; that in 1850 the meter was tested by the gas inspector and found to be cor- rect; that it was afterwards discovered that the water in the ineter was kept too low, and a part of the machinery had been arranged so that the gas did not register ; that it was a simple matter to discover the fact that the water was too low in the meter ; and it was held that the plaintiff could not recover for any gas so used before the date of the inspection in 1850. Imperial Gas Co. v. Porter, 5 Gas J. 372, 403 (1856). See Contract, 25; Larceny. FEOST. See Negligence, 41. GAS FIXl:UEES. I. "When "Fixtures." 1. Part of Realty. — Intention of Vendor. — Gas fixtures may pass as a portion of the realty, if the intent that they shall so pass is shown by acts and declarations of the vendor. Funk V. Brigaldi, 4 Daly, 359. 2. Gasaliers. ^- Injury to Freehold. — WlLLES J. : " The gasa- liers are part of the gas-pipes, and, to use a legal expression, they take their nature and are included in the fixtures which go with the house under the lease. They are as much a part of the gas- pipes as the mill-stones are part of the mill. Although the gasa- liers may be unscrewed and taken off without injuring the freehold, they are necessary to the enjoyment of the gas-pipes, which are of no practical use when separated from them. Sewell V. Angerstein, 18 Law Times, n. s. 300. 3. GroB Burners, when Fixtures. — Per CURIAM : " Gas-burners are fixtures. They are in no sense furniture, but are mere acces- sories to the miU. The apparatus fot the manufacture of gas (called a generator) is situated in a pit made expressly for it in a 70 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. small building built for it a short distance from the main build- ing. It is connected with a gas-pump in the building, and the pipes are attached to the beams and girders by hooks, and in some places pass through holes in the side walls, bored for the purpose. The generator and its appurtenances, and the pipes, are fixtures." EUNYON Ch. Keeler v. Keeler, 31 N. J. Eq. 191 (1879). 4. Chandeliers, when Fixtures. — Chandeliers, which were affixed by means of screws to iron pipes let into the walls of the house for the purpose of conducting gas to the burners, and could be removed without injury to the walls or ceiling of the house, and which formed an ornamental addition to the house, would pass, as between vendor and vendee, in a sale of the house, as an incident to the real estate. Johnson's Executor v. Wiseman's Executor, 4 MetcaH (Ky.) 357 (1863). II. When not "Fixtures." 5. Chandeliers and Side Brackets, not Fixtures. — BEAD J. : " Lamps, chandeliers, candlesticks, candelabra, sconces, and the various contrivances for lighting houses by means of candles, oil, and other fluids, have never been considered as fixtures, and as forming a part of the freehold. . . . The gas chandeliers and other substitutes for the oU lamps and candles are called gas fixtures, and are screwed on to the pipes and cemented only to prevent the escape of gas, and may be removed at pleasure, without injury to the fittings or to the freehold. All these gas fixtures, whether gas stoves, chandeliers, hall and entry lamps, drop-lights or table lamps, are governed by the same rule as the articles for which they are substituted." Vaughen v. Haldeman, 33 Pennsylvania St. (9 Casey) 522 (1859). 6. Chandelier. — Pendent Gas-burners not Fixtures. — Mort- gage Sale. — Gas chandeliers, and a pendent gas-burner, attached by screws to a small service-pipe, and which could be detached without any escape of gas or injury to the pipe, or any part of the building, are not fixtures, and do not pass by a conveyance GAS FIXTURES, II. 71 of the freehold sold under a mortgage, as between the purchaser of the premises and the sheriff, who represented the execution creditors of the mortgagor. Montague v. Dent, 10 Richardson (So. Ca.) 135 (1856). 7. Removal by Tenant. — Gas Fiztures. — It is well settled that gas fixtures can be removed during the term by a tenant, if they have been put in by him. Elliott V. Bishop, 10 Exch. 512. 8. Gas-pipes not Fixtures. — Gas- pipes passing from the cellar through the floors and partitions, and retained in their place by metal bands, though some of them pass through wooden orna- ments of the ceilings, which are cut away for their removal, may be removed by the lessee during the term, if put in by him. Wall V. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256. 9. Not Fixtures. — Gas fixtures do not pass to a purchaser of an estate as part of the realty. Bbady, J. : " The adjustment of the bracket or chandelier to the gas-pipe is not such actual annexation to the freehold as is contemplated by law." Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 487. 10. Chandeliers and Brackets, not Fixtures. — Per CURIAM: "Gas fixtures, whether in the form of chandeliers suspended from the ceiling at the top of the room, or projecting as brackets from the perpendicular walls, though attached to the gas-pipes by screws and made tight by cement, are in the nature of furni- ture, and do not lose their character as chattels by reason of the manner in which they are affixed." Towns V. Eiske, 127 Mass. 125. 11. Gas Fixtures. — Landlord and Tenant. — BOSWOBTH J. : " Gas fixtures, when placed by a tenant in a demised building during his term, are his property. If not removed by him dur- ing the term they do not, for that reason, cease tc> be his property. He may remove them after his term expires without subjecting himself to any damages for such removal, even though he be 72 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. liable to an action of trespass for an entry on the demised prem- ises. He may mortgage them during his term by a personal mortgage, and they may be levied upon by an execution against him." Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Y. Superior) 363. 12. Heaters not Gas Fixtures. — Personal Property. — Heaters and gas fixtures, though affixed to a house, do not pass with it in a deed of sale, and are personal property. Heyshain v. Dettre, 89 Penn. St. (8 Norris) 506. 13. Mechanics' Zden. — Gas Fixtures not Part of the Realty. — Gas fixtures are not the subject of a mechanic's lien. Shaes- wooD J., says : " Houses are considered as finished by the builders when the gas-fittings are completed. The fixtures are put up in more or less expensive style, according to the taste and means of the persons who mean to occupy the houses. If the tenant puts them in, it is not denied that, as between him and the landlord, they are his, and he may remove them, or they may be sold as his personal property on an execution by the sheriff. 'No doubt the owner, if they belong to him, often sells them with the house. But if there is no agreement to sell the house as it is, fixtures and all, the purchaser is not entitled to them." Jarechi v. Philharmonic Society, 79 Pa. St. (29 P. F. Smith) 403. 14. Not Fixtures. — Mere Furniture. — Per CURIAM: "The gas fixtures, though fastened to the walls, were not annexed to the realty so as to become part of it. They are, in their nature, articles of furniture, and the fact that they were fastened to the walls, for safety or convenience, does not deprive them of their character as personal chattels and make them a part of the realty. An action of tort will not lie for their conversion.'' Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191. 1 5. Gas Fixtures. — Personal Property. — Sheriff's Sale. — " Un- less there is some special agreement to the contrary, gas fixtures are mere personal chattels, as much so as oil-lamps, candlesticks, candelabra, or gas-stoves. Such articles are not fixtures in the 73 proper sense of the term, aud do not pass by a sheriff's sale to the vendee of the realty. It can make no difference that in the present case the owner had rented the premises, and was not personally in possession." Perm Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Thackera, 13 Reporter, 731 (Supreme Court, Pennsylvania, 1882). 16. Gas Fixtures. — Sale of Church. — Lamps, chandeliers, candlesticks, candelabra, sconces, and the various contrivances for lighting houses by means of candles, oils, or other fluids, are not fixtures, and form no part of the freehold, and the gas fixtures sold with a church building are personal property, and did not pass with the building. Kogers v. Crow, 40 Missouri, 91 (1867). 17. Gas Fixtures and Gasometer. — Tenant's Kight to remove. — Chancellor : " A great part of the gas fixtures, such as the gasometer and the apparatus for generating gas, as between land- lord and tenant, are movable property. They would, it is true, pass to the heir-at-law with the inheritance, or between grantor and grantee, as fixtures to the real estate ; but as between land- lord and tenant, the latter has a right to remove them during the term." Hays V. Doane, 3 Stockton (N. J.), 84 (1855). See Damage, 4 ; Insueancb, 2 ; Negligence, I. GAS-PIPES. I. Taxation of, as Personal Property. 1. Gas-Pipes. — Machinery. — Taxation. — BiGELOWC. J.: "The mains, or pipes, laid down in the streets to distribute the gas among those who are to consume it, were clearly a part of the apparatus necessary to be used by the corporation in order to accomplish the object for which it was established. They con- stituted a part of the machinery, by means of which the corpo- rate business was carried on. Indeed, the entire apparatus by which gas is manufactured and distributed for consumption con- stitutes one great integral machine, consisting of retorts, station- 74 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. meters, gas-holders, street-mains, service-pipes, and consumers' meters, all connected and operating together, by means of which the initial, intermediate, and final processes are carried on, from its generation in the retort to its delivery for the use of the con- sumers." The tax commissioners must deduct the value of all this appa- ratus, as machinery, from the market value of the capital stock, in ascertaining the State tax. Commonwealth v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 12 Allen, 75 (1866). 2. Gas-Pipes Personalty, not Realty, for Purposes of Taxation. — "Where a corporation owns lots on which gas-pipes are laid, the pipes are not appurtenances to the lots ; and where the lots proper are assessed in the regular order upon the books, they cannot afterward be sold for taxes assessed on the pipes, on the ground that the action of the assessor in entering them as personal prop- erty was irregular and erroneous, and a sale of the lots for taxes so assessed is illegal and void." Opinion of Eotheock J. Gas Company v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 19 Albany Law Journal, 501 (Iowa Supreme Ct.). 3. Mains and Pipes. — Personal Property. — The rule for tax- ation of -corporations should be based upon the amount of capital actually paid for real estate, assessing the remaining capital at its actual value, and the mains or underground pipes of a gas company under the streets of a city cannot be regarded as real estate under the statute for the purpose of taxation, but must be considered as personal property. The People ex rel. Citizens Gas-Light Co. of Brooklyn v. Assessors of Brook- lyn, 6 N. Y. Transcript App. 116 (1868). 4. Necessary Appliances. — Personal Property. — Per Cu- KIAM : " Pipes belonging to a gas company, laid through the streets of a city by permission of the corporate authorities, do not be- come the property of the city or a part of the realty. They are personal property and belong to the gas company, and are a part of the usual and necessary appliances of such an establishment, without which the gas manufactured could not be preserved or delivered to the consumer." 75 The main and service pipes of a gas company, owned and used by them for the purpose of conveying and distributing the gas manufactured by the company to the consumers, are liable to be assessed for taxation as part of a " manufacturing establishment " under the Code. Memphis Gas-Light Co. v. State, 6 Coldwell (Tenn.), 310 (1869). See Taxation, II. II. Taxation of, as Part of Eeal Estate. 5. Mains. — Appurtenances to the Realty. — Not Personal. — The mains and street pipes of a gas company were assessed as personalty, and the real estate of the company was advertised and sold to pay the taxes assessed upon them, and it was held that such pipes are mere appurtenances to, and a part of the lot of real estate upon which the gas-works are built and with which they are connected, and that such taxation and sale of the real estate were erroneous. Capital City Gas-Light Co. v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 51 Iowa, 31 (1879). 6. Fixtures. — Not Personal Property. — Real Estate. — The gas-pipes of a gas company laid in the public streets by consent of the board of aldermen, are rightfully taxed as real estate, be- ing annexed to the freehold and the gas company having an easement in fee to lay the pipes, and are fixtures and not per- sonal property. Providence Gas Co, v. Thurber, 2 K. I. 15 (1851). III. Laying Pipes in Highway. 7. Highway. — Laying Geis-Pipes. — Compensation. — A gas- light company incorporated under the general act (1848), and whose powers were enlarged by a special act giving it the right to take land necessary for its use, does not acquire a right to lay its gas-pipes without compensation to the owners of the fee of the highways through which said pipes are laid. Miller P. J. : 76 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. " When land is taken for a highway in the country, the public acquire a right of passage merely. The fee of the land on which the way is laid remains in the owner. Laying a gas-pipe was a use not contemplated when plaintiff's land was taken for a high- way, and for that reason not compensated for. Such use is a burden imposed on the plaintiff, in addition to its use as a high- way, and for which he is entitled to be compensated." Calkins v. Bloomfield & Rochester Natural Gas Co., 1 N. Y. Supreme Ct. E. 541. 8. Compensation. — Right to lay Gas-Pipes in Highways. — " Whether a town or its officers, or any other persons, would have the right without express authority from the legislature to lay gas-pipes ... in the highways is not so clear. In Great Britain it has been held that they could not. It is unnecessary to con- sider how far the same rule would apply in this State, for it is certain that the use of gas and railways was not contemplated in Massachusetts when G. and B. acquired their titles, and cannot influence the construction or extent of those titles. We are not aware that such powers have ever been exercised in Massachu- setts, except by virtue of express statutes ; and it is well settled that when land, once duly appropriated to a public use, which requires occupation of its whole surface, is applied by authority of the legislature to another similar public use, no new claim for compensation, unless expressly provided for, can be sustained by the owner of the fee." Gray J. Boston V. Richardson, 13 Allen, 160. 9. Right to use Highway for Gas-Pipes. — Duty gf Compensat- ing Owner of Fee. — A gas company, organized under the gen- eral law authorizing the formation of gas-light companies, has no right to lay its gas-pipes under a county highway, the fee of which is owned by the defendant, without first obtaining his per- mission, or making him due compensation for such use of the land ; and whatever may be the rule with regard to the use of the streets of a city for such purposes, the rule does not apply to the use of a county highway, the circumstances being entirely different. Bloomfield, &c. Gas-Light Co. v. Calkins, 62 N. Y. 386 (1875). GAS-PIPES, III. — HIGHWAY. 77 10. Public High-way. — Property in Soil. — Laying Pipes. — The fee of a public highway continues in the proprietor of the land over which the way has been made, and that, although the highway may for forty years have been und^r the control and superintendence of the general road trustees, and the proprietor is entitled to prevent the opening of the way for the purpose of laying down gas or water pipes. The proprietor of the soil of a pubKc highway, allowing certain of the conterminous feuars to break up the way for laying down pipes during a period of ten years, is not thereby precluded from questioning similar acts by other feuars. Galbreath v. Armour, 4 Bell App. (Scotch) Cases, 374 (1845). For Injury to Gas-Pipes, see Navigable Waters, 2 ; Municipal- ity, 7. See Contract, 21, 22 ; Contractor, 6 ; Damage, 5, 7, 8 ; Es- toppel, 1 ; Franchise : Fraudulent Taking, 2 ; Larceny ; Munici- pality, II.; Negligence, I., 11.,; Nuisance; Statutes, 2. GAS, PUEIFICATION OF. See Patent, 2. GOODS SOLD AND DELIVEEED. See Assumpsit; Municipality, 10, 11. GEEENHOUSE, INJUEY TO. See Evidence, 16. GUAEANTY. See Assumpsit, 4 ; Bonds, 2 ; Contract, 26. HIGHWAY. Defect in Way. — Apparatus of Gas Company. — Question for Jury. — In an action of tort for injuries from an alleged defect in the highway, it appeared that the alleged defect was an open iron box four inches square, constituting part of the usual apparatus for a gas company, for distributing the gas, let into the 78 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. sidewalk in a public street of the city a few inches from the curb- stone, and from one or two feet beyond the cross-walk leading from Broadway to Federal Street, and so set that the top of it was an inch higher than the brick sidewalk, and left uncovered and empty to the depth of two or three inches ; and it was held that this was a defect in the highway for which the city was lia- ble under Gen. Stat. ch. 44, § 22, and that the question was properly left to the jury. Loan V. City of Boston, 106 Mass. 450. As to Use of Highway for Gas-Pipes, see Conteaot, 27 ; Dam- age, 7 ; Estoppel, 2 ; Evidence, 24 ; Gas-Pipes, 7, 8, 9, 10 ; Fran- chise. When such Use is Nuisance, see Injunction ; Nuisance ; Manda- mus, 3 ; Quo Warranto ; Negligence, I. HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Necessary. INCOME TAX. See Taxation, 13, 24. INDICTMENT. See Nuisance, 10, 16, 23. INFANT. See Negligence, II. INJUNCTION. I. Against laying Gas-Pipes. 1. Disturbance of Streets to lay Oas-Pipes not Nuisance. — Injunction refused. — The disturbance of the pavement of a town by an unincorporated gas company without lawful author- HUSBAND AND WIPE — INJUNCTION, I. 79 ity, for the purpose of laying down gas-pipes, is not a nuisance so serious and important that a court of equity will interfere by injunction to prevent it. Attorney-General v. Cambridge Consumers' Gas Co., L. K. 4 Chan. 71 (1868). Overruling L. R. 6 Eq. 282 (1868) ; 38 L. J. Ch. 94, 111 ; 17 Weekly R. 145; 17 Gas J. 427, 593, 867. 2. Right to take up Streets. — Assignee. — Injunction granted. — On a motion for an injunction to prevent defendants from tak- ing up streets and laying gas-pipes, it appeared that they had not obtained the permission of the city so to do ; but the de- fendants claimed that they had obtained all the property of the Mutual Gas-Light Company, and were acting under the consent given to that company; but it was held that this was no de- fence, and an injunction was ordered, as the consent given by the city to the old company was not a negotiable thing, and did not pass to the new company by a sale to it of the property of the old company. City of Brooklyn v. Fulton Municipal Gas Co., 7 Abbotf s New Cases, 19 (1879) 3. Disturbance of Streets in laying Pipes. — Not Nuisance. — Injunction refused. — The disturbance of the pavement of a street or highway in a town by a gas company formed and registered under the Joint Stock Companies' Eegulation Act, but unincor- porated by act of Parliament, for the purpose of laying down gas-pipes, was held not to be such a nuisance as to be a sufficient ground for an injunction, either upon a biU in equity or informa- tion. The views of the majority of the inhabitants of a town and its governing body are not without weight in determining the question of an injunction. Attorney-General v. Sheffield Gas Consumers' Co., 3 De Qex, McN. & Gord.304; 17 Jui. 677; 22Law J. Ch.811; 19 Eng. L. & Eq. 639; 2 Gas J. 396, 419. 4. Injunction refused. — New Gas Company. — Laying Gas- Pipes in Streets. — Easement. — An injunction was prayed for by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from laying their pipes, on the ground that the plaintiffs were in legal possession 80 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. of an easement under which they had laid pipes throughout the streets, roads, and highways of Sheffield, and that their property would sustain irreparable damage, and such as could not be com- pensated for by an action at law, if the defendants were permit- ted to disturb the ground by laying other pipes ; but it was held that the injunction must be refused. Sheffield United Gas Co. v. Sheffield Consumers' Co., 2 Gas J. 360 (Vice Ch. 1852). 5. Ezclusive Right to lay Pipes. — New Company. — Injunction refused. — The defendants duly granted the plaintiffs, an incor- porated company, the exclusive right to lay pipes and light the city of Des Moines for fifteen years for a specified compensation, and before the expiration of the said time repealed said grant and gave to another company the same privileges. Upon plain- tiffs' petition for an injunction, it was held that the city had a right to give the same privilege to the new company, and the injunction was therefore refused. Des Moines Gas Co. v. City of Des Moines, 44 Iowa, 505 (1876). 6. Laying Pipes by New Company. — Franchise. — Injunction granted. — The complainants, who were incorporated by a special act authorizing them to lay down gas-pipes in the streets of Jer- sey City and to make and sell gas, prayed for an injunction against the defendants, who claimed a corporate existence under a gen- eral statute authorizing the formation of gas companies, forbid- ding them from laying their pipes in the streets of Jersey City. The injunction was granted, and it was held that as one of the subscribers to the defendant company gave a check for his sub- scription which was not to be paid by him, that the defendants had no corporate existence, and that the State alone could confer the right to lay pipes in the streets, and that a court of equity had authority to restrain the threatened invasion of complainant's franchise. Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 (1878). 7. Preliminary Injunction refused. — Pipes laid by New Com- pany. — The plaintiffs, who had laid their pipes in the streets of London under an act of incorporation in 1810 and the permis- INJUNCTION, I. 81 sion of the Commission of Sewers, asked for a preliminary in- junction against the defendants, a new company, who, without an act of incorporation, had, with the permission of the Commission of Sewers, put down their main pipes in the streets, and were interfering and injuring the plaintiffs' pipes. The plaintiffs did not claim the right to an exclusive use of the streets, but that they had right to have their pipes uninterfered with by the defendants. The Lord Chancellor refused the injunction. Chartered Qaa-Light Co. v. Great Central Gas Consumers' Co., 1 Gas J. 322. 8. Municipality no Right to grant Ezoluaive ITse of Streets. — Injunction refused. — Mere License. — The common council of Norwich granted to T. and his assigns for a period of fifteen years the right to lay gas-pipes in the streets, and agreed that no other person or corporation should, by their consent, lay gas-pipes in said streets during that time. The plaintiffs, an incorporated company, under the authority of their charter, purchased of T. his gas-works and gas business, and his rights under the grant from the common council. On a prayer for an injunction, it was held that the grant from the common council was a mere license to T. and his assigns to use the streets ; and an injunction against the defendants, a corporation organized under the general law, which had also received permission from the city of N"orwicli to lay their gas-pipes in the streets, forbidding them to so lay their pipes, was refused, on the ground that the plaintiffs' right to use the streets was not exclusive. Norwich Gas-Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas Co., 25 Conn. 19. 9. Gas Company bas no Authority to dig up Soil. — Injunc- tion granted. — In 1833 a local act was passed for lighting Grays with gas, and it empowered the commissioners to set up lamp- posts and lamps, and cause them to be supplied with gas ; but it contained no express power to break up the soil. The defend- ants had broken up the soil of a highway opposite the plaintiff's house, and part of his soil, in order to lay down their pipes. He sued them for so doing, and obtained an injunction to restrain the company from breaking the soil during the action, — a spe- cies of relief which formerly could be obtained in a court of 82 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. equity. A rule to rescind was moved by the defendants, on the ground of implied authority to take up the soil ; but it was hsld that this might be done with the consent of the owners of land, and there were no compulsory powers in the act, and the rule ■was refused. Chapman v. Grays Gas Co., 13 Gas J. 448 (1864, Q. B.). 10. Right to lay Pipes. — Injunction refused. — Where a gas company which, under their charter, claimed an exclusive right to lay gas-pipes in the streets of Norwich, during a controversy •with the defendants} who had no charter, but were organized un- der the general law, but who had been authorized by the com- mon council to lay such pipes, and for the purpose of preventing the latter from laying their pipes from their gas-works into said city, purchased a lot of land so situated that it was necessary that the defendants' main pipe should pass through it ; and the defendants thereupon laid their gas-pipes across that part of such lot which lay within the limits of the public highway, and de- clined to remove it, it was hdd that, as the real controversy between the two gas companies was in relation to the exclusive right of the plaintiff to use the highway irrespective of any title to the soil, and as an action of trespass could be brought for any damage the defendants might do to the land, the injunction was refused. Norwich Gas-Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas Co., 25 Conn. 19. See Easement, 2, 3 ; Fbanohisb, I ; Malicious Peosecution ; Municipality, 11; Nuisance. II. FoK Various Causes. 11. Right to purchase Gas-Works. — Injunction to prevent Extension of Works. — A corporation may acquire a right to op- pose a gas company's bOl. Where, in an act obtained by a local board, they took power to purchase certain gas-works, and certain moneys were to be raised by virtue of the act for this and other purposes, an injunction was refused to restrain them from oppos- INJUNCTION, II. ; INSPECTION. 83 ing a bill promoted by the gas company to extend their works, on the ground that such extension might prevent the corpora- tion from purchasing the company's works, by exceeding in value the sum allocated to the local board by their act for expenditure for this and other purposes. Attorney-General v. Mayor, &o. of St. Helens (V. C. Stuart, 1870), Michael & WiU's Gas & Water Supply, 11. 12. Injunction against an Injury to Plaintiff's Land by Ez- cavations. — Where the plaintiff's land had subsided in conse- quence of excavations made by the defendants in connection with a new gas-holder, he applied for an injunction to restrain them from making further excavations, and the defendants of- fered to pay aU damages, but claimed the right of continuing their excavations, on the ground of the balance of convenience ; and it was held that this ground did not apply where there was no question as to the parties' rights, and the injunction was granted. Lowden v. Drighlington & Gridlestone Gas-Light Co., Rolls Court, Jessbl M. R., 29 Gas J. 927. 13. Blasting in the Erection of a Gas-Holder. — Injunction refused. — The defendants, in erecting a gas-holder, were com- pelled to blast some rocks, whereby the plaintiffs were incon- venienced, and a portion of their road was carried away. The inconvenience, however, had ceased, and the injury to the road was temporary. The plaintiffs applied for an injunction, and their bUl was dismissed, but without costs, owing to the vexatious proceedings of the defendants and the length of their affidavits. Hirst V. Longwood Gas Co., 30 Gas J. 596, V. C. Ch. Div. See Bankruptcy, 1; Charter, 10, 16, 19; Contract, 1, 6, 9; Es- toppel, 1; Insurance, 1; Notice, 6; Nuisance, 11, 12, 20, 23, 24, 28, 31, 34; Patents, 5; Supply of Gas, 8, 14 j Taxation, 9, INSPECTION. See Charter, 5 ; Fraudulent Taking, 3 ; Negligbnob, 3. 84 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. INSUEANCE. 1. Subrogation. — Damages from Explosion of Gas. — Rights of Insurance Company to prevent a Compromise. — Injunction. — The plaintiffs' bill alleged that the defendant's mill had been de- stroyed by an explosion of gas caused by the negligence of the corporation of Halifax, who supplied gas to that borough ; that defendant was insured in the plaintiffs' companies to the amount of £33,000; that the damage amounted to £56,000; and that, although the corporation of Halifax were liable for the whole, yet that the defendant, a ratepayer in Halifax, proposed to com- promise for £23,000, the excess of the damage over the insur- ance, and they therefore prayed for an injunction against such a compromise. The defendant undertook not to compromise oth- erwise than bond fide, and not to regard the fact that he was a ratepayer of Halifax ; and it was held by the Master of the EoUs that wh£|,tever surplus was left out of the sum recovered from the corporation of Halifax, after fuUy recompensing the defendant for his loss, belonged to the plaintiffs ; but that ais the defendant was suing for the whole injury, and had made the above under- takings, there was no ground for an injunction. Commercial Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lister, 23 Gas J. 364, 398, Kolls Court Appeal. 2. Interpretation of Policy. — Fixtures. — Meters. — An in- surance company in two policies insured the plaintiffs' " fixtures," placed or to be placed, for $5,000, for seven years from 1826, and the " gas-meters," placed or to be placed, for three years from 1825, in the amount of $2,000. The gas-meters were subse- quently injured by fire to the amount of $2,500, a part of which was upon the gas-meters and fixtures placed at the date of the policies, and a part upon those which were established afterwards. In an action to recover damages it was held that, by the true construction of the policies, they covered all " fixtures " to the amount of $3,000, whether erected before or after the date of the policies. New York Gas-Light Co. v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 2 Hall (Superior Ct. N. y.), 108 (1829). INSURANCE — LANDLORD AND TENANT. 85 3. Explosion. — Meaning of Word " Gas." — A policy of insur- ance contained the following exception : " Neither will the com- pany be responsible for loss or damage by explosion, except from explosion by gas." In the plaintiff's premises, an inflammable and explosive vapor was evolved in the process of extracting oil from shoddy, which caught fire and afterwards exploded, causing a further fire, besides the damage by the explosion itself. In an action on the policy, it was held that the word " gas " in the pol- icy meant illuminating coal gas, and that the company were lia- ble for damage from explosions of gas which occurred in course of the fire, but were not for damages done by this explosion and the fires which were caused thereby. Stanley v. Western Insurance Co., L. R. 3 Exch. 71 (1868). 4. Gas Explosion. — Interpretation of Policy. — Meaning of Words. — A policy of insurance against fire excepted from the risk any loss by an explosion, or any damage occasioned by or resulting from any explosion of "steam, gunpowder, gas, &c." In an action upon the policy, it appeared that an explosive mix- ture of whiskey vapor and atmosphere had come in contact with the flame of a gas-jet, from which it ignited and exploded, whereby a fire was caused which destroyed the insured' property, and it was hdd the plaintiff could not recover. United Life, Fire, & Mar. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 2 Insurance Law J. 190, Su- perior Ct. Cincinnati (1873). JUEY TEIAL. See Nuisance, 27 ; Negligence, I. LAMP-POSTS. See Municipality, 9 ; Evidence, 10 ; Statutes, 14. LANDLORD AND TENANT. 1. Action by Lessee. — Injury to Well. — Nuisance. — A les- see may maintain an action against a gas company which has laid pipes in the neighboring streets so imperfectly that gas es- capes therefrom through the ground and into the water of a well 86 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. upon premises hired and used by him as a livery stable, thus creating a nuisance to the real estate and thereby injuring his possessory interest, -while the landlord must bring the action for any injury to the reversion. If the nuisance of which lessee complains made the enjoyment of the estate less beneficial, or in any way rendered it expensive or inconvenient, without fault on his part, he is entitled to compensation therefor. Sherman v. Fall River lion Works Co., 2 Allen, (524 1861). 2. Contributory Negligence of Tenant. — ISzplosion of Gas. — The owner of the reversionary interest in real estate cannot main- tain an action against a gas company for injuries caused by their negligence in permitting gas to escape into the house, if the im- mediate cause of the injury was the explosion of the gas by the negligence of a tenant in possession of the premises, and it was held by the court that " if the tenant, upon discovering the pres- ence of gas in large quantity in the house, neglected to give notice to the agents or servants of the defendant [the gas com- pany], or to take reasonable precautions to remove or exclude the gas, and recklessly brought the flame of a candle in contact with it, thus bringing about injurious effects which would not have followed but for such reckless or negligent conduct on his part, the defendant ought not to be held responsible for those results. If the intervening misconduct of the occupant of the building produced the explosion, which was the immediate cause of the injury to the building, the plaintiff cannot charge the legal re- sponsibility for that result upon the original negligent act or omission of the defendant." Bartlett v. Boston Gas-Liglit Co., IVl Mass. 533 (1875). 3. Supply of Tar. — Defence. — Breach of Contract. — A gas company let to a tenant a piece of ground adjoining their works, with the right to the whole ammoniacal liquor and tar produced at the gas-works, at a rent of £130 ; and it was held that an aver- ment by the tenant that the company had not implemented the contract by supplying the whole tar, &c., was a relevant defence in a petition for sequestration for the stipulated rent. Kilmarnock Gas-Light Co. v. Smith, 11 Court Sessions, 3 Series, 58, 21 Gas J. 954. LARCENY. 87 4. Gas Explosion. — Liability of Landlord to Tenant for Neg- ligence. — Fixtures. — A landlord having discontinued the use of gas upon his premises had the meter removed from the house, and the fixtures from the gas-pipes by a gas man, who left one of the pipes open and uncovered in the room afterwards let to and occupied hy the plaintiff. The landlord subsequently gave to the tenant of a lower floor of the premises permission to intro- duce gas into the house, which the latter did, without notifying the plaintiff that gas was to be introduced. In consequence of the gas-pipes in the plaintiff's apartment being left open, the room became filled with gas, and an explosion took place in con- sequence of plaintiff's entering the room with a lighted candle, injuring her greatly ; and it was held that the landlord was guilty of negligence, although the direct cause of the accident was the negligence of the gas man in not having sufficient fixtures, and the nonsuit was set aside. Question of plaintiff's due care not considered. Klmmel v. Burflend, 2 Daly (N. Y. C. P.), 155 (1866). See Nesliqbnce, II. For Tenant's Right to Gas Fixtures, see Gas Fixtubbs, 6, 7, 10. LAECENY. 1. Larceny of Gas through Service Pipe. — ITot Embezzlement. — Illuminating gas may be the subject of larceny. Larceny of gas may be committed by a person on his own land by secretly opening a gas company's service pipe, which was laid there for the purpose of supplying his house with gas, and connecting the same with another pipe, through which he secretly and fraudu- lently receives and uses the company's gas, after they have closed their service pipe and removed their meter, and given him notice thereof, and these acts constitute the crime of larceny, and not embezzlement. Commonwealth v. Shaw, 4 Allen, 308 (1862). 2. Larceny through Service Pipe. — Asportation. — The pris- oner contracted with a gas company for a supply of gas. The quantity consumed was to be measured by a meter rented by the 88 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. prisoner of the company, and was to be paid for according to such measurement; and the gas was conveyed from the company's main pipe through an entrance pipe, the property of the prisoner, to the meter, and from thence by and through pipes, called the exit pipe, to the burners. The prisoner, by inserting a connect- ing pipe into the entrance and exit pipes, diverted the gas from the meter, and thereby avoided paying for the full quantity of gas consumed, which did not pass through the meter, and was not measured ; and it was held that this was larceny of the gas ; that there was a sufficient severance of the gas at the point of junction of the connecting pipe with the entrance pipe to con- stitute an asportation ; that the possession and property of the gas were in the company, and that it was immaterial whether the service pipe was the property of the prisoner or of the com- pany. Eegina v. White, 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 585 (1853) ; S. 0. 17 Jurist, 536 ; 6 Cox Cr. 0. 213; Dearsley's Cr. C. 203 ; 22 Law J. N. S. 123. 3. Larceny through Service Pipe. — Continuous Taking. — The prisoner stole gas for the use of a manufactory by means of a pipe which drew off the gas from the main without allowing it to pass through the meter. The gas from this pipe was burnt every day and turned off at night. The pipe was never closed at its junc- tion with the main, and consequently always remained full of gas; and it was held that, as the pipe always remained full, there was, in fact, a continuous taking of the gas, and not a se- ries of separate takings ; but that, even if the pipe had not been thus kept full, the taking would have been continuous, as it was substantially all one transaction. Queen v. Firth, Law R. 1 Crown Cases Ees. 172 (1869). ■ 4. Larceny of Gas through Rubber Tube. — The prisoner had taken gas from the gas company's service pipe by an india-rub- ber tube. He admitted that he had taken a very little, but claimed that it was for an experiment, and that a gas-jet found burning in his kitchen had been lighted by his servant without his knowledge. He pleaded guilty of larceny, however, and was sentenced to one month's hard labor. Eeg. V. Mitchell, 22 Gas J. 137. LEAKS OP gas; lease. 89 5. Larceny by Service Pipe. — The defendant was charged with having " laid, or caused to be laid," a certain pipe to com- municate with a pipe belonging to the Cardiff Gas Company with- out their consent. He had formerly been in the employ of the company. The gas inspector found the meter on defendant's gas premises disconnected, and a small piece of pipe, with two half unions soldered to it, and connected to the half union of the inlet of the meter, and also to the half union of the outlet of the meter, so that gas did not pass through the meter. The defend- ant was found guilty, and the statute penalty was imposed. Regina v. Jefikins, 5 Gas J. 214. See Negligence, 39, 40. LEAKS OF GAS. See Evidence, IV. ; Notice, I. LEASE. 1. Illegal Lease. — Consent of Stockholders. — Ultra Vires. — A lease was executed by the Saratoga Gas-Light Company to the defendants, of its works and all its other property, for five years, with the privilege of renewal for five years longer. In an action to set aside such lease it was held that the necessary effect of such a lease was to suspend the ordinary business of the lessor for more than one year, and that it was invalid, therefore, as against the stockholders not consenting to its execution, and that the gas company had no authority to make such a lease ; and it was further held that an action to set aside such lease may be brought by a stockholder in the lessee company, who has not consented to or ratified the execution of such lease, in behalf of himself and other stockholders similarly situated. Copeland v. Citizens' Gas-Light Co., 61 Barbour, 60 (1871). 2. Illegal Lease. — Use forbidden by Statute. — A court of law will not lend its aid to enforce the performance of a contract between parties, which appears upon the face of the record to have been entered into by both the contracting parties for the 90 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. express purpose of carrying into effect that wMch is prohibited by the law of the land. In an action of covenant for the non-payment of rent, the de- fendant pleaded that the indenture of lease was made between the plaintiffs and himself, and the premises demised to him, for the express purpose of being used for and applied by the defend- ant to a use prohibited under a penalty by the buUding act, 25 Geo. III. c. 77, viz. : to draw oil of tar, or pitch from tar, by boil- ing, in larger quantities than the statute allowed ; and it was held that this was a good defence to the action. Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Turner, 7 Scott, 779, C. P. (1839); 8 Scott, 609 on appl. ; S. C. 5 Bing. N. C. 666 ; 6 Bing. N. C. 324 See Nuisance, 14. LICENSE. See Nuisance, 13. To lay Pipes, see Easement, 1, 2, 3 j Franchise ; Injunction, 8. LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. See Fraudulent Taking, 2. MALICIOUS PEOSECUTIOK Exclusive Right. — Injunction. — Charter. — The Memphis Gas-Light Company brought a biU in equity against a rival company, the Memphis Gayoso Gas Company, in the State Court of Chancery, in which they obtained a partial injunction ; and while this suit was pending, Dean, a large stockholder in the former company, filed a bUl in equity in the U. S. Circuit Court against both companies and the city of Memphis, alleging that the Memphis Gas-Light Company had the exclusive right to light the city with gas ; that the city had subscribed to the other company's stock in violation of his rights ; and that the Memphis Gas-Light Company had refused to bring the action. This action was carried to- the U. S. Supreme Court, which dismissed the bill, whereupon the Memphis Gayoso Gas Company brought this action claiming damages for malicious prosecution of the action LICENSE — MANDAMUS, WBIT OP. 91 and for continuance of the injunction against them, and recovered a verdict for $300,000 ; and it was held that a defect in the dec- laration was cured by verdict, and that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in favor of the plaintiff after reversal in a higher court is to be taken as primd facie evidence of prob- able cause ; and held, further, that it was error not to instruct the jury whether or not the Memphis Gas-Light Company had by its charter the exclusive right to manufacture gas for the city of Memphis, as it was upon allegation of this fact that the defend- ant obtained his injunction ; and held, further, that under their charter they had no such exclusive right. Memphis Gfayoso Gas Co. v. Williamson, 9 Heiskell (Term.), 314 (1872). See Charter, II. MANDAMUS, WEIT OF. 1. Second Subscription of Stock. — In a suit by mandamus to compel the defendants to recognize the relator, a second sub- scriber, as the owner of certain shares of stock in the company, it was held that the stock was the property of A., the universal legatee of the original subscriber, who died before receiving bis stock, and that although the administrator of the deceased con- sented to the cancellation of the subscription, as A. had been de- creed to he the owner by a court of competent jurisdiction, and as at the time of the relator's subscription the books of the com- pany had been closed by resolution of the board of directors, the writ of mandamus was refused. State' «a; rel. Hawksworth v. Crescent City Gas-Light Co., 24 La. Ann. 318 (1872). 2. Supervisors. — Accounts. — On a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants, as a board of supervisors, to proceed and audit an account of the plaintiff for gas furnished the city of San Francisco, it was held that the writ must be granted, but that such writ does not necessarily require the board to allow the account. They have a discretion in respect to their action in this regard, and, though they are compelled to proceed to act on the subject-matter of the claim, yet the man- 92 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. damus does not control or prescribe the mode, or determine the result of their action. People ex rel. San Francisco Gas Co. v. Supervisors of San Francisco, 11 Cal. 42 (1858), 3. Damages for taking Land for Highway. — Assessment. — On a petition for a mandamus to compel the common council of Syracuse to assess and collect a tax sufficient to pay the gas-light company for land proposed to be taken for street purposes, it ap- peared that the commissioners appointed to appraise the value of ' the lands, filed their report in December, 1871 ; and in October, 1873, the common council passed a resolution rescinding the original resolution to widen the street and condemn lands there- for, and declared aU proceedings taken pursuant thereto, aban- doned and discontinued. The application for a mandamus was made in June, 1875, and it was held that the common council had no legal right to discontinue the proceedings as against the property owners, and that the petition for mandamus was im- properly denied. People ex rel. The Gas- Light Co. of Syracuse v. Common Council of Syra- cuse, 78 N. y. 56; 9 N. Y. Weekly R. 43. 4. Application by Municipality of Proceeds of Sale. — Dis- cretionary Power. — Where a gas company had obtained judg- ment against the city of New Orleans for the price of gas supplied to the city, and the latter sold the franchise of a horse-railroad company and the exclusive privilege of running horse-cars through the streets of New Orleans for a large sum, it was held that a mandamus requiring the city to appropriate the proceeds of such sale for the payment of the plaintiffs' judgment would not lie, the city council having a discretionary power to use said sum to pay the bonded debt of the city. State ex rel. N. 0. Gas-Light Co. v. Mayor, &e. of New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 268 (1880). 5. Gas Company not bound to supply Gas. — Former Bills Unpaid. — The relator was supplied by the defendants with gas from 1858 until December, 1861. He did not pay for the gas supplied after August, 1861, and in January, 1865, judgment for MANDAMUS, WRIT OF. 93 the amount due was recovered by the defendants. In 1864 he applied for gas and was supplied until February, 1865, when de- fendants refused to supply him any longer, and it was held that while mandamus will lie to compel a gas company to supply those who offer to comply with its rules, the relator in this case was not entitled to such mandamus. People ex rel. Kennedy v. Manhattan Gas-Light Co., 45 Barb. 136; 30 How. Pr. 87. 6. Mandamus granted. — Ne'w Certificates of Lost Stock or- dered. — Bond of Indemnity not required. — On a petition for a writ of mandamus to require a gas company to furnish new cer- tificates of shares of stock, Howell J. says : " There seeming to be no special denial of defendants in this case of their obligation to issue certificates of stock to the owners thereof, the proceed- ing by mandamus is authorized to compel them to do so if the ownership is not disputed. The loss of plaintiffs' certificates and the advertisement thereof being sufficiently established, the de- fendants cannot refuse to issue new certificates, on the ground that a bond of indemnity is not furnished. There is no good reason for requiring «uch a bond. The stock cannot be transferred by relator, except upon the books of the respondent and on the pro- duction of the certificates. This is sufficient protection to the company." State ex rel. Phillips v. New Orleans Gas-Light Co., 25 La. Ann. 413 (1873). 7. Contract for Gas under Statute. — Repeal of Statute. — Power of Board of Audit. — In an action to recover the price of gas supplied after January 1, 1870, under a contract entered into by the plaintiffs with the defendants by virtue of an act passed in 1865, authorizing the board of auditors of the defend- ants to contract with the plaintiffs to supply gas in the streets of the town, which contract was entered into for the period of five years [the act of 1865 was repealed in 1866], it was held that the contract became void after the repeal of the act of 1865, and con- ferred no power upon the board of auditors to make an absolute binding contract for a term of years, or one which would deprive the legislature of the power of repeal or of further legislation concerning the same subject ; and it was further held that the 94 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. plaintiffs' proper remedy was by mandamus to the supervisor of the town and the board of supervisors of the county. Kichmond County Gas-Light Co. v. Town of Middletown, 59 N. Y. 228, 8. c. 1 Supreme, 433. See Arbitration; Supply op Gas, 11. MANUFACTUEING COEPORATIOK See Taxation, 3; Consolidation. MASTER AND SERVANT. See Agency, 5, 7 ; Municipality, 7 ; Negligence, I. II. III. MECHANIC'S LIEN. See Gas Fixtures, 12. METERS. * See Charter, 5; Contract, 15, 16; Evidence, 30; Gas-Pipes, 1; Fraudulent Taking, 1, 3 ; Notice, 6 ; Municipality, 3 ; Statutes, 3, 10; Negligence, 10. MISDEMEANOR. See Fraudulent Taking; Patents, 1. MONOPOLY. See Charter, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 ; Contract, II. ; Estoppel, 2 ; Franchise, 2 ; Injunction, 5, 6, 7, 8 ; Malicious Prosecution. MORTGAGE. See Debts, 2; Gas Fixtures, 5, 10; Receiver. MORTMAIN. Mortmain. — Gas Shares. — Shares in a gas-light company which possessed real estate for the purposes of their business were held not to be within statutes of mortmain. Sparling v. Parker, 9 Beavan, 450 (1846) j Thompson v. Thompson, 1 Collyer, 381 (1844). MANUFACTURING COEPORATION — MUNICIPALITY, I. 95 MUNICIPALITY. I. Powers. 1. Right of Municipality to subscribe to Stock of a Gas Company. — Power of President. — Ratification. — In an action against the city of Memphis for the amount of their subscrip- tion to the stock of a gas company, the. defence was made that neither the mayor nor board of aldermen had authority to sub- scribe ; but it was held [by Nicholson C. J.] that " the corpora- tion of Memphis had power, under its charter, to procure a supply of gas by subscribing for stock in a gas company, but the power was exercised defectively if the president of th& gas company was not authorized by his corporation to accept the offer to subscribe made by the city," and evidence was held ad- missible to show either that he was authorized to accept, 'or if he was not, that the gas company afterward ratified or accepted his oral acceptance. Judgment against the city affirmed. , City of Memphis v. Memphis Gayoso Gas Co., 9 Heiskell (Tenn.), 531 (1872). 2. Philadelphia Gas-Works. — Right to lay Gas-Pipes in Streets. — Although the city of Philadelphia has no express authority from the legislature to lay gas-pipes through its streets, it has by its act of incorporation the right to legislate fully in regard to lighting the streets, and such power would, by implication, give it authority to direct by ordinance that gas- pipes should be laid in the streets for the purpose of lighting them. Semhle, that a municipal corporation has the inherent power to lay gas-pipes in its streets for the benefit of its citizens. Strawbridge v. City of Philadelphia, 13 Reporter, 216 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1882). 3. Power of Trustees of Philadelphia Gas- Works. — Regula- tions. — Meters. — The trustees of the Philadelphia City Gas- Works, by the city ordinances, have the right to adopt and enforce any reasonable and just regulation with regard to the 96 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. use and treatment of their gas-meters ; arid an order that all governors or regulators shall be attached either to the gas-pipes or the meter, unless placed upon a by pass in such manner that the flow of the gas may be directed through the pipes without its passing through the governor or regulator, is a just and proper regulation. Foster v. Trustees of Philadelphia Gas-Works, 12 Phila. 511 (1878). See Charter, 8, 10, 14 ; Contract, II. 6, 7, 8, 9 ; Franchise, 1, 2, 3 • Injunction, 5, 8 ; Mandamus, 3 ; Navigable Waters, I ; Stock op Gas Companies, 1. II. Ordinances. 4. Power to make Reasonable Regulations. — Unreasonable Ordinances. — Use of Streets. — An ordinance of a municipal corporation, which prohibited the defendants and every other person from opening or digging up any paved street for the purpose of laying gas mains or pipes between Dec. 1st and March 1st, is a regulation and not a restraint of trade, and within the power of the city authorities, and does not conflict with the powers of a gas company chartered before the passage of the ordinance, and required by its charter to furnish gas and lay mains, &c., along the streets upon application from the owners of property ; but an ordinance which prohibits the gas company from digging up any paved street in order to introduce the gas into any premises on the opposite side of the street to that on which the gas-pipes are laid, is an unreasonable exercise of authority, and consequently not within the power of the Board. Commissioners &c. No. Liberties v. No. Liberties Gas Co., 12 Penn. St. 318 (1849). 5. Estoppel. — Construction of Contract under Ordinance. — In an action of contract to recover the price of gas supplied for the city lights, under a contract with the city authorities, the execution of which is not disputed, it was held that "a city ordinance or a city contract designed for a city at large, operates 97 throughout its boundaries, whatever their change," and that the ■wording of the contract made with this plaintiff included the additions of the city ; and that as this suit was brought to recover for the amount claimed as due for gas furnished to the defendant in its enlarged boundaries, when it " appeared without dispute that for a long series of years the plaintiff had claimed, exer- cised, and been supported in the exclusive right of occupying, under and by virtue of this contract, the new as well as old city limits," the gas company should be estopped from seeking to limit its operation for the purposes of this suit. St. Louis Gas-Light Co. v. City of St Louis, 46 Missouri, 121 (1870). 6. Contract. — Power of Municipality. — Ordinance. — Where a gas company contracted with a city to furnish gas for a period of twenty years at certain rates, and it appeared that the city had no authority to make a contract for a longer period than ten years, and after said ten years the city, by an ordinance, changed the price, and the gas company refused to supply gas on the terms prescribed by the ordinance, on a petition, it was held that the contract, after the period of ten years, was clearly in- operative, and the city was not bound by it, and the provision in the ordinance for continuing the price of gas for a period of five years was a proposition to the company which, if accepted by them, would preclude the city from lowering the price for the period named, but if not thus accepted, the power of the council to regulate the price from time to time was as ample as it would have been had the ordinance contained no such provision as to time. State ex rd. Attorney-General v. Ironton Gas Company, 37 Ohio St. 45 (1881). See Charter, 3 ; Conteact, 6. III. Liability foe Negligence. 7. For Injury to Gas-Fipes by Steam Roller, causing Ezplo- sion. — Evidence of Similar Injuries. — The defendants were a corporation who, had made use of a 17-ton steam roller, and thereby, as it was alleged, had broken certain gas-pipes in the street, and caused an explosion whereby the plaintiff was 98 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. injured. The evidence showed that on the day in question the steam roller passed up and down the street, the water bubbling up through the roadway from the broken water-pipes, and that, shortly after, the explosion occurred. The gas-pipes were laid under 13 inches of granite and concrete, which a witness testified was equal to 30 inches of earth. It also appeared that the roller had broken pipes at other times ; that pipes had broken through subsidence in the ground, which was loose and shifting, and that the roller sometimes went over the road without breaking pipes. The defendants contended that the gas company were bound to lay their pipes deep enough to avoid breaking, and therefore that they were liable ; but it was held that the corporation was boimd to use due care, and would be liable if the pipes were broken by the roller, if the corporation knew that there was danger and neglected to take proper precautions to prevent it. Pocock V. Corp. of Brighton, 31 Gas J. 429. 8. Liability for Negligence of Workmen. — Demurrer. — The declaration alleged that the defendants, by their servants, doing work upon certain gas-pipes in a street in the city, so negligently conducted themselves about the premises that a piece of metal was projected so as to hit the plaintiff's eye, whereby he lost the sight of his eye, &c., and a plea, was filed alleging that the sup- posed grievances were lond fide done in executing the powers conferred on the defendant by the Manchester General Improve- ment Act, 1851, and without any negligence of the defendants other than by their workmen, and not from any immediate act of defendants, and that the workmen employed by them were proper persons to be employed by them in that behalf. A demur- rer was filed to the plea, and it was held by Pollock C. B. that " there must be judgment for plaintiff." Scott V. Mayor, &c. of Manchester, 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 495. 9. Trespass on Lamp-Post. — Negligence of City. — Good De- fence. — A gas-light company, authorized by the city of Milwau- kee to erect lamp^posts upon the sidewalks for the purpose of lighting the c^ty, erected the posts, managed and controlled, cleaned and repaired them, and the city paid them for the gas 99 burned therein. In an action of trespass for injury to the lamp-post it was held that the posts were to all intents and purposes the property of the gas company, and in their posses- sion, and they could maintain an action of trespass for an injury done to them ; but that the relations of the gas company to the city were such that whatever would have been a good defence against the city, in case the lamp-post belonged to them, and this action had been brought by them on the ground that the alleged trespass occurred solely from the bad condition of the street, by reason whereof the defendant's wagon, without fault on his part, slipped around against the post and broke it, would also be a good defence in the present action. Koche V. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 5 Wisconsin, 55 (1856). See Negligence, III. ; Nuisance, 16. IV. Contracts. 10. Power to contract for Supply of Gas. — intra Vires. — '■ In an action to recover the price of gas furnished to a city by a gas company under a contract which the city afterwards undertook to treat as a nuUity, and thereupon notified the gas company not to furnish gas under said contract, it appeared that after such notice the gas company continued to furnish gas, and the city declined to pay for the same ; and it was held that the contract made by the city was valid and not ultra vires, and not made by the city under its power to legislate, and that " the city, having the power, under its charter, to make a contract touching the subject-matter, had the right to make it according to its own discretion, within the limits of its franchise " ; and it was further held that the city, by said contract, was not restricted in any respect from the legitimate exercise of its public powers, as it expressly reserved its administrative authority to keep the posts, lamps, and burners in good order and repair, if the gas company should fail to do so, and no exclusive grant was made to the gas company; and the city having made a contract within the scope of its power, and not ultra vires, which was not against 100 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. public policy and not fraudulent, that it must be enforced in the same manner as the contract of a business corporation or person. The City of Indianapolis v. Indianapolis Gas-Light & Coke Co., 66 In- diana, 396 (1879). 11. No FoTver to contract for Supply of Gas for a Term of Years. — Injunction. — Where a city, under authority given by the common councU, entered into a contract with a gas company, by which the company agreed to supply the streets and public buildings of the city with gas at a fixed price for the space of ten years, and the city agreed to pay for it at said price, on a prayer for an injunction to prevent the city from lighting its streets with oil, it was held that a city had no right to make the con- tract for so long a time, the officers of the city being trustees of the public, and not authorized to make contracts to bind their successors for so long a time, and that the contract was not authorized under the legislative powers conferred upon the de- fendant, and the injunction must be denied. Garrison v. City of Chicago & The People's Gas-Light Co., Y BisseU, U. S., 480 (1877). 12. What is a Binding Contract •with a City. — Form of Con- firmation. — In an action brought by the plaintiff on a contract for supplying the city of San Francisco witli gas, executed on the part of the city by committees of the board of aldermen, under an ordinance which authorized the contract, "subject to confirma- tion by the common council," and confirmed by a joint resolution of the common council, the defendant contended that the approval of the mayor was necessary to make the contract binding upon the city ; but it was held that the joint resolution was sufficient, and the contract binding without the approval of the mayor. San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco, 6 Gal. 190. 13. Liability of Municipality. — Implied Promise to pay for Gas. — Ordinance. — In an action of contract for the price of gas suppKed by the plaintiffs to the defendants, outside of a contract confirmed by the aldermen and common council of the city, for lighting the city hall and fire-engine houses, the defendants alleged MUNICIPALITY, IV. 101 that no ordinance authorizing the furnishing of gas was shown, and therefore the city was not liable ; but it was held by Field J. that the defendants were liable, and that " a municipality can- . not avail itself of the property or labor of a party, and then screen itself from responsibility under the plea that it never passed an ordinance on the subject, and that the law implies a promise to pay in such cases." San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453, 14. Right of Municipality to Contract for Gas. — Price of Gas. — In an action for the price of gas which the plaintiffs sup- plied to the defendant in the year 1864, it appeared that they began to supply the city in 1858, and that the price of the gas had never been regulated by contract, except for the year 1858-9 ; that in 1864 the plaintiffs notified the defendant of an increase in the price of gas, but that this was not accepted by defendant, who refused to pay the bill then rendered. And it was held that a contract for gas to light the public buildings and streets of New York is within the authority of the municipal corporation, and need not be made to the lowest bidder upon an invited competi- tion, and that the contract prescribing the rate of compensation for the use of gas during the particular year of 1858 was not in its nature an agreement running from year to year, and cannot be held to fix the measure of compensation for subsequent use. Harlem Gas-Light Co. ■;;. Mayor &c. of New York, 33 N. Y. 309 (1865). 15. Compromise. — Monopoly. — TTltra Vires. — Right to pur- chase Gas-'Works. — Charter. — The legislature of Missouri gave the defendants the exclusive right to make and sell illuminating gas to the city of St. Louis, giving the city the right to purchase the gas-works in either twenty or twenty-five years, viz., in either 1860 or 1865, under certain conditions, with the proviso that if the city did not purchase at either of these times the defendants' charter should continue in force until 1890. In 1846 the plain- tiffs made an agreement with the defendants to give up the right to buy in 1860, the defendants agreeing, without the assent of its stockholders, that if the plaintiffs should not buy in 1865 they might do so in 1870, or at the end of any five years thereafter. 102 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. In 1860 the, plaintiffs, took: steps to purchase the defendants' property, but the defendants refused to sell in consequence of the contract of 1846. In 1870 the city again took steps to pur- chase, which the company resisted, alleging that the contract of 1846 was void, and that the time to buy appointed by the char- ter had expired. In 1873 another contract was entered into by the city, the defendants, and a third gas company, by which it was agreed that the contract of 1846 should be cancelled and all suits dismissed, and by which the defendants relinquished their exclusive right to make and sell gas in a certain portion of the city, and contained other provisions ; and it was held that the right conferred upon the city by the charter was simply a privi- lege to become a purchaser of the gas-works on the first of Jan- uary, 1860 or 1865, and that the city was under no obligation to purchase at either of these , times, but might exercise the privi- lege or not at its option, and that the contract of 1846 was not ultra vires; and it was held also that the contract of 1873 was not ultra vires on the part of the gas company as an attempt on its part to absolve itself from the performance of a corporate duty, that of furnishing gas to a portion of the city^ as the right to ex- clude competition was solely for the benefit of the company, and therefore one which it might surrender with the consent of its stockholders. City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gas-Light Co., 70 Missouri, 69; 5 Mo. App. 484 (1879). 16. Municipality. — Power to contract. — Ultra Vires. — In an action against a city to recover the price of gas supplied for lighting the streets under a contract made by the city with a gas company to furnish light for thirty years, it was Iwld that under the charter of the city, which gave power to contract and to pro- vide for lighting its streets, the city had full power to make a contract with the gas company for that purpose, and that the contract itself was not ultra vires, and that, whether or not the duration of the contract was an improper abridgment of the legis- lative or governmental power of the city, this illegality would only apply to the executory part of the contract, and not to that part which had been executed, and that the city was liable to the NAVIGABLE WATEES. 103 gas company for the gas which had been, already supplied and used. East St. Louis x. East St. Louis Gas-Light & Coke Co., 98 111. 416 (1881). See Bonds, 2 ; Contract, II.; Taxation, 2, 24, 27. Purchase of Gas- Works by Cities, see Contract, 9, 6 ; Estoppel, 3. NAVIGABLE WATEES. 1. Laying Pipes across Moat. — Contract. — Damages. — Upon the gas company's claim for compensation, it was luld by the Tribunal of Commerce of Hamburg that the plaintiffs are not bound to state how, after demolishing the present bridge, to which the main in question is attached, the supply of gas to the town and suburbs is practicable, and would be accepted as satisfactory by them, other than by laying the mains across the bed of the city moat. The only question is, whether the company are bound by their contract to effect the required transposition of their main. Whether the public interests require the removal of the pres-» ent fixed bridge, &c., is a point not legitimately raised by the defendants, who undoubtedly are bound by the 8th and 27th clauses of their contract to transpose their mains in accordance with the demand of the Chamber, and that, too, without any claim for compensation. Municipal Chamter of Hamburg v. Gas Company, 5 Gas J. 710 (1856). 2. Injury to Gas-Pipes. — Navigable River. — Under its char- ter the plaintiff, a city gas-light company, has the right to lay its pipes across the bed of a navigable river within the city, for the purpose of transmitting gas so as to supply the whole city ; but this right is subordinate to the right of vessels to the free navi- gation of such river, and when its pipes in the bed of a river are injured by an anchor which was hanging at the bow of a vessel towed out of the river, without negligence on the part of those managing the vessel, the gas company cannot recover. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co. v. Schooner " Gamecock," 23 Wis. 144. See Damages, 5. 104 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. 3. Navigable 'Waters. — Riparian Rights. — State Laud. — ■Wharf. — In an action for damages for excluding the plaintiff from the use of the defendants' wharf and premises, which were used by them for the purposes of manufacturing gas, the plaintiff claiming the right to use them, as one of the public, as a place for loading and unloading, it appeared that the wharf was built below the line of low-water mark, and in navigable waters ; and it was held that this fact gave the public no right to use the wharf, although it was erected without the consent of the State, and that if the State sees fit to permit such structures to remain, no pri- vate individual has any right of entry upon them without the owner's consent. Wetmore v. Brooklyn Gas-Light Co., 42 New York, 384. See Wharf j Negligence, 28. NECESSAEY OF LIFE. Gas not a Necessary of Life. — Husband and Wife. — Where the defendant had left his wife, who continued to use the gas of the plaintiff corporation, in an action to recover the price of such gas it was held that the question was whether the defend- ant was bound to find his wife in gas, and that he was not. Kettening Gas Co. v. Leach, 24 Gas J. 503. NEGLIGENCE. I. Liability of Gas Companies for Negligence in the Care OF THEIR Pipes and Machinery. 1. Burden of Proof. — Proper Machinery. — Evidence of Negligence. — The plaintiff was injured by jumping from a building during the night while it was on fire, which was caused by an explosion of gas in the vicinity, and it appeared that this fire followed closely or was a continuation of the great fire of Nov. 9, 1872, in Boston ; that that conflagration, although under control, was not wholly subdued among the ruins of a large part of the business portion of the city ; that the streets were full of NECESSARY OP LIFE ; NEGLIGENCE, I. 105 rubbish from the falling walls ; that the district was guarded by the police and militia ; that there was an unprecedented state of excitement and insecurity; that there was a complaint of an escape of gas in the building which was not attended to by the gas company ; that none of the valve boxes of the gas company in the vicinity of the place where the explosion occurred were closed, and that the injury to the pipes was caused by the fall of heavy buildings, the excessive heat, and the other destructive agencies of the fire, and it was held that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the gas company ; that it was not one of those cases where negligence could be inferred from the happening of the accident alone ; that the burden was on the plaintiff to show some specific act or acts of negligence, and to show further that such negligence directly contributed to the result ; that the failure to guard against the effects of such an overwhelming calamity was not an omission of duty for which the gas company would be liable, and that there was no evi- dence that the gas company had not made suitable provision against the consequences of all such conflagrations as might be expected ; or that their pipes were not properly laid nor of suit- able material ; or that their appliances for the distribution of gas were not proper for the purpose ; or that their officers were not properly skilled ; and no evidence that the escaping gas of which notice was given, was the cause of the explosion, or had anything to do with the burning of the building. / Hutchinson v. Boston Gas-Light Company, 122 Mass. 219 (1877). 2. Negligence in imperfectly cutting off Supply of Gas. — The plaintiff notified the defendants that he wished to discon- tinue the use of gas, and they removed the meter and undertook to close the aperture in the service pipe, so that gas should not escape ; but there was a leak of gas thereafter from the service pipe into the cellar, and an explosion took place, by which the plaintiff was injured, and it was held by the court [Allen J.] that "upon the evidence unexplained and uncontradicted, there can be no doubt that the defendant was guilty of an omission of duty in neglecting effectually to cap and close the service pipe upon the plaintiff's premises, so as effectually to exclude the gas 106 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. from his cellar and store, and that it would be liable for any damages caused solely by such neglect." Lanigaa v. New York Gas-Light Co., 71. N. Y. 29 (1877). 3. Hzplosion. — Evidence of Negligence. — Inspection of Pipes. — A gas company is bound to keep up such a reasonable inspec- tion of their mains and pipes as may enable them to detect when there is such an escape of gas by fracture or imperfection of pipes as may lead to the danger of an explosion : and if an explosion takes place from a fracture or defect which has existed for several days, during which time it has also been discoverable (by reason of the smell of the escaped gas), and would have been discovered by proper inspection, that is evidence of negligence on the part of the company : nor is it enough to relieve them from liability, that upon notice of the escape they sent a work- man to repair the defect, he arriving too late to do so. Mose et ux. v. Hastings & St. Leonard's Gas Co., 4 Post. & Fin. 324, N. P. (1865); 13 Gas J., 231. 4. Defect in Pipe. — Explosion. — The defendants, a gas com- pany, contracted to supply the plaintiff with a proper pipe to convey gas from the main outside to a meter inside his premises. Gas escaped from the pipe, laid down under the contract, into the plaintiff's shop. The servant of a gas-fitter employed by the plaintiff happened to be at work in another room at the time of the ^scape, and went into the shop upon hearing of it, with a view of finding out its cause. He was carrying a lighted candle in his hand, and immediately on entering the shop an explosion took place, doing damage to the plaintiff's premises and stock. On the trial of an action against the defendants to recover for the injury sustained, the jury found, first, that the escape of gas was occasioned by a defect in the pipe, and that that defect existed in the pipe when supplied ; and, secondly, that there was negligence on the part of the gas-fitter's servant in carrying a lighted candle. Upon these findings it was held that the ^plain- tiff was entitled to recover, and that the defendants were not relieved from responsibility by the negligent act of the gas- fitter's servant. 107 Per Kelly C. B. and Pigott B. " The cause of action was the negligence of the defendants, from the consequences of which the intermediate negligence of a person not in the plaintiff's service could not relieve them." Burrows v. March Gas & Coke Co., L. R. 5 Exoh. 67 (1870); L. E. 7 Exch. 96. 5. Impetfect Machinery. — Frencli Law. — Measure of Damages. — Annuity. — Contributory Negligence. — The plaintiff brought an action for compensation for personal injuries sustained by him through an explosion of the gasometer of the defendant company at the Opera House, on Oct. 25, 1849, and the defend- ants claimed that the explosion was caused by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, but it was held that the fault was en- tirely on the part of the gas company ; that their gasometer was not properly constructed, inasmuch as it was covered instead of being left open, and for other reasons ; that the company were negligent in not making a proper examination of the old meter before re-using it, and that under these circumstances the gas company was not in a position to attribute the accident to such a cause as that the plaintiff had entered the building with a light on hearing an extraordinary noise, or that he neglected to shut the door of his house, thus to bar the passage of light from his room, — all of which are denied by the plaintiff. The court awarded damages in the form of an annuity. Sauvage v. English Gas Co. of Paris, 4 Gas J. 136 (1855). 6. Negligence in filling up Trench in Street. — Duty of Gas Company. — The defendants dug a trench in the street for the purpose of laying a gas-pipe, and had filled it up, and thereafter heavy rains had caused the earth to settle, so that the plaintiff had fallen into the same and been injured. In an action to recover damages for the injury, it was ?ield that the defendants were liable for imperfectly filling up the trench, although the work . had been approved of and accepted by of&cers of the district government, and that it was not only the duty ot the defendants to put the street in as good condition as it was before, but also to exercise a careful foresight so as to prevent any injury afterwards which might be occasioned to the work by 108 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. storms and rainfalls, and which would render the work dan- gerous to persons travelling on the street. Dillon V. Washington Gas-Light Co., 1 MacArthui (D. C), 626. When a Question for the Jury. 7. Care of Gas-Pipes in Streets. — Duty of Gas Company. — Question for Jury. — In an action for damages for injuries to the plaintiff's greenhouse, caused by a leak in the defendant's pipe, which was occasioned by the negligence of the city officers in not properly filling in earth under the pipe after constructing a city sewer, the defendant at the trial requested the court to rule that the legal construction of its grant from the State was that the defendant had a right of property in the streets for the use of its pipes, and was not bound to inspect the pipes, nor to remove them to prevent injury, unless the city gave it notice that the pipes were in its way, and that it was unreasonable to require the defendant to have a person at aU times present when the city was at work near its pipes ; but the court refused so to rule, and it was held that the question of due care on the part of the defendant was a question for the jury, and that the court below rightly refused the ruling requested. Butcher v. Providence Gas Co., 12 R. I. 149 (1878). 8. Negligence in cutting off Gas. — Question for Jury. — In an action for damages caused by an explosign of gas in the store- house of the plaintiff; which had been vacant some weeks before the accident occurred, it appeared that the defendants had been notified to cut off the gas, as the premises were vacant, and that on the evening of the accident they were let to some negroes ; that the defendants cut off the gas by the meter cock, and not by the service cock, which was under the curbstone, that some one tampered with the meter cock and let on the gas, and then turned it off again, and that if the gas had been cut off at the service cock there would have been no explosion. The defend- ants claimed that the accident happened in consequence of the negligence of the plaintiff or of his tenants ; but it was h^ld that it was a question for the jury whether these facts constituted negli- NEGLIGENCE, I. 109 gence on the part of the defendants, and that the nonsuit which was ordered by the court was erroneous. Chisholm v. The Atlanta Gas-Light Co., 57 Ga. 28 (1876). 9. Question for Jury. — Escape of Gas. — Negligence of Gas- Fitter. — In an action for damages for injuring the plaintiffs' landing-stage it appeared that it was set on fire and burned by an escape of the defendants' gas, which the plaintiffs alleged was set on fite by a gas-fitter who was making a connection with- out having turned off the gas, it was held that it was a question for the jury to decide upon the evidence, which was conflicting, and a verdict was found for the plaintiffs. Mersey Docks & Harbor Board v. Liverpool United Gas Co., 26 Gas J. 327. 10. Explosion. — InsufScient Supply of Water in Meter. — The plaintiff was injured by an explosion of gas, which he claimed was caused by an insufficient supply of water in the meter belonging to the defendant company. In an action to recover damages it was held that it was the duty of the defendant company to keep the meter properly supplied with water, and that if their neglect to do so caused the explosion, the defend- ants were liable. Hacker v. London Gas-Light Co., 32 Gas J. 781. 11. Explosion. — Negligence of Employees. — Question for Jury. — In an action for damages to the plaintiff for injuries caused by an explosion of the defendants' gas, it appeared that the de- fendants' workmen were engaged in connecting a gas-pipe, and that they were using a light, from which the gas took fire and caused the explosion. The defendants claimed that there was not a strong smell of gas, and that their workmen were therefore justified in using the light ; and it was held that the question whether such action on the part of the workmen, was negligent was for the jury. Ellis V. London Gas-Light Co., 32 Gas J., 849. 12. Negligence of Workmen. — Drilling Hole in Pipe. — Master and Servant. — Question for Jury. — In an action for damages for an injury to the plaintiff, through the alleged negligence of 110 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. the defendants' workmen, it appeared that the defendants had been employed to erect gas-pipes for an illumination ; that a trench was dug by them in the road, and, two pipes being ex- posed, that the defendants' workmen asked the plaintiff, who was passing by, which was the gas-main ; that the plaintiff got into the trench and showed them, and that they made a hole for the insertion of the service pipe by ciitting with a chisel called a " diamond-point," a more dangerous, though not unusual mode of doing the work, as it caused particles of iron to fly off, which happened upon this occasion and that the plaintiff's eye was struck by such a particle and was injured, and that it was usual to put up a screen in such a case. It was held by Keating J. that it was a question for the jury whether or not the defendants' workmen had been guilty of negligence, and whether the plain- tiff was himself contributory to his injury. After a verdict for plaintiff a rule for a new trial was refused ; and it was held that there was evidence to go to a jury on the ground that there was a method of making the hole in the pipe which would have been perfectly safe. Cleveland v. Spier, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 399. 13. Negligence. — Explosion. — Care of Servants. — Question for Jury. — In an action against a gas company for negligently allowing the escape of gas from their main into premises where lights were known to be burning, it appeared that the gas men requested that the lights should be put out, but the plaintiff claimed that the gas found entrance through an open window nearly level with the trench from the main, after a hole had been made in the main for the injection of the service-pipe; and it was held that, even if the jury thought the gas so entered, it was stUl a question for them whether the defendants' men might reasonably have foreseen it, and were bound to have the window closed. A verdict was found for the defendants. Blenkiron v. Gt. Central Gas Coiisumers' Co., 2 Foster & Fin. 437 ; 2 Gas J. 292, 776 (1861) ; 3 L. T. E. 317. 14. Negligence of Workmen. — Question for Jury. — Drilling Hole in Pipe. — In an action for damages for injury caused by the negligence of the defendants' servants, it appeared that the NEGLIGENCE, I. Ill plaintiff, while stopping to look at some improvements that the defendants were making in their pipes, was struck by a splinter chipped from the defendants' gas-pipe, and that the defendants had put up a gate to keep the public off, and that they had in- structed their workmen and the police to prevent the public from stopping there ; and it was held to be a question for the jury whether the defendants had taken proper precautions. A verdict was found for the plaintiff. Faxquharson v. Alliance & Dublin Gas Co., 22 Gas J. 1085. 15. Question for the Jury. — Explosion of Gas. — Negligence in laying Pipes. — In an action for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from an explosion of gas, it appeared that the plaintiff on returning home noticed a smell of gas, but could not find any leak ; that he afterwards went to the closet with a lighted match in his hand, and an explosion occurred and he was injxired. The plaintiff claimed that the gas-pipes, which were laid 1 ft. 11 in. deep, with sets 7 in. deep, were too near the surface of the ground, and were improperly packed, — cinders being an improper kind of packing, — and that the corporation had notice that the pipes were of poor construction. The defendant claimed that the pipe had been broken from the subsidence of the soil caused by the digging out of coal ; and it was held that the question of the defendant's negligence was for the jury. A verdict was found for the plaintiff. Chadwick v. Corporation of Wigan, 28 Gas J. 562. 16. Explosion. — Evidence of Negligence. — Defect in Service Pipe. — The plaintiff was injured by an explosion of gas which had escaped from the defendants' gas-pipe and passed through the ground into the plaintiff's kitchen. At the trial it appeared that the service pipe did not properly fit the main, and that there was a 'subsidence of the soil which carried down the main pipe a year before the accident, and that this fact was known to the defendants' servants ; and it was held by the court that this was sufficient evidence of the defendants' negligence. Fare v. Bath Gas-Light & Coke Co., 25 Gas J. 566. 17. Care of Pipes. — Explosion of Gas. — Notice. — Question for the Jury. — The plaintiff was injured by au explosion of the 112 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. defendants' gas. In an action for damages for such injuries it appeared that the gas escaped from pipes which had been laid some twelve years; that the defendants were duly notified of the escape of gas, and sent a man to look at the place, who said there was no danger ; that on being again notified they sent two men, who put in an escape tube; and that four days later the explosion occurred ; and it was held that it was a question for the jury whether they had exercised due care under the circum- stances. A verdict was found for the plaintiff. Boothman v. Mayor & Corporation of Burnley, 20 Gas J. 585. 18. E:splosion, — Negligent Employd — Question for Jury. — In an action to recover compensation for damages sustained to the plaintiff's property through an explosion of gas occasioned by the alleged negligence of the defendants' servants, it was al- leged that the defendants' servants were ' drunk when repairing the leak, and that there was a small explosion previously from the break in the pipe, which was negligently repaired, and the question of the defendants' care was left to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff. Hann v. Weymouth Gas-Consumers' Co., 18 Gas J. 186 (1869). 19. Negligence in Care of Trench. — Question for Jury. — In an action for damages for the alleged negligence of a gas com- pany in having left in the highway an open trench unprotected and unlighted, or insufficiently protected and lighted, whereby the plaintiffs, who were in a cart, were upset and injured, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were slightly intoxicated and driving too fast, and that the trench was sufficiently pro- tected. It was held that these questions of negligence were for the jury. A verdict was found for the plaintiffs. Perrin v. London Gas-Light Co., ■) 12 Gas J. 99 (C. C. P., Earle C. J., Mailing v. London Gas-Light Co., J 1863). 20. Negligence in Care of Trench in Highway. — Question for Jury. — In an action to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff's horse, caused by the defendants' negligence in care- lessly leaving an open hole in the highway without protection, NEGLIGENCE, II. 113 into which the plaintiff's servant drove the horse, the defend- ants claimed that the plaintiff's servant was negligent and him- self caused the accident ; and it was held that these questions of negligence were for the jury. Verdict for plaintiff. Robinson v. Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co., 15 Gas J. 883 (Exchequer, 1866). See CONTEAOTOE, 1, 2. II. CONTEIBUTOET NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF. In General. 21. Explosion. — Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. — Evi- dence. — Master and Servant. — In an action to recover damages caused by an escape of gas, it appeared that the plaintiff had been for some time aware that gas was escaping into his cellar; that he sent two servants with a candle into the cellar, which they lighted there with a match, and that an explosion immedi- ately occurred, greatly injuring the plaintiff; and that the cellar was seldom used, and had not been entered for five days before the explosion ; and it was held that this evidence was sufficient to establish such contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff as would prevent his recovering, and that he could not be presumed to be ignorant of the inflammable and explosive qualities of the illuminating gas in ordinary use, and that he had been for a long time aware that the gas had been escaping into his cellar, and must be presumed to have known that it would necessarily accumulate in larger quantities and in a more condensed form in a cellar so seldom opened ; and he must be held to have known the danger of bringing a burning lamp or a lighted match in contact with this free gas ; and that not to see that the escape of gas was properly prevented was a voluntary and negligent exposure of his property to danger ; and that the fact that he had frequently before exposed himself to the same risk, and that the cellar had been entered with a light without causing similar explosions, did not tend to prove that it was prudent so to do. Lanigan v. New York Gas-Light Co., 71 N. T. 29 (1877). 8 114 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. 22. Contributory Negligence. — Explosion. — Se-wer. — Duty of Gas Company. — Where gas escaped into a sewer from a defec- tive pipe, and the plaintiff, a civil engineer, entered the sewer with a light, and an explosion took place, it was held that he was guilty of contributory negligence and could not recover. Gordon J. said : " The gas company was responsible for what might, in the na,ture of things, occur from its neglect, and its re- sponsibility was not limited by what its officers may have thought to be improbable or even impossible. The gas-pipe and sewer were in the immediate vicinity of each other. In the former was a defect, and from it the gas, not merely by absorption or by gravity, but also by pressure, found its way into the sewer. This certainly resulted from the defendant's negligence, because but for the defective pipe there could have been no escape of gas. " But the plaintiff was also bound to the exercise of a reasonable care for his own safety. He was a civil engineer, and may be presumed to have had some knowledge of the dangerous nature of illuminating gas, of its power to penetrate the earth, and of its explosive character when mixed in certain quantities with common air. The defendant was bound for the consequences of its neglect, though these consequences were not and could not by ordinary prudence have been anticipated, whilst the plaintiff was bound only to a knowledge of the probable consequences of the fact of which he was cognizant, and to that ordinary pru- dence which the consequences required." Oil City Gas Company v. Robinson, 13 Reporter, 253 (Supreme Court, Pennsylvania, 1881). 23. Ezplosion. — Duty of Gas Companies. — Notice. — Con- tributory Negligence. — In an action for damages for injuries caused by an explosion of gas from a leak in the main pipe, it was held that gas-light companies, in lighting a city, are bound to supply pipes of sufficient strength to stand all lawful uses which may be made of the public streets through which they pass, and are responsible for aU damages resulting from the breaking of the pipes in consequence of such use ; that heavy piles of bricks from old buildings, sudden and mischievous con- NEGLIGENCE, II. 115 cussions from the careless dumpings of heavy building materials, may become an unlawful use, for which such company shall not be responsible ; but that when gas-pipes are broken by any cause, and the company is notified and negligently delays repairing them, and damage ensues, the company is responsible ; and it was further lield that if the plaintiff had notice of the breach, and was aware of the danger and heedlessly encountered it, he was without remedy, although the company may have been remiss. Brown ©.'New York Gas-Light Co., Anthon's N. P. Cases, 351 (1850). 24. ITegligence in mcdntaining Dangerous Opening in Side'walk. — Contributory Negligence. — Burden of Proof. — In an action for damages brought by a widow against a gas company, for negligence in not properly guarding the entrance to an area or opening in front of a building owned by the gas company, into which the plaintiff's husband fell and was killed, and in which he was found dead, there being no evidence how he fell in, it was held that in such actions a plaintiff " need not show that he was free from negligence himself, or in the exercise of ordinary care, but that the concurring negligence of the plaintiff is a matter of defence and the burden of showing it is on the de- fendant," and that the cour^ upon a demurrer could not infer the knowledge by the plaintiff's intestate of the existence of the dangerous opening from the single fact that he lived on the same street, within half a block of the opening ; that as a matter of law the presumption of due care always obtains in favor of the plaintiff; and it was further held that the opening in the side- walk was a dangerous one, which the defendants were bound to make and keep safe, and that the action could be maintained. Buesching Adm. v. St. Louis Gas-Light Co., 73 Mo. 219 ; s. c. 11 Eeporter, 675; reversing decision in 6 Mo. Appeal, 85 (1880). 25. Master and Servant. — Pall of a Retort-House. — Con- tributory ITegligence. — In an action for damages for injury to the plaintiff, it appeared that the plaintiff was a workman in the employ of the defendants, and that while he was working he was crushed by the fall of the roof of their retort-house. The defend- 116 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. ants introduced evidence to prove that the accident was caused by the fact that the plaintiff had drawn the retorts by " cracking," — i. e. by admitting atmospheric air until the mixture became explosive, — and that the plaintiff had been warned by them not to " crack " the retorts ; and it was held that these facts consti- tuted such contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff that he could not maintain the action. Hulett V. Pudsey Gas Co., 28 Gas J. 663. 26. Explosion. — Contractor. — Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. — In an action for personal injuries, caused by an ex- plosion of gas, to the plaintiff, who was the butler in the employ of a club, it appeared that the defendant had been employed by the club to make alterations and improvements in the club-house, and had employed and contracted with A. B., a gas-fitter, to do the gas-fittings, which he did, and it was held that if A. B. laid down any pipe not specified in the contract with the defendant, and the gas escaped by mismanagement or ill manufacture of such pipe, the defendant was not liable ; and it was Jield further that, even if this pipe was included in the contract, if the gas had been turned on by the plaintiff's own order while the defendants' men were working in the house, and the house was unoccupied and the defendants' contract not completed, that the plaintiff could not recover. Eapson v. Cubitt, Carrington & Marshman, 64; 9 Meeson & Welsby, 710 (1841). 27. Explosion. — Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. — In an action for damages to the plaintiff for injuries caused by an ex- plosion of defendants' gas, it appeared that the plaintiff was asked by a neighbor to turn on her gas, and that he went with a light to the cellar, and that the gas thereupon exploded, and he was badly injured ; that the explosion was caused by the leakage from a large crack in the main pipe, which the plaintiff claimed was caused by the negligence of the defendants' servants in put- ting in the pipe. The defendants denied that there was any such negligence, and claimed that the plaintiff was himself neg- ligent in going into the cellar with a lighted candle ; and it was NEGLIGENCE, II. 117 held that the defendants could only be held liable for the conse- quence of the accident if it was caused by their negligence, — of course, including that of their workmen ; that if, in inserting the service pipe it had been so laid as to cause the crack, or so that the ordinary traffic passing over the pipe caused the crack, they would be liable, but they would not be liable if the cracking of the pipe was a pure accident, caused by a change in the weather, or by the sinking of the earth in mining operations ; and that even if the cracking of the pipe was due to their negligence they would not be liable to the plaintiff, if he, by his own negligence, con- tributed to the accident. A verdict was found for the de- fendants. Hampton v. Cradley Heath Gas Go., 14 Gas J. 606 (1865). 28. Contributory Negligence. — Explosion. — In an action for damages to the plaintiff's husband, caused by an explosion of gas, it appeared that the defendant company introduced gas-pipes into the house of the plaintiff, and reserved the exclusive control of the service pipe until it joined the meter; that from some point in the service pipe gas escaped and filled the house, so that the plaintiff's husband, having discovered the leak and notified the company of it, and having sent a servant with a light to en- deavor to stop it, went himself also with a light, and was killed by a sudden explosion. And it was held by Johnson J. that the carrying an open light under circumstances of so great danger was such a contribution to the explosion as to preclude recovery in an action for damages. Vallee fes qiialitfe v. New City Gas Co., 7 Am. Law Eev. 767, Superior Court, Montreal. 29. Contributory Negligence. — Navigable Waters. — In an action against a vessel whose anchor trailing under water caught and injured a gas-pipe laid upon the bed of a navigable stream, it was held that if the captain of the vessel, upon fouling with the pipe, could with proper care and reasonable precaution have then prevented the injury, the owner of the vessel would be lia- ble for all injury which could thus have been prevented. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co. v. Schooner " Gamecock," 23 Wisconsin, 144 (1868.) 118 KIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. 30. Contributory Negligence. — Explosion. — In an action for damages for injury to the plaintiffs' premises from an explosion of gas which escaped from the defendants' main pipe into a cel- lar of the plaintiffs' store, which had been excavated by them beyond the curb-line under the highway, contrary to the city ordinance, it was held that the illegal excavation constituted such contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs as would prevent them from maintaining the. action. Strawbridge v. City of Philadelphia, 13 Eeporter, 216. 31. Xizplosion. — Contributory Negligence. — Ownership of Pipe. — In an action against a gas company for damages from an explosion of gas, caused by the carelessness of the defendants' agent in lighting a match in the cellar into which the gas had escaped, it appeared that the leak was in a pipe called a " bent," close to its joint with the service pipe, which was put into the house by the plaintiff, and that the pipes so put in by him had been carefully put in, and had been inspected and approved by the defendants, and there being no decisive evidence to show how this fracture in the pipe was produced, it was held that the fact that the leak was in one of plaintiff's pipes was not, as a matter of law evidence of plaintiff's negligence, but that it was a ques- tion for the jury to determine. Lannen v. Albany Gas-Light Co., 46 Barb. 264; s. c. 44 N. Y. 459. 32. Nuisance. — Contributory Negligence. — Combination of Noxious Smells. — In an action for damages against a manufac- turer of illuminating gas for injury to the plaintiff's premises from noxious stenches, coal tar, gas lime, and other offensive re- sults of the defendant's business which he negligently allowed to escape upon the plaintiff's premises, the defendant cannot escape liability by proving that the plaintiff produced other noxious odors in his own business, which contributed to render them un- wholesome, unless it is also shown that the injury complained of was the result of the combination of both of the noxious odors, and that those created by the defendant's works were not inde- pendently offensive. Brown d al. v. Illiua, 27 Conn. 84 (1858). NEGLIGENCE, II. 119 In not Bemoving from Premises. 33. Removal from Place of Danger. — Contributory Negligence. — In an action by the plaintiff, a minor Kving in the house of her father, against a gas company, for injury to her health, caused by the inhalation of gas during the night, which had es- caped from a street pipe into her father's house during the day previous, and of which leak the defendants were not notified until the afternoon, it was held that the plaintiff could not main- tain her action if her father failed to adopt suitable precautions against the hurtful effect of the gas after it was discovered to be filling the house where they resided, and that it was for the jury to decide whether there was not a manifest want of prudence in remaining in the house after it became known to its inmates that it was being filled with gas. Holly V. Boston Gaa-Light Co., 8 Gray, 123 (1857). 34. Contributory Negligence. — Removal from Premises. — In an action against a gas company for damages to the plaintiff's health, caused by the inhalation of gas which escaped into the plaintiff's premises from a main pipe in the street, it was held to be a want of due care on the part of the plaintiff to remain in the house after he had a reasonable opportunity to procure another house or place of residence and to remove thither ; and it was further held that the defendants could not properly be held liable in damages for consequences which ensued after such re- moval might have been made. Hunt V. Lowell Qas-Light Co., 1 Allen, 343 (1861). In Neglect to give Notice. 35. Contributory Negligence of Flaintif £ — Notice of Leak. — In an action against a gas-light company for an injury to the plaintiff's health caused by the inhalation of illuminating gas, which escaped from the defendants' main pipe at a point several hundred feet distant from the plaintiff's house, and through a public sewer and a private drain into the plaintiff's cellar, it was held that if there was in the beginning no want of care on the part of the defendants in laying their pipe, and they had no 120 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. knowledge that the gas was escaping into the plaintiff's house, and hy the use of due care could not ascertain the fact, and that as soon as they found that there was a leak they made proper research to ascertain where it was, and showed due diligence in trying to stop it, the plaintiff cannot recover for damages sus- tained by him after the time when, in the exercise of due care on his part, he might have given notice to the defendants of the presence of the gas in his house. Hunt V. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 1 Allen, 343 (1861). 36. Explosion. — Contributory Negligence. — Notice on Gas Bills. — In an action to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff from an explosion of gas, it appeared that there was a break in the defendants' main pipe large enough to allow an escape of gas ; that, although the escape of gas was discovered at night, nothing was done by the plaintiff till the next morning ; that all consumers were notified on the back of their bills to inform the gas manager at once in case a leak was discovered ; that in the morning a plumber' was called by the plaintiff, who, in searching for the leak with a candle, caused the explosion ; and it was held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and could not maintain the action. Parkin v. Wirksworth Gas Co., 26 Gas J. 946. Where the Plaintiff is a Minor. 37. Contributory Negligence. — Minor Child. — Evidence. — In an action against a gas-light company for damages for an injury to the plaintiff by the inhalation of gas which escaped from the defendants' gas-pipes in the street opposite to the house occupied by the plaintiff and her father, and over which the. plaintiff had no control, it was held that the plaintiff, being a minor child, and under the care of her father, could not maintain the action without evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants in keeping their pipes in repair, and must introduce evidence of ordinary care both of herself and her father, and that any want of ordinary care on the part of her father, which contributed to the injury, would prevent her from maintaining her action. Holly V. Boston Gaa-Light Co., 8 Gray, 123. NEGLIGENCE, II. 121 38. Contributory Negligence. — Infant Plaintiff. — Evidence. — In an action by the minor plaintiff for damages from the inhala- tion of the defendants' gas, which escaped from a main pipe in the street, it appeared that the plaintiff slept with his mother in a room without gas fixtures, and in the morning the mother was found dead and the plaintiff insensible, and there was no evi- dence that the plaintiff or his mother had notice of the escape of gas, or was conscious of its presence, in time to leave or take any precautions or prevent its consequences by opening the windows, and there was evidence that the mother was a sober and prudent woman, and that on the day before there was no smell in the street ; and it was held that this was sufficient evidence of due care on the part of the plaintiff. Smith V. Boston Gas-Light Co., 129 Mass. 318 (1880).- 39. Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. — Minor. — In an ac- tion for damages against a gas company for injuries from an explosion of gas caused by the negligence of the defendants' agent, it was held that the plaintiff, being a minor, was not pre- vented from maintaining her suit, nor could she be considered guilty of contributory negligence on account of negligence on the part of her parent, which partly occasioned the accident 5 and it was held further, that, had the plaintiff been an adult, there would have been no ground for charging her with personal negligence, and that she was not more chargeable for being an infant of tender years. Lannen v. Albany Gas-Light Co., 46 Barb. 264 ; s. c. 44 N. Y. 459. Besjponsibility of Landlord for Tenant's Negligence. 40. Explosion. — Contributory Negligence. — Stop-Cocks. — Landlord and Tenant. — A gas company incorporated by act of Parliament with the usual powers to take up pavements, &c., had for some years supplied gas to a house belonging to the plaintiff, the only means of shutting it off being by a stop-cock within the house, the key of which was kept by the occupier. The last tenant, on quitting, gave notice to the company that he should not require any further supply of gas, and one of the gas company's workmen, at his request, removed a chandelier from 122 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. one of the rooms, leaving the end of the pipe properly secured. The inside fittings of the house were the property of the plain- tiff. While the house remained untenanted, the gas, by some unexplained means, escaped, and an explosion took place, by which the house was considerably damaged. In an action against the company, alleging a breach of duty on their part in not taking proper means to prevent the influx of the gas into the house, the judge having upon the above facts directed a nonsuit, the court declined to interfere ; and it was held that there was no obligation on the part of the defendants to place stop-cocks on the outside of the house; and it was further held to be negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which would be a sufiGicient defence to the action, that he had not seen himself that the stop-cock inside the house was closed before gas was turned on again. Per Curiam : " In this case the tenant of the house must be identified with the plaintiff himself, who must be responsible for not taking care that the stop-cock inside the house was properly turned." Holden v. Liverpool New Gas & Coke Co , 3 Manning, G. & S. 1 ; 3 Com. Bench, 1 (1846). 41. Explosion. — XTegligence of Tenant. — Contributory KTegli- genoe. — In an action against a gas-light company for injury to the plaintiff's house, caused by an explosion of gas which had escaped from the main pipe in the street through the alleged negligence of the defendant company, it appeared that the plain- tifi''s tenant, perceiving a smell of gas in the night, lighted a candle and went into the basement of the house to see where the smell came from ; that thereupon the gas was ignited by the candle, and an explosion took place which damaged the plain- tiff's house ; and it was held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the injury was caused by the defendants' negligence, and that the negligence of the tenant did not con- tribute materially thereto ; that the plaintiff must show by a fair preponderance of evidence that he was in the exercise of due care ; that if the tenant, on discovering the presence of gas, did not take reasonable means and precautions to remove and ex- clude the gas, or, without knowledge of what precautions should 123 be taken, did not make proper efforts to notify the defendants that gas was escaping into the house, and if he recklessly brought the flame of the candle into contact with the gas and air of the room, his want of care would prevent the plaintiff's recovery, although the defendants were negligent, and it was held also that if the tenant accidentally ignited the gas, or if he reasonably supposed the gas to proceed from the furnace, and under that impression went with the candle into the cellar to examine the furnace, the plaintiff might recover. Bartlett v. The Boston Gas-Light Company, 122 Mass. 209. III. Where Acts of Third Person Contribute. 42. Explosion caused by Frost. — Negligence of Plumber. — Agency. — In an action for damages for injuries caused by an explosion of gas, it appeared that a gas-pipe was broken by the action of the frost in consecLuence of its having been laid, by the defendants' negligence, too near the surface of the ground ; that the gas escaped into the cellar of the plaintiff's house ; that the plaintiff called a plumber to ascertain where the leak was, and that the plumber, holding a lighted candle in his hand, opened the cellar door, whereupon the gas was ignited and an explosion took place ; and it was held that, whether the plumber was guilty of negligence or not, he was not the agent of the plaintiff, so as to make the plaintiff answerable for his negligence, and that where a man sustains an injury from the separate negligence of two persons employed to do two separate things, he may maintain an action against both or either. Schermerhom v. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 5 Daly (N. Y. C. P.), 144 (1874). 43. Injury to Pipe by City Workmen. — Duty of Oas Com- panies. — Question for Jury. — In an action for damages for injuries to the plaintiff's greenhouse, caused by the defendants' neglect in allowing gas to escape from their pipes, the defendants claimed that there was no negligence on their part, and that the leak was caused by the negligence of the city officers in not 124 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. properly packing the earth under a pipe in building a sewer ; but it was held by Potter J. that " the defendants, in managing a dangerous element, were bound not only to due care on the part of themselves and their servants, but also to due care in prevent- ing injury from the careless or wrongful meddling with their works on the part of others. They could not interfere, with or prevent the city from building a sewer, but they had a right to, and were bound to see that, in restoring the earth to its place, their own pipes were properly supported, and, if injured, to see that the injury was repaired as soon as it could reasonably be done," and that whether they exercised due care in these par- ticulars was a question for the jury. Butcher v. Providence Gas Co., 12 R. I. 149 (1878). 44. Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. — Agency. — Negli- gence of Gas-Fitter. — In an action by the plaintiff against a gas company for damages caused by an explosion of gas which had escaped from a pipe into the plaintiff's premises, and then had been exploded by the negligent action of a gas-fitter who was employed by the plaintiff in another room, and who entered the place, where the gas was leaking, with a lighted candle, it was held that the defendants were not relieved from liability by the negligence of the gas-fitter, who was not in the service of the plaintiff; and it was held further by Martin B. that even if the person whose negligence was the immediate cause of the explosion had been in the plaintiff's service, the defendants would nevertheless have been liable. Burrows v. March Gas & Coke Co., L. E. 5 Ex. 67 (1870); L. R. 7 Ex. 96. 45. Damages. — Ezplosion caused by Theft of Pipe. — Ques- tion for Jury. — In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from an explosion of gas in Turnagain Lane, it appeared that the explosion was caused by the theft of a gas-pipe and the going into the cellar with a light ; that the evidence was conflicting, whether notice had been given to the company of the leak ; and that the secretary of the company tes- tified that the complaint book showed that no notice had been given. And it was held by Bovill C. J. that it was a question NEGLIGENCE, III. 125 for the jury to determine whether the accident was caused by the negligence of defendants ; and that if they so found, they would award to the plaintiff such an amount of damages as would com- pensate him in some degree for the sufferings he had undergone, and the loss and expense to which he had been subjected. Griffiths V. City of London Gas Co., 16 Gas J. 139 (0. C. P. 1867). ' 46. Ezplosion. — Damages. — Leak caused by Drain. — In an action for damages for injuries caused by a gas explosion in the plaintiff's house, occasioned by the defective state of the defend- ants' gas-pipes, it appeared that when the plaintiff came home in the evening he smelt gas, and turned off the gas at the meter, opened windows, and aired the room ; that the windows were then closed, and he got his supper and was going to bed when the accident took place ; that the gas had percolated from the main pipe through the ground for some distance ; and that the break in the pipe was caused by a drain made by the servants of the Leeds Corporation, and that the constant traffic had dis- turbed their pipes. And it was held that the gas company were not liable, and the plaintiff must be nonsuited. Vickerman v. Leeds New Gas Co., 15 Gas J. 654 (1866). 47. Explosion. — Se'wer. — Question of Negligence for Jury. — In an action for damages for injuries caused by an explosion of gas, it appeared that the Board of Works, by their contractors, in tunnelling Oxford Street for sewage purposes, sank a shaft op- posite the plaintiff's shop ; that this shaft was filled up, but the defendants claimed that it was loosely done, and that leakages from gas and water mains subsequently occurred in consequence ; that the 8-inch gas-main was fractured at the joint thereby, and that the gas found its way from the shaft into the basement of the plaintiff's house, and then became ignited. And it was held that the question of the defendants' negligence was for the jury. Medex v. Gas-Light & Coke Co., 15 Gas J. 75 (Q. B. 1866). 48. Evidence. — Pall of Gate. — Negligence of Pellow-'Work- man. — The defendants had on their premises gates which were safe when open and wedged up, but liable to fall when closed. The attention of the manager had been directed to the unsafe 126 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. condition of the gates, and orders had been given, but not carried out, to remedy this. The plaintiff, a workman in the employ of the defendants, passed through the gates when open, but on his return one of them was closed ; and shortly afterwards, while he was working near the gates, they fell upon him and injured him. There was no evidence to show how this happened, nor any evidence that the manager and other persons emplo3'ed by the defendants were incompetent ; and it was held that the de- fendants were not liable, as the plaintiff had not shown that the persons employed by defendants were incompetent, and the neg- ligence, if any, which caused the accident, was that of a feUow- workman of the plaintiff. Allen V. The New Gas Co., L. R. 1 Ex. D. 251 (1876); 45 L. J. 668. See Evidence, V. ; Municipality, III. For Negligence of Landlord, see Landlord and Tenant, 4. IV. Damages. 49. Ezplosion. — Negligence of Defendants' Servants. — Special Damages. — In an action for damages for injuries to the plain- tiff, it appeared that the plaintiff was the lessee and occupier of certain rooms and stables which were part of a house called " Saville House," Leicester Square ; that the defendants supplied the house with gas, and that large quantities thereof escaped, and an explosion occurred from the negligence of the meter-taker, who removed a meter and left the pipe open, so that the gas, when turned on by the plaintiff, flowed from the pipe and was ignited. The defendants claimed that the employ^ stopped the pipe with white lead, &c., and it was held to be a question for the jury. Ward V. Gas-Light & Coke Co., 14 Gas J. 915 (Exch. 1865); s. c. 15 Gas J. 45, 75 ; 16 Gas J. 10, 38, 74, 108. 50. Practice. — Joinder of Actions. — Damages. — In an ac- tion brought by the plaintiff for damages to his house by an ex- plosion of gas which escaped from pipes which were alleged to be NEGLIGENCE, IV. ; NOTICE, I. 127 improperly, unskilfully, and negligently put up by the defendants, it appeared that the plaintiff' was also prevented from carrying ou his business, and claimed damages therefor, and for loss of prof- its and injury to his furniture. He also brought an action for injury done to his wife by the explosion, and claimed damages for her incapacity from business and the loss of comfort of her services, for expenses of nursing, and for medical attendance. The court ordered the two actions to be consolidated under the English Practice Act. Hemstead v. Phoenix Gas-Light & Coke Co., 3 Hurlstone & C. 745; 11 Jurist, N. s. 626; 14 Gas J. 399; 13 Weekly R. 662; 34 L. J. C. P. 108. See Agency ; Conteactoe, 4 ; Munioipalitt, III. j Stock of Gas COUFANQIS, 12. NOTICE. To Gas Companies of Escape of Gas. 1. Duty of Gas Company. — Notice of Leak. — Who may give it. — In an action against a gas company to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff's health caused by an escape of gas, notice was sent of such escape by the plaintiff's wife to the defendants by a neighbor, and it was held that " any inmate of the plaintiff's family was competent and had a right to communicate to the defendants the fact that gas was escaping from some leak in their pipes into his house, making its occupancy either unsafe or disagreeable or offensive," and that it was perfectly proper therefore for his wife to send to them a message to that effect by any person to whom she thought fit to entrust it ; that it was immaterial how, by what means, or through whom they obtained information, but that it was sufficient that they had learned the fact, and it was their duty to attend to it immediately. Hunt V. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 3 Allen, 418. 2. Notice of Leak to be given by Plaintiff. — Duty of Officers and Servants of Gas Company. — In an action for damages to the plaintiff's house, from an explosion of gas which escaped into the cellar from a break in the main pipe in the street, it 128 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. was held "that if the defendants' servants, the officers of the company, did not know, and by the use of due care could not ascertain, that the gas was escaping into the plaintiff's house, or had reasonable cause to believe that it was not, and no notice was given by the inmates of the house to them that gas was in the house, the defendant is not liable ; but if they did know, or if, with their knowledge of the condition of the street, they had reasonable cause to suspect that the gas had entered or was en- tering the plaintiff's house in dangerous quantities, and gave no notice to the inmates, the company is liable in damages if the plaintiff used due care." Baitlett V. Boston Gas-Light Co., 122 Mass. 209. 3. Contributory negligence. — Delay in giving Notice of Leak to Gas Company. — Evidence. — In an action against a gas com- pany for damages to the plaintiff's health caused by escape of gas at night, from a pipe in the street, into the plaintiff's premises, it was held that if the plaintiff discovered the leak early enough in the day to have had it repaired before night, had he at once notified the gas company, and if, in consequence of such neglect to notify them, the leak was not repaired that night and plain- tiff was injured by the escape of gas therefrom, such delay of notification would be evidence, to be considered by the jury, of want of such ordinary care as would defeat the plaintiff's action, although the defendants may have been negligent. Holly V. Boston Gas-Light Co., 8 Gray, 123 (1857). See Negligence, I., II. II. Othee Notices Eequired. 4. Damages. — Delay in giving Notice of a Nuisance. — In an action to recover damages for the loss and annoyance which the plaintiff had suffered in consequence of defects in a pipe of the defendants, from which, for nine or ten months, foul ammoniacal waters and odors had leaked into the plaintiff's cellar from a leak in such pipe, wherein it appeared that five days after they gave notice to the company the leak was stopped, it was held NUISANCE, I. 129 that the plaintiff could only recover damages for those five days, owing to his negligence in giving notice. HUla V. Gas-Light Co., 13 Gas J. 8V7 (0. C. R, 1864). 5. Breach of Contract. — Notice required. — In an action brought by the Imperial Gas Company against Chauntler and others, gas consumers, who had relinquished the use of the gas of the Imperial Company, and adopted that of the West. Gas Company, without giving the notices as prescribed in the con- tracts signed by the parties with the Imperial Company, it was held that the plaintiffs could recover damages for breach of the contracts. Imperial Gas Co. v. Chauntler et al, 2 Gas J. 362 (1852). 6. Injunction against Removal of Meters by New Company. — Notice required. — The defenders, a new corporation, removed from the premises of customers who had previously been sup- plied with gas by the pursuers, meters belonging to the pursuers ; and it was held that, even supposing it could be shown that the customers authorized or directed a removal, the pursuers were entitled to an interdict against the removal of the meters in the absence of sufficient notice to the pursuers to remove their own meters. Corporation of Glasgow v. Patrick, Hillhead & Maryhill Gas Co., 22 Gas J. 54. See Agency, 9 ; Contraot, 26 j Evidbnob, 30 ; Nuisanob, 8 ; Pa- tents, 5; Taxation, 19. Of Sale of Stock, see Stock of Gas Companies, 8; Supplt or Gas, 24 ; Nbgligencb, II. NUISANCE. I. Definitions. 1. What is a Nuisance. — In action for damages arising from nuisances occasioned by the defendants in carrying on their operations, B. Bramwkll quoted an old book and gave the defini- 130 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. tion of a nuisance as " a thing which would offend an ordinary man, and not a delicate-nosed person." Tilly V. Slough Gas & Coke Co., 17 Gas J. 231 (1868). 2. What is a Nuisance is Question for the Jury. — Definition. — Evidence. — In an action for damages for an injury to the plaia- tiff's business from unwholesome and annoying odors created by a gas company in the conduct of their business, and for injury to his well by the deposit of waste material in the vicinity thereof, it was held that the question, what amount of annoy- ance will constitute a nuisance for which the plaintiff has an action for damages, is a question for the jury, and that it was not error for the court to rule that the plaintiff was entitled to enjoy his property as it was before the gas-works were erected, and that it was not carelessness or negligence on his part to fail to cement his well when he found its waters were affected ; but it was held to be error to rule that the degree of comfort to which the plaintiff below in the enjoyment of his property was en- titled, was that ordinarily enjoyed by other persons in his neigh- borhood, otherwise similarly situated, because the real question for the jury to decide was not the comparison of his conditions with that of his neighbors, but whether the acts of the gas com- pany caused an actual damage to the plaintiff. Columbus Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Freeland, 12 Ohio St. 392 (1861). 3. Nuisance. — Definition. — " Wantonly, unnecessarily, or op- pressively causing such smells as to annoy the plaintiff in a special and peculiar degree beyond others in the immediate vicinity, and to create an abiding nuisance to the particular in- jury of the plaintiff's property," held, not to be a perfect defini- tion. Pottstown Gas Co. v. Murphy, 39 Pa. St. 257 (1861). II. Corruption of Water. 4. Injury to Well. — Where the defendant, a manufacturer of illuminating gas, negligently left noxious substances, such as coal tar, gas lime, &c., on his land, which were washed by the 131 rain along the surface of the ground into his neighbor's, the plaintiff's, well, corrupting the water, he is liable for the injury ; and it makes no difference whether the noxious substances are washed along on the surface of the ground, or have soaked into the soil, and are carried along under the surface by means of water diffusing itself according to natural laws. Brown et al. v. lUius, 27 Conn. 84 (1858). 5. Percolation through Soil. — Corruption of Hiver Water. — The plaintiffs, manufacturers, built their factory on the Owasco Eiver, and had the right to the use of the water of the river in a pure and uncontaminated condition. The defendants established gas-works near the river, and above the plaintiffs' premises, and without any neglect on their part the coal tar and other noxious substances percolated the ground on which such gas-works were built, and then flowed into the river and on to the plaintiffs' lot. In an action for damages, it was Iield that the plaintiffs were en- titled to have the use of the water in a pure condition, and that the defendants were liable for suffering the water to become contaminated, and were bound to take proper and reasonable precaution to prevent the water from percolating into the de- fendants' lot. Carhart v. Auburn Gas-Light Co., 22 Barbour, 297 (1856). 6. Pollution of Well by Gas Company. — Liability of Directors. — The defendants were directors of a gas company which had pol- luted the plaintiff's well. In an action for damages it was ?ield that the defendants were liable as such directors, as there was sufficient evidence of pollution of the well after one of the de- fendants became director, and that the fact that the well was no longer used in consequence of its pollution did not make it the less a well or excuse the defendants. Millington v. Richards et al, Directors of Biggleswade Gas-Light & Coke Co., 23 Gas J. 215 ; s. c. 30 Law T. 65. 7. Injury to Well. — Licensee. — Easement. — Where the owner of a well gives to another a mere parol license to take water therefrom, upon paying half the expenses of maintain- ing the well, the latter acquires no such interest in the well as 132 EIGHTS AKD LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. ■will entitle him to maintain a suit for damages, for injury to the water, against a gas-light company which has corrupted the water of the well and rendered it unfit for use ; and it was held by Bkeese J. that " an action on the case for a disturbance of the plaintiff's easement might possibly lie, but not an action for the destruction of the property of another." Ottawa Gas-Light Co. v. Thompson, 39 IlL 598. 8. Corruption of Subterraneous Currents of Well. — Notice. — In an action for corrupting the water of the plaintiff's well by means of noxious matter from his gas-works, which the defend- ant placed on his land near the plaintiff's well, which was in part washed by the rains along the surface of the ground into the well, and in part soaked into the ground and found its way into the well, it appearing that the plaintiff had given the defendant immediate notice of the injury, it was held that if the injury was caused by corrupting the subterraneous currents which supplied the well, the defendant would be liable after notice of the injury, if by reasonable care it could be prevented. Brown et al. v. lUius, 25 Conn. 583. 9. Corruption of "Well. — Subterraneous Currents. — Where a manufacturer of illuminating gas places noxious substances upon his own premises, which, by penetrating into the soU, affect sub- terranean streams or currents of water which supply a well on his neighbor's premises, and thereby injure such well, he is not liable for such injury to the well, and he has the right to make such use of his own premises ; and the fact that he continues to place such substances upon his own land after being notified by his neighbor of the injury to the latter's well does not make him liable therefor. Brown et al. v. Illius, 27 Conn., 84 (1858). 10. Indictment. — Fouling Public River. — Liability of Direc- tors, — Agency. — On the trial of an indictment against the di- rectors of a gas company for a nuisance in conveying the refuse of the gas-works into a great public river, whereby the fish were destroyed and the water was rendered unfit for drink, &c., it was NUISANCE, II. 133 held that " the question for the jury was whether the special acts of the particular company complained of amounted to a nuisance ; that the circumstance that by the diminution of fish a consider- able number of fishermen were thrown out of employ, was not of itself sufficient ground to sustain such an indictment ; and that the directors were answerable for an act done by their superin- tendent and engineer under a general authority to manage the works, though they were personally ignorant of the particular plan adopted, and thpugh such plan be a departure from the original and understood method, which the directors had no reason to suppose was discontinued ; " and the directors were found guilty. Rex V. Medley, 6 Oarr. and P. 292 (1834). 11. Injunction. — Public Nuisance. — Fouling 'Water of River. — Wharf. — On a motion for an injunction against the defend- ant, a distiller, to forbid him from discharging his refuse mash into the common sewer, which plaintiffs alleged was carried into the Hudson Eiver and became a nuisance in front of a wharf in which the plaintiffs had an interest, it was hAd that the river being a public highway, and the alleged hindrance to navigation a public nuisance, the plaintiffs could not maintain an action to restrain the same by injunction in their own name, but it must be brought by the proper public officer in the name of the people ; and it was held further that if a public nuisance worked a private injury to an individual, he would have a remedy by action for damages, but that no ground for action was shown in this case. Manhattan Gas-Light Co. v. Barker, 7 Robertson (N. Y. Superior) 523 (1868). 12. — Injunction. — Contamination of Wells and Vegetation by Noxious Fumes. — Estoppel. — The plaintiff, a landlord, owned a number of houses near the defendants' works, the gas from which fouled the wells in the neighborhood, and among others those of his tenants. They were also troubled by the fumes from the de- fendants' works, which were injurious to vegetation. Upon the plaintiff's petition a mandatory injunction to abate the nuisance was granted Nov. 11, by the Master of the EoUs, to be operative 134 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. on the 1st of April following, as the defendants had tried to remedy the difficulty; and it was held that the fact that the plaintiff had purchased some shares of the stock of defendant company did not estop him from demanding the injunction. Hendrie v. Lea Bridge Dist. Gas-Light & Coke Co., 21 Gas J. 949, 989. 13. Damages to Well. — Lo'w Chimney. — Smoke. — In an ac- tion to recover damages for annoyance to the plaintiff and injury to his property by the erection of the defendants' gas-works in an adjoining lot, it appeared that the principal damage was to a well, which, after suit had been brought, had been examined by the defendants and the cause of damage had been remedied, and held that the plaintiff could recover damages for injury caused by the erection of a low chimney, which sent smoke and cinders upon his premises, and damaged his well and other property. Grange v. Pately Bridge Gas & Water Co., 14 Gas J. 309 (1865). 14. Damages to Well. — Evidence of other Causes. — License. — A keeper of a livery stable, without a license^ and in violation of law, cannot recover daniages for an injury to his business as such stable-keeper, caused by the escape of gas into the water of a well upon his premises, by which it was corrupted and made unfit for use ; but the fact that he has no license is not a bar to a suit for nuisance to his real estate. The fact that other causes besides the gas have contributed to render the water of a well impure and unfit for use does not prevent the plaintiff from maintaining an action to recover damages for the injury to the water caused by the escape of gas into it; but evidence of the fact is admissible, however, for the purpose of affecting the amount of damages. Sherman v. Fall River Iron- Works Co., 5 Allen, 213 (1863). 15. Corruption of Well. — Elements of Damages. — Loss of Use of Water. — Continuous Nuisance. — A lessee may maintain an action against one who has laid gas-pipes in the streets so imperfectly that gas escapes therefrom through the ground and into the water of a well upon premises hired and used by the plaintiff for a livery stable, and thereby renders it unfit for NUISANCE, III. 135 use, and makes the enjoyment of his estate less beneficial, al- though the nuisance may have existed in a less degree when the premises were hired, as it is a continuous nuisance, constantly renewed by the manufacture of gas. It appeared, also, that the offensive action of the gas was largely increased after plaintiff's title accrued. He may recover damages for the inconvenience to which he has thereby been subjected by loss of the use of the well, and expenses incurred in reasonable and proper attempts to exclude the gas therefrom, but not for injury caused by allow- ins his horses to drink the water of the well after he knew that it was corrupted by the gas. Sherman v. Fall Elver Iron-Works Co., 2 Allen, 524 (1861). See Damage, 6; Evidence, 4, 12; Landlord and Tenant, 1; Statutes, 1, 5, 13. 16. Nuisance. — Corruption of Water from Gas Reservoir. — Liability of Municipality. — ShaRSWOOD J. : " The plaintiff recovered damages from the city of Philadelphia on account of the destruction of a well of water by a large reservoir at the new gas-works. ... A municipal corporation owning and occu- pying property for public uses is as much subject as a private citizen to the usual rule, sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas. The city is as much bound as an individual owner of a lot to find an outlet for the water on it, without encroaching on his neighbor." Shuter v. The City, 3 Phila. 228 (1858). III. Unwholesome Smells, Smoke, &c. 17. Question of Tact for the Jury. — Smells. — Injury to Well. — Charter. — In an action for damages for a nuisance caused by the manufacture of gas in the immediate proximity to the plain- tiff's premises, it was held that although the defendants were authorized by charter to erect their gas-works, and have the right to carry them on for the purpose of manufacturing gas for the public, they are responsible in damages for the ordinary and usual smeUs that usually proceed from such works if they con- 136 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. stitute a nuisance ; and the fact that they are not negligent does not protect them from liability if, in their usual course of busi- ness, they injure the well of the plaintiff; and it was held fur- ther that the question whether the carrying on the business in the usual manner was a nuisance was for the jury to decide ; that the ruling that " the business of manufacturing gas was lawful and beneficial to the public, and that a certain degree of offensive odor was unavoidably incident to the busiuess, and must be en- dured by the public, and, unless the defendants, by some action iu manufacture, have wantonly, unnecessarily, or oppressively caused such smells and odors to annoy plaintiff in a special manner beyond others in the immediate vicinity, they are not liable," was sufficiently favorable to the defendants. Pottstown Gas Co. v. Murphy, 39 Pennsylvania St., 257 (1861). 18. Indictment will not lie against Chartered Gas Company. — Smells. — Action for Damages. — An indictment against a gas company for creating a nuisance by unwholesome smells, smokes, and stenches, in conducting its business, will not lie against a corporation which has been authorized by the legisla- ture of a State to manufacture gas to be used for lighting streets and buildings ia a city, and which has, under such authority, erected gas-works and made and distributed gas therefrom, when such buildings and processes of the gas company are of the best description, and its servants are careful, and it has used due care and diligence in the business. " It may be that private persons can maintain an action for damages, but the people are barred by the act of legislature from making a public complaint by indictment for such a cause, while the defendants conduct their business with skill, science, and care." People V. New York Gas-Light Co., 64 Barbour, 55 ; 6 Lansing, 467 (1872). 19. Gas-Works. — Private Nuisance. — Definition. — E. D. Smith J. says : " Gas-works are to be placed in the class of erec- tions which are not within the ordinary and usual purposes to which real estate is applied, and whenever they create a special injury they are to be regarded as a private nuisance, for which an action will lie in respect to the special injuiy, like a swine NUISANCE, III. 137 sty [9 Eep. 59], a lime-kiln [2 Black. 141], a dye-house [Hutt. 136], a tallow-chandler, a furnace [Cro. Car. 570], a brew-house, [E. Tal. 139, Hutt. 136], or a tannery [17 Barb. 654]." Carhart v. Auburn Gaa-Light Co., 22 Barbour, 297 (1856). 20. Injunction. — NoziouB Vapors. — Arbitration. — Award. — The plaintiff, a market gardener, whose premises adjoined those of a gas company, brought an action against the company for the injury done to his crops by reason of the. erection and mainte- nance of the gas-works, and the noxious vapors and smells created thereby. The action was referred to an arbitrator, who was to determine as to the injury, and as to " what should be done " between the parties. Nearly two years elapsed before the arbi- trator made his award in respect to the damage sustained up to the date of the award, and no evidence was adduced as to pro- spective damages. A verdict was entered up for the sum awarded. The gas company subsequently increased their works, and altered their method of manufacture. On a bill filed by the plaintiff, two months after the award, it was held that he was entitled to a perpetual injunction to restrain the further manufacture of gas in a manner injurious to his crops, the award of the arbitrator being equivalent to the verdict of a jury, and that there had been no .such acquiescence on his part as to deprive him of his right to such injunction. Broadbent v. Imperial Gas-Light Co., 7 House Lords Cas. 600 (1859); 5 Gas J. 342 ; 9 Gas J. 751 ; Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Broadbent, 7 De Gex, McN. & G. 436 (1856) ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1319. 21. Private Nuisance. — Smells and Smokes. — Where a gas company, in the manufacture of illuminating gas, creates smells, smokes, and noxious odors, so annoying to a person residing near the gas-works as to render his premises uncomfortable for habitation, this constitutes a private nuisance, and he can main- tain an action for damages. Ottawa Gas-Light Co. v. Thompson, 39 Illinois, 598 (1864). 22. Noxious Sewer Gases. — Liability of Gas Company. — In an action against a gas company for damages for injury to the plaintiff's health caused by the escape of gas from the main pipe 138 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. in the street from which it passed through various sewers and drains into the house of the plaintiff, it was held that the defend- ants were equally liable whether the plaintiff was injured and made sick by defendants' gas alone or by gases generated in the sewer and drain through which it passed, if the same were car- ried by the defendants' gas into the house, — provided defend- ants were, and plaintiff was not, guilty of negligence. Hunt et al v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 8 Allen, 169. 23. Injunction. — Danger of Explosion. — Bad Smells. — Smoke and Odors. — Lime Purifiers. -^ On an application for an injunc- tion against a gas company, praying that they be restrained from the erection of gas-works upon premises near the dwelling- houses of the complainants, it was held that the danger of explosion of the gas-holder was not an adequate cause for an injunction, as too remote ; but it appearing that the process of purifying the gas by lime caused annoying and offensive vapors and odors which would be injurious to complainants' premises, the court granted an injunction against the use of such lime process and the manufacture of gas in any way which would produce annoyance to persons dwelling in the houses of com- plainants by any smoke, gases, or other odors from the works, but refused an injimction against the erection of the gas-works, the company taking th'e risk of an injunction being issued against their manufacture if it became offensive. It was held also that the fact that the neighborhood already contained estab- lishments devoted to noxious or disagreeable trade was not enough to defeat the right to injunction, unless by long con- tinuance the neighborhood was so wholly given up to such es- tablishments that an addition to them would not add to the discomfort. Cleveland v. Citizens' Gaa-Light Co., 20 New Jersey Eq. 201. 24. Injunction. — Smoke and Smell. — Dra'cving Retorts. — On a petition for an injunction against the defendants for creating a nuisance by throwing water upon their coke at their gas-works after drawing their retorts, it appeared that the plaintiff's house adjoined the gas-works, and that every two hours the retorts were NUISANCE, IV. 139 drawn. The plaintiff claimed that this process caused an offen- sive smell, and that a great quantity of dust and smoke and steam came over upon his premises, and that his business as a public-house keeper was greatly injured. It was held that this created a nuisance, and an injunction should be granted. [The defendants thereupon were obliged to erect a high screen between their retort-house and the plaintiff's premises.] Wragg V. Commercial Gas Company, 33 Gas Journal, 119, 313, High Ct. of Justice (1879). See Evidence, 11a. IV. Use of Streets. 25. Obstructions in a Highway. — Indictment for Nuisance. — At the trial of an indictment against a gas company for commit- ting a nuisance, it appeared that the highway was eight yards wide, and that the defendants had dug three trenches, two across the highway and one parallel with it ; that these trenches were opened at night and closed at 3 A. M., and that later other trenches were opened from 11 p. M. to 2 p. M., so that it was im- possible to drive along the highway ; and it was held by Lord Coleridge C. J. that if the facts were proved the defendants must be found guilty on the authority of Eegina v. Longton Gas Co. A rule nisi for a new trial was afterwards made absolute on the ground that the jury were hampered by the Longton case, in which case there were admissions binding the defendants. At the second trial evidence was introduced showing that the work had been interrupted by another gang of workmen, and it was held that the interference must cause substantial incon- venience to those passing along the road to constitute the offence for which the defendants were indicted. Eegina v. Colne Valley Gas Co., 29 Gas J. 498, 781; 30 Gas J. 218. 26. Right to dig up Streets and lay Pipes. — Obstruction of Highway. — Indictment. — It is an indictable nuisance to ob- struct, or to employ others to obstruct, a public highway or footway by placing earth and bricks thereon, taking up the pavement and opening trenches for the purpose of laying down 140 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. service pipes for the supply of gas from public mains to private houses, unless those who do or authorize such acts have parlia- mentary powers for the purpose. Such acts cannot be justified by the occupiers of houses as an exercise of the right of every householder to make such a temporary obstruction of a highway or footway as may be necessarily incident to the enjoyment of his property. Town commissioners empowered by statute to light the public streets with gas cannot give to a private gas company not having parliamentary powers the right to break up highways and lay service pipes therein. Eegina v. Longton Gas Co., 2 Ell. & Ell. 650 ; 8 Gas J. 165 ; 9 Gas J. 114 ; 29 Law J. M. C. 118 ; 2 Law T. 14 ; 8 Cox C. C. 317. 27. Public Nuisance. — Liability for Contractor's Negligence. — TTnlaiwful Employment — Obstructing Highvray. — The plain- tiff alleged in her declaration that the defendant unlawfully dug a trench in a public street and highway and heaped up stones and earth excavated from the said trench upon the said street and highway so as to obstruct it, and to create a common public nuisance, whereby the plaintiff, lawfully passing along the said public street and highway, fell over the said stones and earth so* heaped up as aforesaid, and broke her arm. It appeared at the trial that the defendant had made a contract with A. and B. to open trenches, and that the contractor's servants had carelessly left a heap of stones over which plaintiff fell, and that neither the defendant nor contractor had any right to open the streets ; and it was held that the defendant was liable, and that though a person employing a contractor to do a lawful act is not respon- sible for the negligence or misconduct of the contractor or his servants in executing that act, yet if the act itself is wrongful, the employer is responsible for the wrong so done by the con- tractor or his servants, and is liable to third persons who sustain damages from the doing of that wrong. Ellis V. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co., 2 Ell. & B. 757 (1853); s. c. 18 Jurist, 146. 28. — TTse of Street Gutters by Gas Company. — Injunction refused. — On an application for an injunction to restrain the NUISANCE, V, 141 defendants from throwing their refuse into the city's gutters, so as to create a nuisance, the defendants denied that a nuisance had been created, and claimed that they had a right to use the gutters in order to discharge their refuse ; and it was held that the injunction must be refused, as no nuisance existed, but semble that the defendants are not entitled by law to the use of the city's gutters for such purpose, and their use for any other purpose than surface drainage depends upon local government. Municipality of New Orleans v. Gas-Light Co., 5 La. Ann. 439. See CoNTBAOT, 27 ; Contractor, 1 ; Injunction. Practice, Defences, &c. 29. Damages. — Trial by Jury. — The plaintiff complained that the defendant had established opposite to his dwelling-house, gas-works which emitted an injurious and unwholesome odor and which greatly injured his house and destroyed the comfort of himself and family, and demanded damages, and an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture gas. The injunction was refused, and the court entered judgment; for damages for the plaintiff against the objections of the plaintiff, who demanded a trial by jury, and it was held that he was en- titled to have his action tried by a jury. Dorr V. Danaville Gas-Light Co., 25 N. Y. Supreme (18 Hun), 274. 30. Fact that Gas-Works Eire Nuisance no Defence to Ac- tion of Contract. — In an action to recover for gas supplied to the defendants for use in the public streets, the defendants contended that they were not liable because the gas-works were a nuisance ; but it was held that a city cannot appropriate to its own use gas furnished by a gas company and receive the benefit of it, and then refuse payment therefor on the ground that the works at which it is manufactured are a nuisance, when such works have never been in a proper manner declared a nuisance. Davenport Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. City of Davenport,a3 Iowa, 229 (1862). 142 BIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. 31. Injunction granted. — Acts of Parliament. — Obligation to supply Gas no Justification for creating Nuisance. — On an in- formation against the defendants, praying for an injunction to restrain them from carrying on their business, on the ground that it was a public nuisance, the defendants claimed that they were under an obligation to supply gas to the district under an act of Parliament, and under later acts were obliged to supply such gas in a certain condition of purity, and that they could not perform their obligations under these acts without creating a nuisance ; but it was held that this was no excuse, and that the company would not be justified in causing a nuisance, even if the gas could not be made of the requisite purity without so doing ; and it was lidd further, that on the evidence it did not appear that by greater care and expense the nuisance might not be avoided, and the injunction was granted. Attorney-General v. Gas-Light & Coke Co., L. R. 7 Chancery D. 217; 3 Chancery D. 217; 30 Gas J. 791, 827. 32. Unavoidable Smells no Defence. — In an action against a gas-light company for damages for creating a nuisance, it is not a good answer for the gas company to plead that they are now managing their works carefully, and that vapors complained of arise unavoidably ; the averment should be that they were at the time complained of taking such care. Watson V. Gas Co., 5 Upper Canada (Q. B.), 262. 33. Authority of City no Defence to Action for Damages for Nuisance. — In an action by the defendant in error to recover damages resulting from the erection and operation of the gas- works of the plaintiffs in error, a gas company, the latter con- tended that they were not liable for the inconvenience caused by the skilful management of their works, as they were employed in lighting the streets, &c., a matter of public concern, and were authorized by the city to erect and run the gas-works ; but it was held that this was no defence to the action. Terre Haute Gas Co. v. Teel et ux., 20 Ind. 131. 34. Injunction refused. — Hiding Sign-Board by Erection of G-asometers. — Objectionable Trades. — The plaintiff held lease- OBLIGATION OP CONTRACT — OFFICERS. 143 hold land which he used to hum lime upon. The defendants huilt gasometers near him in 1853 and 1857, and in 1864 they proposed to build a fourth, whereupon the plaintiff filed his hill for an injunction. On the hearing on the bill, Kindeksley V. C. said that " he could not decide between the trades carried on by the plaintiff and the defendants ; that probably each was very objectionable and very disagreeable; but under these circum- stances he could not grant an injunction on the ground of nui- sance, especially as the plaintiff had submitted to the erection of gasometers before, nor because the building would prevent the plaintiff's sign and premises from being seen from the high road ;" and this decree was confirmed by Lord Chelmsford, Lord Chan- cellor. Butt V. Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co., L. R. 2 Ch 158 ; s. c. 14 Law T. R. 349 ; 15 Gas J. 139 (1866). 35. Former Recovery. — Bar. — Damage to Real Estate by Gas-Works. — Where an action has been brought and judgment obtained by a party against a gas company for damages for tlie deterioration of the plaintiffs' real estate by the maintenance of gas-works in the vicinity, polluting the water and rendering it unfit for use upon the plaintiffs' premises, such judgment is a bar to any further prosecution for the same cause, the continuance of the works being the sole basis of the second action. Decatur Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Howell, 92 111. 19 (1879). See Injunction, IL OBLIGATION OF CONTEACT. See Contract, 10. OBLIGATION TO SUPPLY. See Supply of Gas. OFFICERS. See Agency, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Bonds, 1; Contract, 13, 14; Di- rector, 2 ; Evidence, 27 ; Notice, 2. 144 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. OFFICIAL, PUBLIC. See Patent, 4 ; Contract, 13. ORDINANCE. See Munioipalitt, XL, IV. ; Contract, II. PAETNEESHIP. See Assumpsit, 1 ; Supply of Gas, 24 PATENTS. 1. Method of Estimatiiig Profits. — Gas-Meters. — Account. — The plaintiff filed a bill, alleging his title to a patent for making gas-meters, and that the defendants had made meters which in- fringed on his patent, and had used and sold them, thereby mak- ing large profits, for which he prayed an account, which was ordered. The master certified that a benefit had been obtained by the defendants by the use of meters in saving gas equal to 2s. 6d. for every 1,000 cubic feet of gas, equivalent to profit, and thereby enabling the company to sell at 10s., and that 25 % had been saved by the use of meters ; arid that it appeared from the circulars of defendants that they hoped to be able to furnish gas to those who used meters at 7s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, whence he found the benefit derived by defendants to be £6,000. The Master of the Polls referred the report back to the master to review, and to state to the court the grounds for any conclusion he might reach. The Lord Chancellor affirmed the order, being of opinion that the master had reached the sum of £6,000 by calculating 2s. 6d. upon each 1,000 feet of gas supplied, which he held was not a correct mode. Crosley v. Derby Gas-Light Co., 3 Mylne & Craig, 428 (1838). 2. Purification of Gas. — Patentable Method. — The plaintiff took out a patent for, 1st, purifying gas by passing it through precipitated or hydrated oxides of iron, and, 2d, for renovating the purifying material by exposing it to the action of the air. The jury found that the subject of the patent was the plaintiff's OFFICIAL, PUBLIC — PATENTS. 145 invention, and it ins held that the plaintiff's patent was not an- ticipated by the letters-patent of CroU, granted in 1840, nor by those of Laming in 1847, and that a patent might legally be granted, 1st, for applying hydrated oxides to absorb sulphuretted hydrogen from coal gas, and, 2d, for reoxidizing iron by expos- ure to the air after it had been used in the purification of coal gas. Hills V. London Gaa-Light Co., 5 Hurlst. & Norm. 312 ; 5 Gas J. 671. 3. "Worthless Patent. — Fraud. — Contract. — Defence. — In an action on a contract by which the plaintiff covenants to im- prove machinery for manufacturing gas, and, to obtain a patent therefor, and to assign to the defendant one half of such patent, the defendant to pay $1,000 when the patent is issued, it was held that in such action to recover the $1,000, after the plaintiff has obtained the patent and assigned one half of it to defendant, the defendant may allege and prove that the plaintiff falsely rep- resented that he had invented a machine for manufacturing gas from benzol ; that the .alleged improvement was worthless, and had been abandoned as worthless before the patent was issued to the plaintiff. McDougall V. Fogg, 2 Bosworth (N. Y. Superior Court), 387 (1858). 4. Results of 0£Biclal Investigation not Patentable. — Public Officer. — Eeferees were appointed under an act of Parliament to inquire into the impurities of the London gas, with the right to require the gas companies to afford them facilities for their investigations, and as a result of their examinations one of the number thought he had discovered a method of securing greater purity in the gas. The impurities complained of came from certain compounds of sulphur. The defendant company had experimented in the matter, and had been using lime in the purifiers, and this, with the contents of the purifiers, formed sul- phide of calcium, with which the sulphur impurities combined. The carbonic acid of the gas impeded the action of the sulphide of calcium, and the result was that the gas came out too im- pure for use, and could not always be relied on to come out with the same degree of purity. The gist of the plaintiff's change consisted in keeping more lime in the first set of purifiers, and 10 146 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. in this way the carbonic acid was more effectually removed, and the subsequent processes of removing the sulphur impurities by sulphide of lime were much more effective. The change was suggested to the defendant company by the referees, and the lat- ter tried it with success. The referees made their report, in- corporating these suggestions and experiments ; but the report was withheld from publication to enable the plaintiff, one of the referees, to get out a patent. In an action for infringement of the patent, it was held that the plaintiff's idea only amounted to a more thorough application of something in use before, and his bill was dismissed, and it was also held that a public official cannot patent the results of an of&cial investigation. Patterson o. Gas-Light & Coke Co., L. R. 2 Ch. D. 812 ; L. E. 3 App. Cases H. L. 239; 30 Gas J. 948. 5. Injunction. — Notice. — Where the defendants who had the exclusive right to a patent for an improvement in the manufac- ture of gas, for a State, notified, by letter, one using machinery of the same kind, imder a permit from the plaintiff, that they alone had authority to give permits to use such machinery under the patent, and that application must be made to them, on a petition for an injunction it was held that this action was not sufficient to authorize an injunction, it not appearing that the defendants asserted a hostile claim to plaintiff's patent. Wren v. Cosmopolitan Gas-Works Co., 5 N. Y. Supreme Ct. (T. & C.) 686 ; s. c. 9 N. Y. Supreme Ct. (2 Hun) 666. PENALTIES. See Statutes, 1, 10 ; Supply op Gas, 23. PHILADELPHIA GAS TEUSTEES. See CoNTBACT, is, 7, 8 ; Municipality, 2, 3 ; Taxation, 1. POOE EATES. See Taxation, II. PEACTICE. See Contkact, 5 ; Taxation, 8, 19 ; Negligence, 50. PENALTIES — PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OOBPOEATION. 147 PEEFEEENCE. See Director, 3, 8. PEESIDENT OF COMPANY, POWEES OF. See Director, 2 ; Municipality, 1 ; Bonds, 1,2; Stock of Gas Companies, 6, 7. PEICE OF GAS. See Charter, 3; Contract, 3, 11, 17, 18; Municipalitt, IVi; Statutes, 11 ; Supply op Gas, 17. PEINCIPAL AND AGENT. See Agency. PEOFITS. For Loss of, see Contract, 20 ; Damages, 1, 3. For Division of, see Dividends, 1 ; Patents, 1 ; Taxation, 7. PUBLIC OE PEIVATE COEPOEATION. 1. Gas Companies not Public Corporations. — " The manu- facture and sale of gas is a business which may be prosecuted or discontinued at the will of the party engaged in it. The re- lations between the maker and the consumer origiuate in the contract between them, and their respective rights and obliga- tions are controlled entirely by the stipulations of such contract, and as (where no contract prohibits) the one may refuse to take the article at his pleasure, so may the other at his pleasure refuse to supply it. We discover no reason for subjecting the maker of gas to duties or liabilities beyond those to which the manufacturers and vendors of other commodities are : subjected by the rules of law." Per Curiam, in McCune v. Norwich City Gas Co., 30 Conn. 521; 2. Public Use. — Eminent Domain. — The conducting, by: gas- pipes; of illuminating gas for the purposes of sale, and to supply 148 BIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. gas for lighting the streets, public parks, and dwellings of the city of Kochester by the plaintiffs, under a special charter authoriz- ing them to take private property upon making compensation therefor, is " -within the category of those public improvements to enable which to be carried out the legislature may confer upon the parties engaged in the enterprise the right to take pri- vate property necessary to effect the object upon making com- pensation therefor," and if any business can fairly be supposed to be a matter by which the public of a particular community msty be benefitedj then such business is a " public use " within the meaning of the Constitution of New York, and plaintiffs' charter was held to be constitutional. Bloomfield & Rochester Natural Gas Co. v. Richardson, 63 Barb. 437. 3. Gas Companies not Public Corporations. — Eminent Domain. — Miller J. says : " There is nothing in the charter of the ap- pellant (the gas company) which entitles it to exemption from the power of eminent domain as exercised under the statute in acquiring real estate. Its land is not held by virtue of any such right, nor is it required to serve any public use which confers upon it any especial privilege in this respect. It is a private manufacturing corporation which furnishes gas to indi- viduals, and for the lighting of the public streets, on such terms as are agreed upon. This of itself does not make it a public corporation. It is not public merely because it is of a public character." New York Central,, &c. R.E. Co. ». Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 63N.Y. 326 ; s. 0. 12 Supreme, 201. 4. Wot Public Corporation. — In an action brought to recover the amount of a tax assessed upon a gas-light company, BlGE- LOW C. J. says : " The ground of this contention is, that the de- fendants are a quasi public corporation, and come within the principle on which turnpike, railroad, canal, and other like corpo- rations, established for the convenience and accommodation of the public, are held to be exempt from ordinary taxation in the cities or towns where they own property, which is held and used by them for purposes connected with or essential to the due ex- ercise of their corporate rights and duties. But we fail to see PUBLIC NUISANCE ; QUO WARRANTO, WRIT OP. 149 that the defendants can be properly regarded as a corporation of this character. No puhlic duty is imposed upon them, nor are they charged with any public trust. They are authorized to make and distribute gas for their own profit and gain only. They are not bound to sell and dispose of it to any one, either for public or private use or consumption. It is entirely at their own option whether they will exercise their corporate rights and privileges at all ; and if they undertake to manufacture and dis- pose of gas, the extent to which they shall carry on the business is left to their own election. Nor is any power conferred upon them to take private property, not previously appropriated to a public use, for the purpose of exercising and enjoying their fran- chise." Common-wealth v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 12 AUen, 77. See Receiver. PUBLIC NUISANCE. See Nuisance. QUO WAEEANTO, WEIT OF. 1. Use of Streets by Gas Companies. — Local Easement. — A petition for leave to file an information in the nature of a qito warranto to deprive a gas company of the franchise of laying its gas-pipes and distributing gas through the streets of Detroit, on the ground that the company had violated the terms of an agreement made with the city of Detroit, imposing conditions against making combinations with other companies and in other respects, was denied, and it was held that the statute allowed such information only for the punishment of corporations for the violation of State law and policy, and that the right to lay gas- pipes is not a State franchise, but a local easement, and the viola- tion of such right does not concern the State. People ex rel. Maybury v. Mutual Gas-Light Co. of Detroit, 38 Mich. 154 (1878). 2. Against Corporation. — Practice. — An information in the nature of a quo warranto against a gas company in its cor- 150 EIGHTS AND LIABIUTIES OF GAS COMPANIES. porate name to test their right to the exclusive use of the streets of a city for their gas-pipes, and their right to charge a cer- tain price for their gas supplied to the said city and its citi- zens, cannot be sustained, the process having been served against the company as a corporation, and the defendants having ap- peared and pleaded in its corporate capacity, and the corporate existence of the defendants cannot be thereafter denied ; but where the franchise of a corporation is intended to be drawn in question, the process must be brought against the individuals who are claimed to be usurping such franchise. State of Ohio v. Cmcinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262 (1868). See Chabteb, 8, 11, 17, 18 ; Directors, i; Franchise, 4. EAILEOAD COMPANY. See Eminent Domain; Estoppel, 1. EATIFICATIOK See Agency, 4 ; Municipality, 1. EEAL ESTATE. See Damages, II. j Eminent Domain; Easement, 2, 3j Tres- pass. Gas-Pipes, -when Eeal Estate, see Gas-Pipes, II. ; Injunction, 9, 10, 12, 13; Nuisance, V.; Taxation, 10, 11. EECEIVEE. Issue of Mortgage Bonds. — Fraud of Stockholders. — Quasi PubUc Corporation. — Where mortgage bonds were issued by a gas company in fraud of the stockholders and in an unauthorized manner, on a petition for the appointment of a receiver, it was held that, as the gas company was carrying on a quasi public business, and there were no judgments, orders, or decrees against the company, and no creditors pressing demands against it, and the company was not insolvent, bad management and reprehen- sible breaches of trust by individual officers was not a ground lUILROAD COMPANY — STATUTES. 151 for the appointment of a receiver or the dissolution of the cor- poration. Hyde Park Gaa Company v. Kerber et al., 5 111. App. 132. See Assumpsit, 4 ; Bonds ; Public Coepobation. EEGULATIOE'S. Waiver of, see AaENOT, 11; Municipality, 3, 4; Supply op Gas, 1,3. EENT. See Bankruptcy, 1, 2; Charter, 11. EESCISSIOK See Contract, 8. EIPAEIAN" EIGHTS. See Navigable Waters, 3 ; Wharf. SALAEY. See Director, 7. SEAL. See Agency, 4 ; Assumpsit, 1, 2, 3 ; Contract, 1 ; Directors, 5, 7. SLAKDEE OF TITLE. See Charter, 16. STATE, EIGHTS OF. See Dockage. STATUTES. Decisions under Special Statutes. 1. Nuisance. — Penalties. — Injury to Water. -^ By the Croy- don Improvement Act [10 Geo. IV. c. 73, § 27], it is enacted that if the commissioners, or any company or other person making or 152 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. supplying gas within the limits of the act, shaU sufftr any im- pure matter to flow into any stream, &c., they shall be liable to a penalty of £200, to he, sued for ly any common informer, and to a further penalty of £20 a day for the continuance of the nuisance after notice, to be paid to the informer or the party injured, as the justices should think fit. By the 21st section of the Gas-Works Clauses Act, 1847 (10 Vict. c. 15, § 21), a like penalty is imposed upon the undertakers of any gas-works for the same offence, which penalty is, by § 22, " to he recovered hy the person into whose water such substance shall be conveyed, or whose water shall be fouled by any such act," and by § 23 a daily penalty of £20 is imposed on them for the con- tinuance of the nuisance after notice, to be recovered in like manner. In an action to recover the penalty, it was held that a gas company, established under an act of Parliament, in which the provisions of the Gas-Works Clauses Act are incorporated, are liable to the penalties imposed by the 10 Vict. c. 15, but not to those imposed by the 10 Geo. IV. c. 73. Parry v. Croydon Gas, Co., 15 C. B. (N. S.) 568 ; s. c. H C. B. (N. S.) 578 (1863). 2. Right to lay Gas-Pipes under a Foot-Way. — The plaintiffs desired to lay their gas-pipes under a foot-way, but the defend- ants refused permission and claimed the right of determining that the pipes should be laid in the roadway ; and it was held that under the act of Parliament the plaintiffs had the right to lay their pipes where they liked, and the defendants could see that it was done in the least detrimental way, and that the plain- tiffs must make some provision for the foot-passengers. Mitcham Gas Co. v. Wimbledon Local Board, 30 Gas J. 600. 3. Gas-Meter to be inspected and stamped. — Bill for Gas. — Evidence. — Maintenance of Action. — The plaintiff sued the defendant for the price of gas furnished, rendering a bill for the amount indicated by the meter ; but there was no evidence that the meter had been inspected or stamped in accordance with an act requiring the appointment of an inspector to ascertain the accu- racy of gas-meters used for measuring or ascertaining the quan- STATUTES. 153 tity of gas furnished by the defendant, and to stamp such meters ; and it was held that the defendant was not bound by the meter, but that if the plaintiffs had shown that they had placed upon defendant's premises a meter duly verified and stamped, the in- dications of it subject only to being tested and corrected in the manner pointed out by the act of legislature, would be conclusive on the parties. St. John Gas Co. v. Clarke, 1 Pugsley & Burbridge (New Brunswick R.) 307 (1877). 4. County Roads, when Gas Company may dig up and lay Pipes in. — Where a road was laid out by the owners of land, and an agreement was made that it should be used as a public road by the neighbors and occupiers, it was held that though county roads are not actually dedicated to the public, if they were styled public roads by the owners, a district gas company, upon the requisition of the owners and occupiers of the district, had a right, under the Gas-Works Changes Act of 1847, to break the soil of the roads to lay down their mains without the assent of the owners and their representatives. Selby V. Crystal Palace District Gas Co., 30 Beavan, 606; 11 Gas J. 398; 6 L. T. R. 790 (1862). 5. Nuisance. — Meaning of Word " Suffer." — 'Well. — Non- User. — Where noxious matter percolates through the soil from gas-works so as to foul a well, such percolation will render the defendants liable under the Stat. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c„ 9, which im- poses a penalty of £200 on any gas company " which shall suffer any washings, &c., to be conveyed into any well." A well which, on account of its having become contaminated, has been disused by the owner for several years does not cease to be a well within the meaning of the act. Non-user and clos- ing of his own well in consequence of its being polluted, even coupled with the acceptance by the plaintiff of the use of sub- stituted wells of the defendants, is not such an abandonment of the former as to alter its character and make it no longer a well, nor can any license to pollute it be inferred from such a state of facts. Millington v. Griffiths, 30 Law Times (N. S.), 65 (C. C. P. 1874). 154 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. 6. Quasi Corporations. — Residence. — Meaning of Word "Dwell." — A quasi corporation under the 7 Vict. c. 110, such as a gas company, may be sued in a county court constructed under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 96. In such an action the quasi corporation may, for the purpose of § 128, be deemed to " dwell " at the place where they carry on their business. Taylor v. Crowlaud Gas & Coke Co., 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 516 (Exch. 1855). 7. " Common " Gas. — " Cannel " Gas. — In an action to recover the price of gas supplied to defendants, it was held that " com- mon " gas means gas of twelve candles power, and " cannel " gas means gas of twenty candles illuminating power ; and it was fur- ther held that the act of 1868 did not repeal the provisions of the act of 1860 as to the purity, quality, and mode of testing the gas, and that the gas company remained subject to these provisions as well as to those contained in the City of London gas act. Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Vestry of St. George, Hanover Square, 42 Law J. (N. S. Q. B.) 50. 8. Cellar Arches. — WTiat are Buildings. — Laying Gas-Fipes. — By § 6 of 10 Vict. c. 15, the undertakers of a gas company are authorized to open and break up the soil and pavement of the several streets within the limits of their special act, and to lay down pipes for supplying gas, and § 7 of the same act provides "that nothing herein shall authorize the undertakers to lay down or place any pipe or other works into, through, or against any building or in any land not dedicated to the public use, without the consent of the owners and occupiers thereof" A road passed alongside the plaintiff's premises and over cer- tain arches occupied by him as cellars, and the defendants, a company constituted under a local act, in opening and breaking up the soil of the road for the purpose of laying down gas-pipes, damaged the arches. In an action to recover damages therefor, it was held that the arches were buildings within § 7, and that the defendants could not justify breaking through them without the consent of the owner. Thompson v. Sunderland Gas Co., L. R. 2 Exchequer Div. 429; 29 Gas J. 378; 30 Gas J. 13 (1877). STATUTES. 155 9. Deposit as Security for Gas. — Trespass. — The plaintiff sued in trespass to recover for an entry on his premises by the gas com- pany, who entered to cut off the gas. It appeared that the plaintiff and made a suitable deposit, but as the company did not pay him interest thereon, he refused to pay more than the balance of the gas bill above the deposit, whereupon a new deposit was de- manded by the gas company, and the gas cut off shortly after- wards. The plaintiff had signed an agreement to allow the . defendants' employes access to the house for any purpose con- nected with the gas-pipes, &c., but he swore he never read the agreement, and did not know what it contained. Gas was some- times cut off without entering the house, and it was held that the company were authorized to demand a pecuniary security, and that the plaintiff was bound by the signed agreement. Wright V. Colchester Gas Co., 30 Gas J. 336. 10. Penalty. — Refusal to supply Gas. — Separate Gas-Meters. — Landlord and Tenant. — The plaintiff occupied one floor of a tenement house, the owner of which had applied for separate meters for each floor, which the defendants refused, because he had not put in a separate service pipe for each meter. The plaintiff applied for gas, and the defendants answered that they had already furnished it to the building, and refused to place a meter on the plaintiff's floor, unless separate service pipes were provided. In an action for a penalty under St. 1859, § 6 (Laws, p. 698), for refusing to supply gas, it was held that .judgment must be entered for the defendants, as they had furnished gas to the building, and were not obliged to provide an article not required by the letter of the law, nor necessary to the plaintiff for the enjoyment of the light which he desired. Ferguson v. Metropolitan Gaa-Light Co., 37 How. Pr. 189; N. Y. C. C. P. (1868). 11. Price of Gas. — Private and PubUo Acts. — The price to be charged for gas supplied to London (as well as quality) is regu- lated by the Metropolis Gas Act 1860. [23 & 24 Yict. c. 12.5.] Where, therefore, a gas company under their private act were limited to a charge of 4s. per ,1,000 ft. for gas of such a quality 156 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. as to produce from an Argand burner of a given size a light equal in intensity to the light of twelve wax candles to the pound, it was held that on the coming into operation of the public act under which they were compelled to supply gas of a considerably better quality, the company were justified in in- creasing the charge to any sum within the maximum authorized to be charged by that act. Great Central Gas Consumers Co. v. Clarke, 11 Com. B. (N. S.) 811; 13 Com. (N. S.) 838 (1862); 11 Gas J. 89, 763. 12. Contracts. — Maintenance of Action. — Gas Company Pro- visionally Registered. — An action for work and labor does not lie against a company completely registered for work done for the company provisionally registered. A company completely registered is not liable in any contract made by the promoters before a provisional registration. Quaere whether a company is liable, after complete registration, to be sued in its collective name upon contracts previously made by a provisionally registered company, when such contracts are within § 23, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 10. Hutchinson v. Surrey Consumers Gas-Light & Coke Ass., 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 474; (C. C. P.) (1851); 21 Law J. N. S. (C. P.) 1. 13. Meaning of Word "Suffer." — Nuisance. — Injury to Well. — The 6 Geo. IV. c. 79, incorporated a company for the pur- pose of supplying the town of Birminghani with gas. By the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 66, § 160, it is enacted " That if the company shall at any time caiise or suffer to be conveyed or to flow into any stream, reservoirs, aqueduct, pond or place for water, within the limits of the said act, any washing, substance or thing which shall be produced by making or supplying gas, they shall forfeit £200." In 1854 the company erected a gas-tank about forty-five yards from the plaintiff's well. The site was selected by an engineer on behalf of the company, and the tank was erected on solid sandstone with proper materials. The company knew that mines in the neighborhood had been worked, but they did not know that mines had been worked under or near to any part of their land. In 1838 there were workings under half the com- STATUTES. 157 pany's land, and from 1848 to 1855 these workings were brought to within about sixty yards of the tank, in consequence of which the floor of the tank cracked, and the washings in it flowed out and percolated to the plaintiff"s well, thereby rendering the water in it unfit for domestic purposes. In an action for damages it was held in the Exch. Chamber (afiirming the judg- ment of Court of Exch.) that the company had suffered the washings to flow into plaintiff's well within the meaning of the act 8 & 9 Vict. c. 66, the company not having exonerated them- selves from negligence, and consequently was liable to the penalty of £200. Hipkins v. Binningham & Staffordshire Gas-Light Co., 5 Hurl. & N. 74; 6 Hurl. & N. 250 (1860); 9 Gas J. 63, 778. 14. Obligation of Gas Company to lay down Mains and put up Lamp-Posts. — An act of Parliament required the Worksop Gas Company to maintain lamp-posts, &c., "in such places or posi- tions as shall be required from time to time by the local board for the purpose of lighting in a proper and effectual manner any street " upon receiving a price mutually agreed upon, and contained a provision for arbitration in the event of their not agreeing. In an action to enforce -the provisions of the act, it was held that the company was not, under the act, bound to put up six lamps on a certain street when requested by the local board, as to do so would require a main a mile in length. Local Board of Worksop v. Worksop Gas Co., 22 Gas J. 96. 15. Statute. — "Public." — Metropolitan Gas Act 1860. — The purport of the 54th section of the Metropolitan Gas Act is to protect the rights of companies or persons who, previously to the passing of the act, manufactured and supplied gas to others than the " public ; " and it was held that railway companies and hotels in connection with them do not constitute the "public'' within the meaning of the section. Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. West London Junction Gas-Light & Coke Co., 1 Cox J. S. Co. Cases, 648; 15 L. T. R. 66; 14 Weekly R. 1019 (1866). 158 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. See Account ; Agency, 13 ; Arbitration ; Bankruptcy ; Charter ; Contract, 9, 25 ; Damases, 9 ; Directors, 6, 9 ; Mandamus, 7 j Lease, 2 ; Taxation. Obligation to supply Gas, see Supply of Gas, III. STOCK OF GAS COMPARES. I. Subscriptions. 1. Subscription by City. — Contract. — Estoppel. — A con- tract made by a city with an established gas company, by which the company were given the exclusive privilege, for a term of years and until notice, of lighting the city with gas, and also the right to lay down their pipes and extend their apparatus through the streets, &c., of the city, and in consideration thereof agreed to furnish to the city gas at half the price they charged to their pri- vate customers, does not give such a right to the gas company as will estop the city corporation from subscribing to the stock of a new gas company, whose object was to introduce gas into the same city. Memphis City v. Dean, 8 Wallace, 64. 2. Illegal Contract. — Subscription to Capital Stock. — Pay- ment. — In an action by a gas company against one of the original subscribers thereto for the. amount of his subscription, the defend- ant claimed that his subscription had been fully paid by the con- veyance to the company of his interest in certain coal lands, and it appeared that he with others had purchased some coal lands, and had transferred them at once to the gas company at an advance of $50,000, and that the company had agreed to receive his inter- est in the same as a payment by him for his stock ; it was held that this agreement was illegal, and no defence in this action as against subsequent stockholders, unless they were informed of the fact when they subscribed or afSrmed it afterwards, and that this arrangement was not a valid payment for the stock, which should have been in actual money. Bailey v. Pittsburg & Connellsville Gas, Coal, & Coke Co., 69 Penn. St. (19 P. F. Smith) 334 (1871). STOCK OP GAS COMPANIES, I. 159 3. Illegal Calls on Stock. — Estoppel. — Defence. — An in- corporated gas company, by resolution of the directors, ordered that certain calls on their stock should be paid on certain days named in the resolution, but the notices which were published made them payable on different days. The defendant wrote to the company and enclosed his note for four of the calls, offering to give another note for the balance, stating that he had been in Europe and had had no knowledge of the calls ; but the company declined to accept his notes, and brought an action of debt for the amount of the calls ; and it was held that the action could not be maintained, as the calls were illegal, not being authorized by the resolution, and that the defendant, by his action and offer, had not estopped himself from disputing the calls. London Gas Co. v. Campbell, Up. Can. 14 Q. B. E. 143. 4 Incorporation. — Subscription. — Under the statute [1872] of Pennsylvania, authority was given to the Supreme Court to incorporate gas companies, and it was held that before the court could proceed to exercise these powers and incorporate a gas com- pany, the association must have been already formed and all the stock subscribed for. In re Petition of F. H. Gibbs et al, 3 Pittsburg, 499 (1873). 5. Illegal Calls. — Directors. — A gas company brought actions against various stockholders, under a statute [11 Vict. c. 14] which authorized actions for the recovery of money " which should from time to time be called for by the directors of the company, under and by virtue of the powers and directions of that act," and it appeared that the secretary of the company, act- ing under a resolution of the directors passed before this statute came into force, notified the stockholders that a call of ten per cent upon their stock would be made on certain days ; but it was held that the company could not maintain this action i;nder the powers given by the statute upon this evidence, and that the calls were not properly made. Gaa Company v. Russell et aZ.,Up. Can. 6 Q. B. R. 567. 6. " Call." — Power of President. ■'— Defence. — In a suit against a subscriber for the amount of " call " on his stock, it was 160 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. held [Nicholson C. J.] that it was no defence that, after his sub- scription, the directors increased the amount of the stock, all of which increase had not been then subscribed for; that "sub- scriptions for stock in a corporation must be governed by the terms and conditions of its charter of incorporation. In all cor- porations where the amount of capital is fixed by the charter, or by the agreement of subscribers, or in which the charter requires the directors to fix the amount, no valid assessment on the stock subscribed can be made until the whole amount of the stock has been subscribed. . . . This principle also applies where the char- ter authorizes the company, when organized under a fixed capi- tal, to increase it. When so increased, the amount fixed becomes the capital which must be subscribed before legal assessments can be made. When the president is authorized by the board of directors to make a ' call ' for payment on stock subscribed, and he makes and advertises it as president alone, his action must be regarded as that of the board." Eead v. Memphis Gayoso Gas Co., 9 Heisk. (Term.) 545. 7. Fraud. — Defence. — Authority of President. — In an ac- tion against A. for the amount of his subscription to the capital stock of a gas company, the defendant offered to prove that the president of the gas company agreed with B., a prior subscriber, that he should not be called upon to pay anything for his shares, and that C, M'ho subscribed for six shares, was induced by the president to change his subscription to twenty-six shares, and thereupon received a release in writing for twenty of such shares, and that these transactions on the part of the gas company con- stituted a fraud upon the defendant, and relieved him from lia- bility for the payment of his stock ; and it was held that the president of a gas company, as such, had no authority to release subscriptions, but that the release from the company to B. under such circumstances was such a fraud upon the defendant as would exempt him from paying for his stock. Custar V. Titusville Gas & Water Co., 63 Penn. St. [13 P. F. Smith] 381 (1869). See Mandamus, 1, 6 ; Municipality, 1. STOCK OP GAS COMPANIES, 11. 161 II. Sales and Transfers op Stock. 8. Transfer without Notice to Company invalid against at- taching Creditor. — In an action of tort for damages for the re- fusal by the defendant company to accept a surrender of shares of stock of the company, and to grant a new certificate of the same, it appeared that stock standing in the name of 0. was sold and assigned by him, and came into the possession of the plain- tiff through various purchasers, but without notice to the defend- ants, and that the stock was thereafter sold upon an execution as the property of 0., and that the defendants then issued a new certificate to the purchaser at such sale ; and it was held that the action could not be maintained. Blamchard v. Dedham Gas-Light Co., 12 Gray, 213 (1859). 9. Attaching Creditor. — Real Owner. — Defence. -^ In an ac- tion under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, § 15, against a gas company, for permitting the transfer of shares of stock after notice of a charging order nisi, and before the making of it absolute, it is a good answer to show that the judgment debtor in whose name the shares stood, has no beneficial interest in them. Gill V. Continental Union Gas Co. Limited, L. R. 7 Ex. 332 (1872). 10. Equity. — Illegal Assessments. — Fraudulent Transfer. — On a bill in equity charging that one of the defendants, the presi- dent of the defendant corporation, through fraud, had secured the transfer to his own name of shares of stock in an incorporated gas company, and that, by collusion with the directors, the stock had been sold for large and illegal assessments and bought in by the defendant without consideration, and containing the prayer that the complainant might be declared the owner of the stock, it was Jield that these facts presented a good case for the inter- vention of a court of equity. Kilgbur V. New Orleans Gas-Light Co. et al, 2 Woods C. C. 145 (1875). 11. Civil War. — Sequestration of Stock. — Illegal Transfer. — On a bin in equity praying for an injunction and for an adju- 11 162 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. dication of the rights of all parties interested, it was held that stock in a gas company which was owned before the late civil war by citizens of the United States, and which was confiscated during the war by the order of a Confederate court and thereafter sold to citizens of South Carolina, and transferred by such pur- chasers to others engaged in such war, did not pass the title to such stock to the purchasers, but that it belonged still to the loyal citizens who had owned it before the war. Perdicaries v. Charleston Gas-Light Co., 1 Hughes (U. S. C. C), 69 (1877). 12. Allotment of Nevy Shares. — Negligence of Trustee. — Where shares of stock of a gas company were settled in trust for a woman for life, then for her husband's life, and then for her children, and new shares were allotted to the original share- holders, and the husband obtained possession of both new and old shares, paid the calls on the new shares, and then fraudu- lently sold* all the shares and became bankrupt, it was held that the trustee must make good the value of the shares, less the amount paid by the husband as calls. Briggs V. Massey, Court of Appeal, 46 Law T. Rep. N. S. 354 (1882). 13. Consolidation. — Fraudulent Issue of Stock Certificates. — Interest. — Scrip Dividend. — While negotiations were pending between the defendants and another gas company for a consoli- dation, by the terms of which the consolidated company were to assume the indebtedness of both companies, the defendants, without the knowledge of the other company, declared a scrip dividend of ten per cent, with interest thereon, payable at the option of the company, and certificates of indebtedness were issued in accordance with the resolution declaring the dividend. The proposed consolidation was carried out, but no notice was given by the defendants to the other company of such dividend, or of their increased indebtedness. Upon a bill in equity filed by a stockholder, praying that the scrip might be declared void, and the company issuing it be restrained from recognizing it as a valid obligation, and from permitting its transfer, it was held that such scrip was void, and an injunction was issued, but that, from the delay in seeking relief against such scrip, no account of 163 the interest received would be ordered from the parties who had received the same, they being numerous, and most of them having no knowledge of any wrong in the creation thereof, and having received the interest as their just due. , Bailey v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 27 New Jersey Eq. 196 (18'76). See Bond, 1 ; Dividends, 1 ; Mortmain ; Taxation, 4, 6 ; Con- solidation. STOCKHOLDERS. See Bond, 1 ; Lease, 1 ; Stock op Gas Companies. STEIKE, NO DEFENCE. See Contract, 24. SUBEOGATION. S,ee Insdrancb, 1. SUPERVISORS. See Mandamus, 2, 7 ; Assumpsit, 5. SUPPLY OF GAS. I. Obligation to Supply Gas by Common Law. 1. Duty of Gas Company. — Regulations. — Damages for Re- fusal to supply. — A gas company which has the exclusive right to manufacture and sell gas in a city, is bound to supply gas to any person who has made the necessary preparation to receive the same, and is liable to an action for damages for a refusal to supply gas to such party. The gas company, however, has the right to make such rules and regulations as shall be necessary for their own convenience and the security of the public, and to require a customer to sign an agreement to abide by them before supplying him with gas ; and in an action to recover damages for refusal to supply gas to the plaintiff, it was held that regula- tions requiring application for gas to be made in writing, with a statement of the number of burners required, and a deposit of 164 RTGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. money to be made as security for the payment of its bills, were proper and necessary, but that the gas company had! no right to require an agreement on the part of the customer, as a condition for supplying him with gas, — 1st. That the gas inspector should have free access at all times to his dwelling-house ; 2d. That the gas company should have the right to remove the meter at their pleasure, and to cut off communication of the service pipe when- ever they deemed it necessary to protect them from fraud or abuse, and to impose a penalty upon the disconnection or altera- tion of the pipes by the customer without their permission. Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 6 Wisconsin, 539 (1858). 2. . Obligation to supply. — Exclusive Right. — A gas company having, under its charter, the sole and exclusive privilege of vending gas-light in the city of New Orleans, is bound, under its charter, to supply gas to all persons who call for it, on their pay- ing or offering to pay for the same, and they cannot refuse to supply gas to the owner of a building, on the ground that the former owner of the same building was largely indebted to them for gas, and if, under a threat that they would cut off the gas, which would have occasioned the defendant a serious loss, he promised to pay the bill due from a former owner, such promise was void for want of consent and a legal consideration. New Orleans Gaa-Light & B. Co. v. Paulding, 12 Robinson (La.), 378 (1845). 3. Contract. — Duties and Rights of Gas Companies. — Regula- tions. — • In an action for the breach of a contract to supply the plaintiff with gas and to recover damages for refusal to supply the same, it appeared that the plaintiff was the owner of two houses, and had paid for the gas- used in one of them, but had disputed and refused to pay the biU for the gas burned in the other ; that he made the contracts for the supply of these houses at separate times, and had signed the regulations required by the company ; that one of said regulations was that " in default of payment for gas consumed in said premises, he [the customer] also consents that the flow of gas shall be stopped until the bill be 'paid ; " and that the gas company had cut off the gas from both houses and refused to supply him therein; and it was held SUPPLY OP GAS, II. 165 by Weisel J. that the action could he maintained, and " that 1st, viewing the chartered powers of the company, the peculiar nature of the article to be supplied, the peculiar mode of furnishr^ ing it, and the exclusive control which the company possessed in its manufacture for the public use, the company was bound by their contract to furnish gas to one who had made the necessary preparation and incurred the expenditure for its use, and who had contracted for its introduction by signing the terms and regulations of the company, as long as the company manufactured the article for the public use and the customer paid for the supply to the property described in the contract, and complied with the other terms ; and, 2d, that where several contracts are made between the same parties for different pieces of property, each requiring its own meter, a failure to comply with any terms in relation to one furnishes no excuse or ground to the company to withhold the gas from the other." Gas-Light Co. of Baltimore v. Colliday, 25 Maryland, 1. 4. Waiver of Regulation. — Defence. — Where a gas company has the right to insist that a customer shall make an application in writing for a supply of gas in a certain form, and upon an oral application refuses to supply him with gas, giving a different reason for such refusal, it thereby waives its right to such written application, and in an action for damages for its refusal to supply the plaintiff with gas, the fact that such application was oral cannot be set up as a defence to the action. Shepherd v. Milwaukee Gas-Light Co., 11 Wisconsin, 234. For Damages for Kefusal to supply Gas, see Damages, 1, 4, II. No Obligation under Common Law. 5. Where no Contract, no Obligation. — In an action against a gas company for refusal to supply gas to the plaintiff, the latter alleged in his declaration " that his rooms were furnished with gas-pipes and fixtures connected with ■ the defendants' main pipes; that for some time prior to the injury alleged the de- 166 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. fendants had supplied him with gas, for which he had paid them, and that he was ready and willing to pay them a reason- able compensation for a continued supply, and requested them to continue to supply him ; and that it became and was the duty of the defendants to continue to supply him with gas, but that they maliciously and wantonly shut off the gas and refused to supply him, by means of which he was deprived of the means of light- ing his rootns with gas, and put to great expense in procuring other means of lighting them." After verdict for the plaintiff, on a petition for arrest of judgment on the ground of insuffi- ciency in the declaration, it was held that no contract to supply the plaintiff with gas was alleged for any definite time, and that in the absence of any contract, express or implied, and when the charter of a gas company contained no provision on the subject, the company was under no more obligation to continue to supply its customers with gas than the vendors of any other article. McCune v. Norwich City Gas Co., 30 Conn. 521. 6. Gas Company not bound to sell Gas. — A gas company is not a quasi public corporation. "No public duty is imposed upon them, nor are they charged with any public trust. They are authorized to make and distribute gas for their own profit and gain only. They are not bound to sell and dispose of it to any one, either for public or private use or consumption. It is entirely at their own option whether they will exercise their corporate rights and privileges at all ; and if they undertake to manufacture and dispose of gas, the extent to which they shall carry on the business is left to their own election. Nor is any power conferred upon them to take private property, not pre- viously appropriated to a public use, for the purpose of exercising and enjoying their franchise. The only right or privilege given to them is to dig up public streets and ways for the purpose of laying down their mains or pipes." Bigelow C. J. Common wealth v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 12 Allen, 75 (1866). 7. Charter. — Permissive and not compulsory. — A gas com- pany incorporated for the purpose of lighting the streets and SUPPLY OF GAS, 11. 167 buildings of a town is under no obligation to supply gas to all persons having buildings situated on the line of their pipes, although such persons may tender a reasonable compensation and execute an agreement to submit to all reasonable regulations of the gas company; and it was held that the charter which gave them " power and authority to manufacture, make, and sell gas for the purpose of lighting the streets, buildings, manufactories, and other places situate in the said town of Paterson," was per- missive and not compulsory upon the company. Paterson Gas-Light Co. v. Brady, 27 N. J. (3 Dutcher) 245 (1858). 8. Right to supply Gas to Customers. — Injunction. — Demur- rer. — A municipal corporation having, under the provisions of an act of Parliament, bought up a gas company which previously supplied gas to the borough, and which had compulsory powers for the purpose within the borough, commenced supplying gas to an adjoining township, in which another gas company already existed, having similar powers within the township. The gas company of the township having filed a bill against the corpora- tion to restrain them from supplying gas within the township, and alleging, as a personal injury which entitled them to main- tain the suit, that the corporation had contracted to supply gas to a particular manufactory within the township, which otherwise they must have supplied, and that they had thereby been de- prived of the profits arising from the supply of gas to the manu- factory, and that great loss would be sustained by them, it was held, on demurrer, that the injury alleged was not such as enti- tled the plaintiff to maintain the suit, as there is nothing to pre- vent a gas company from supplying gas just as they like, if they can do so without causing any inconvenience. Pudsey Coal Gas Co. v. Corporation of Bradford, L. R. 15 Eq. 167 ; 22 Gas J. 54 (1872). 9. Contract. — No Obligation to supply. — Damages. — In an action for damages against a gas company for cutting off the plaintiff's supply pipe and refusing to supply him with gas, al- though the gas company held a deposit of his in their hands, it was held that the gas company, under its charter, was under no 168 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. obligation to supply any particular individual with gas, and whether it did so or not was a matter of contract only, but that very slight evidence would suffice to raise an inference of a con- tract between the company and the consumer to supply him with gas, and that judgment must be for the defendants. Houlgate v. Surrey Consumers Gas Co., 8 Gas J. 261 (1859). 10. No Obligation to supply. — Contract -when Implied. — In an action for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the defendants' refusal to supply gas for use in his school, it ap- peared that the plaintiff paid for the gas and for a meter, which he hired from the company at 5s. a year, to be paid quarterly ; that his consumption of gas, as shown by the meter, for one quarter of the year 1858 was 5,100 feet, while for the corresponding quarter of the year 1857 it was 17,800 feet ; that the defendants there- upon charged him with 10,000 feet for that quarter, and as he refused to pay for more than 7,100 feet, they cut off the gas after a week's notice, and that the defendants were a company formed under a general act, and had no special act. On these facts it was held that the gas company were not bound to con- tinue to supply the plaintiff with gas for any particular time ; and that the fact that payments were made quarterly, and the meter hired for a year, or that defendants were the only company in the place, did not afford any ground for implying a contract to that effect. Hoddeson Gas & Coke Co. v. Haselwood, 6 Com. B. (N. S.) 238; 8 Gas J. 261. 11. No Obligation to supply. — Mandamus. — Damages. — A gas company incorporated under ConsoL Statutes C, chap. 65, made a charge to a customer for gas supplied for a special illumination, which the customer refused to pay as being exces- sive, and the gas company thereupon refused to supply gas for the customer's ordinary use in his business until their bill had been paid. On a petition for a mandamus to require the gas company to supply the plaintiff with gas, it was held that the gas company were only justified in refusing to supply gas under their act of incorporation, where their customers bad neglected SUPPLY OP GAS, III. 169 to pay arrears due for gas supplied in the ordinary course of business ; but it was further held that^a mandamus would not lie, as the statute imposed no duty upon the company to supply gas, and the only remedy for the plaintiff was by an action for damages. Commercial Bank of Canada v. London Gas Co., Up. Can. 20 Q. B. 233 (1860). See Mandamus, 5. III. Duties and Obligations under Statutes. 12. Obligations under the Statute. — Right to refuse. — When not waived. — Gas-light companies " possess, by virtue of their charters, powers and privileges which others cannot exercise, and the statutory duty is imposed upon them to furnish gas on pay- ment of all moneys due by applicants " for gas ; but if such ap- plicant is found to be already indebted to them, they may shut off the supply of gas and refuse to furnish more, especially if such applicant avows his insolvency and his inability to pay for gas previously furnished. And where gas has been furnished to a customer by a gas company without objection on their part to his not having paid their bUls, this wiU not estop them from refusing to supply him upon a subsequent application, on the ground that his former bills were still unpaid. People ex rel. Kennedy v. Manhattan Gas-Light Co., 45 Barb. 136. 13. Statute of 1859. — Right to shut off Gas. — A gas com- pany under the act of 1859 has the right to shut off the gas from the premises of a customer only when such customer has not paid for the gas furnished to him by the company, but cannot refuse to supply gas when their bills for gas supplied to a former occupant of the premises are still unpaid, and this is a question of fact to be determined by a jury. Morey v. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 38 N. Y. Superior (6 J. & S.) 185 (1874). 14. Injunction. — Payment in Advance. — The plaintiff was the occupant of a house, and had been supplied for over a year 170 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. with gas by the defendants, which had been paid for regularly, but after the last payment a demand of £5 as security for future supply was demanded from her by the gas company, which she refused to give, and her gas was cut off. It was then let on again, and again security demanded and refused, and again cut off. The plaintiff then applied for au injunction to prevent the repetition of the act while a suit was pending, and a preliminary injunction was granted. The question raised, but not decided, was whether a gas company which has supplied gas for some time quarterly can suddenly cut off the supply of gas on the refusal of the householder to pay for the gas in advance. Dicks V. Equitable Gas Co., 8 Gas J. 328, 631 (Q. B. 1859). 15. Deposit. — Statute. — Obligation. — The plaintiff sum- moned a gas company under the statute for refusing to supply him with gas after receiving the necessary application to do so, and it appeared that the defendants demanded as security the sum of £2, while the plaintiff refused to deposit more than £1, and it was held that under the statute the deposit offered was a reasonable one, and that the gas company were bound to furnish gas to the plaintiff. Samuel v. Cardiff Gas Co., 18 Gas J. 192 (1869). 16. Illegal cutting off of Gas. — Damages. — In an action for damages for refusal to supply the plaintiff with gas, it appeared that the plaintiff, made a deposit of £2 10s., as requested, that at the end of the next quarter a bill was rendered him by the gas company of £1 19s. fid.; that in June following the plaintiff was notified that, unless he paid the bill at once, the gas would be cut off by the company; that he refused payment on the ground that the deposit more than covered the amount of the bill, and on June 18th the gas was cut off, and the company sent him a bill for £3 14s. 6d, minus the deposit of £2 10s. ; that the plaintiff was thereupon summoned before the magistrate and compelled to pay 19s. 6d., a charge of 5s. for cutting off the gas being disallowed, and that afterwards the plaintiff requested the company to resume the supply, which they refused to do unless he paid the expense of putting it on again ; and it was ?ield that SUPPLY OP GAS, III. 171 as the cutting off the gas was illegal, the company was liable in damages. Halfhide v. Worthing Gas Co., 22 Gas J. 136. 17. Refusal to supply, 'when justifiable. — Non-payment of Gas Bill. — Price. — The plaintiff, who was a manufacturing chemist, summoned the defendant cotnpany, under § 17 of the Metropolis Gas Act, for unlawfully cutting off the supply of gas laid by them upon his premises, he being at the time a consumer of such gas. The company having raised the price of gas, the plaintiff refused to pay the increased price, and it was held that there had been no demand made upon the plaintiff beyond what the company were entitled to charge, and as the plaintiff refused to pay that claim, he was in the position qt a defaulter, and the company were justified in cutting off his gas, and the summons was therefore dismissed. Pearson v. Phoenix Gas Co., 12 Gaa J. 69 (1863). 18. Refusal to supply. — Damages. — Deposit. — In an action for damages for the inconvenience and injuries sustained by the plaintiff by the refusal of the defendants to supply gas to her premises, it appeared that there was a demand made by the company of £5 as a deposit for security, which was paid by the plaintiff and then demanded back and repaid to the plaintiff by the gas company, and it was held by the court that the gas company had the right to refuse to supply gas to the plaintiff under these circumstances. Littlewood v. Equitable Gas Co., 8 Gas J. 541 (1859) Westm. Cty. Ct. 19. Deposit. — Refusal to supply. — Statute 1859. — The plaintiff had deposited $15 as security with the defendants in 1872, and the bill rendered for gas in January, 1873, showed that the plaintiff was consuming $45 worth of gas per month, where- upon he was requested to pay the bill and to increase the deposit, which request, although repeated, was refused by the plaintiff, and defendants then cut off his gas and refused to sup- ply him with gas until the deposit was made ; and in an action to recover damages for such refusal to supply the plaintiff with 172 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. gas, it was held that under the laws of 1859 the act of the de- fendants was fully authorized. Ford V. Brooklyn Gas-Light Co., 10 N. Y. Supreme (3 Hun), 621. 20. Beposit — Security. — Refusal to supply not authorized. — A complaint was made by the plaintiff that the defendants, after having taken and accepted the security agreed upon be- tween them and the plaintiff, for gas to be supplied to him, had failed to continue such supply, contrary to the provision's of the Metropolis Gas Act of 1860. It appeared that the security taken was a demand note signed by the plaintiff, that immedii ate payment was demanded and the gas cut off, as the plain- tiff requested a short delay in payment; and it was held that as the security for the payment of the defendants' biUs stiU existed, their refusal to supply was not authorized by the statute. Fowler v. Chartered Gas Co., 17 Gas J. 908 (1868). 21. Obligation to supply. — Damages. — N'o Right to de- mand deposit. — Contract. — The plaintiff kept a pubhc house, and having applied to the gas company to be supplied with gas, they refused to do so unless he previously paid a de- posit of £12, which he declined to do, and in consequence his house remained unlighted with gas, and he brought an action against the company for damages for their refusal to supply. The company's act of incorporation gave them no authority to demand the deposit, and it was held that the company had no right to demand the payment of any sum of money for laying on gas, but were bound to enter into a contract to supply gas to those in their district who required it, and the action could be maintained. Spratt V. South Metropolitan Gas Co., v'Gas J. 663 (1858). 22. Damages. — Unreasonable Delay. — In an action to re- cover damages for loss suffered by the plaintiff in his business as a publican by the refusal of the defendants for an unreason- able time to supply the plaintiff with gas, the defendants con- tended that there was no obligation upon them to lay on the gas SURETY. 173 the next day after a requisition was made, and that they were entitled to a reasonable time for investigating the matter ; but it was held that it was a question for the jury to determine whether or not they had taken an unreasonable time to consider, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and damages assessed in the sum of £25. Bedding v. Imperial Ga3-Light & Coke Co., 7 Gas J. 418 (1858). 23. Supply. — Cutting off. — Penalty. — The Gas- Works Clauses Act 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 41), § 36, imposes a penalty whenever a gas company neglects or refuses to supply gas to any occupier within the limits of the special act ; and in an action to recover the penalty it was held that the section of the act applied to a case where the gas company had improperly cut off the gas. Commercial Gas Co. v. Scott, L. R. 10 Q. B. 400 (1875) ; 25 Gas J. 889. 24. Partnership Debt, — Obligation to supply. — Defence. — Notice. — Tenant. — In an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for the refusal of a gas company to supply him with gas, the court said that there were " three grounds of defence al- leged, viz. : 1st, That the plaintiff was a joint contributor, and that this was a partnership debt; 2d, that on entering the premises he did not give notice to the defendants ; 3d, that the company were not bound to furnish a supply of gas, but that on all these points his opinion was in favor of the plaintiff, and that a gas company had no right to deprive a tenant of his supply because of a disputed debt which he had expressed his willingness to pay if a court of law should decide he was liable." Penny v. Rossendale Union Gas Co., 14 Gas J. 927 (1865). See CoNTEAOT, 1 ; Nuisanob, 31 ; Statutes, 10. SUEETY. See Contract, 26 ; Guabanit. 174 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. SYSTEM OF COMPANY. See Evidence, 18. TAXATION. I. Under Statutes of United States. 1. Gas made by Philadelphia Gas-Works. — Revenue Tax. — Illuminating gas manufactured by the trustees of the Philadel- phia gas-works, and furnished by them to the city of Philadel- phia, to be used in public lamps, is rightly charged with the internal revenue duty imposed by the statutes of the United States. Gas, under the internal revenue act, is taxable when made and sold, but is not taxable when made by the party " for his own use," and when such gas is made by the trustees of the Philadelphia gas-works, who are appointed by the city under a trust agreement, at gas-works of which the city using the gas has apparently the ultimate ownership, but which, till certain debts due by the city, contracted in order to build and enlarge such gas-works, are paid, are held and managed exclusively by such trustees, who sell such gas to the city at a certain price, and set aside all clear profits as a sinking fund for the payment of the principal due the creditors, such gas, although furnished to the debtor at a price fixed, for the purpose of providing, in the manner agreed on, a sinking fund to pay the debts of the party using it, is still " made " and " sold " for the purposes of taxation. City of Philadelphia v. Collector, 6 Wallace, 720 (1866). 2. Contract. — " Free from Charge." — Tax. — The plaintiff made an agreement with the defendants, in consideration of their surrender of its stock, to furnish them with gas "free from charge." The Internal Eevenue Act, § 94 [13 U. S. Stat. 264], levied a tax upon gas and allowed the manufacturers to add the tax to the cost of the gas. The plaintifiT furnished to the defend- ants a large amount of gas, paid the« tax thereon, and brought suit to recover the amount of the tax from the defendant corporation, SYSTEM OP COMPANY ; TAXATION, I. 175 and it was held that under their agreement they could not re- cover from the city the tax paid on the gas. Gas Company v. Pittsburgh, 101 U. 8. (11 Otto) 219. 3. Manufacturing Companies. — Statute 1880. — Exemption. — A gas company organized under the laws of 1848 of the State of New York is entitled to the exemption from the taxes imposed by chapter 542 of Acts of 1880, allowed by § 3 of said act in favor of "manufacturing companies carrying on manufactures within this State," and it would be exempted even if it were a foreign corporation. Nassau Gaa-Light Company v. Brooklyn, 32 N. Y. Supreme (25 Hun), 567. 4. Capital Stock. — Method of Assessment. — Franchise. — The paid-up capital stock of a gas-light company is subject to taxation. The assessors valued the franchise of a consolidated gas company formed by the junction of two competing com- panies at an amount corresponding to the amount of the capital stock, and it was held that the franchise was correctly assessed and taxed, and the value of such stock was to be ascertained from the market price, or in any other manner. New Orleans City Gas-Light Co. v. Board of Assessors, 31 La. Ann. 475 (1879). 5. Tolls. — "Wharf. — Where under the statute the rate of toll for coal was iixed at a certain sum per ton, and a reduction al- lowed for merchandise which was landed upon wharves and warehoused without drayage, and the defendants' coal was landed upon a wharf which was kept in repair by them, and which was leased to them by the harbor commissioners, and the coal was removed in cars run upon a tramway supported by timbers,' it was held that the difference between the rates was intended to cover the wear and tear of wharves by the passage of loaded teams, whether wagons, drays, or cars, and that defendants were bound by the provisions of their lease to pay the same rates as those charged on other wharves, and were not entitled to the reduction. Soule V. San Francisco Gas-Light Co., 54 Cal. 241. 176 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. 6. Capital Stock. — Certiorari. — Franchise. — Method of Valu- ation. — Assessment. — A gas company filed with the assessors, as required by law, a statement of the value of their property for the purposes of taxation, from which it appeared that their capi- tal stock was $750,000, of which the sum of $520,000 had been actually paid in, and had been , invested in real estate and im- provements, and that the company's debts were $192,000, but that their stock had no actual market value, and that its actual value would exceed 90 per cent of its par value. The assessors thereupon assessed the personal property of the gas company as of the value of $200,000. On a writ of certiorari brought by the gas company, it was held that the assessment was properly made, that there was sufficient evidence upon which the assessors could make their valuation, and that the value of the stock of a gas company was not to be determined by ascertaining what its ac- tual assets and liabilities would realize upon a dissolution of the corporation, but the privileges, rights, patents, and franchise must also be considered, and that the writ must be dismissed. People ex rel. BuftWo Mutual Gas-Light Co. v. Steele, 56 N. Y. 664 ; 1 Sheldon (N. Y. Superior), 345. 7. Surplus. — Certificates. — Debt. — Where a gas company held an accumulation of profits not distributed, which was in- vested in real estate and other property, and issued to its stock- holders certificates based thereon, and which stated that the holders thereof were thereby entitled to an interest in the prop- erty of the gas company' to the amount specified in the certifi- cate, with interest, reserving to the company the right to redeem such certificates upon notice by the payment of their face value, or by the issue of ordinary stock, it was held that the certificates were merely agreements to divide the accumulated profits at some indefinite future time, and that such surplus still remained in the possession of the company, and was liable to assessment and taxation ; and that the certificates did not create an indebt- edness which could properly be allowed as a deduction from the value of the surplus profits ; and that even if they were valid obli- gations of the gas company they were not evidences of indebted- ness, as a holder could not demand and have from the company a 177 sum of money thereon ; and if the company elected to redeem them by the issue of stock, the property in which the profits had been invested would still remain in the possession of the company, and subject to taxation. People ex rel. Williamsburgli Gas Co. v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 76 N. Y. 202 ; 23 N. Y. Supreme (16 Hun), 196. 8. Taxes. — Set-off. — Contract. — Practice. — In an action against a city to recover the price of gas supplied under a contract, delinquent taxes due from the gas company to the city cannot be set off by the city, under the provisions of the code, which pro- vides as to set-off that "it can only be pleaded in an action founded on contract, and must be a cause of action arising upon contract, or ascertained by the decision of the court," as taxes " neither arise upon contract, either express or implied, not is the amount thereof determinable by the judgment of a court." Nebraska City v. Nebraska City Hydraulic Gas-Light & Coke Co., 9 Nebraska, 339 ; 2 No. West. E. 870 (1879). 9. Injunction. — Unconstitutional Provision of Code. — The plaintiffs claimed that their tax had been illegally assessed, on the ground that, under the 10th section of the Ohio Tax Law, in the assessment of their property all debts due by them should have been deducted from the amount of moneys and credits belonging to them; but the defendant, as assessor, refused to aUow the deduction, for the reason that that section of the code had been declared unconstitutional ; and it was held that, under these circumstances, the court would not enjoin him from col- lecting the plaintiffs' tax. Cincinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Bowman, 1 Handy (Superior Ct, Ohio), 289 (1855). 10. Real Estate. — Exemption. — Where an incorporated gas company owned real estate and fixtures, and paid dividends, and the real estate represented a part of its capital stock, and the shares of said stock were taxed for State and county purposes, it was held that the lot and buildings, being necessary to enable the corporation to execute the object and fulfil the purposes for 12 178 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF GAS COMPANIES. which it was chartered, were exempt from taxation as real estate for county purposes under the act of 1874. CoatesvUle Gas Co. v. County of Chester, 97 Pa. St. 476 (1881). 11. Real Estate. — Exemptions. — Dwelling -House. — The stock of an incorporated gas company, which represents its capi- tal, is taxable, but its works are exempt from taxation in addition as real estate for State and county purposes ; but dwelling-houses, which are not necessary for the performance of the company's proper work, and which have been buUt by the company for the accommodation of its workmen, are liable to taxation. West Chester Gas Co. v. County of Chester, 30 Pa. St. (6 Casey) 232. See Chaetbe, 5; Gas-Pipes I., XL II. Under Statutes of Great Britain and Ireland. 12. Poor-Rates. — Method of Valuation. — The property of a gas company lying in five townships, of which the respondent township was one, consisted of lands and buildings, with retorts and furnaces and pipes attached thereto, used for the manu- facture of gas, of buildings used as storehouses and offices, and . of land occupied by the gas mains and pipes. The property in the respondent township consisted of the lands and buildings and apparatus for making the gas, and of part of the mains and pipes which passed through the respondent township into the other township. It was held that the ratable value of the whole of the property of the company might be ascertained as follows ; by taking from the latest published accounts of the company the sum of the annual gross receipts for the sale of the gas and of the residuary products and for the hire of gas-meters and fit- tings and work done ; from this amount, by deducting the gross expenditure, the net receipts might be obtained, and a proper sum would then have to be deducted for tenants' profits and for interest on capital, rates, and taxes, the cost of renewal, repairs, and insurance of buildings and plant, and renewal of the mains. Queen v. Sheffield United Gas-Light & Coke Co., 32 L. J. [M. C], 139 (1863); 9 Jur. N. S. 623. 179 13. Foreign Company. — Income Tax, — Dividends. — A joint- stock company, established and incorporated by an act of Parlia- ment in England, but carrying on its business entirely abroad, is assessable for an income tax upon the whole of the annual profits of its business, whether such profits are or are not remitted to this country, or are or are not distributed as dividends among its shareholders resident in England or abroad, or are applied to some other legitimate purposes of the company abroad. Imperial Continental Gas Association v. Nicholson, 37 L. T. R. (N. S.) 717 (Exch. Div.), 14 Poor-Rates. — Occupiers. — Tenants. — A company, by authority of an act of Parliament, erected in the parish of A., in Cambridge, a gasometer and other gas apparatus^ and laid down mains and pipes in that and other parishes, and also in parochial land belonging to certain colleges in the University; and it was held that the company were ratable as occupiers of the land in the different parishes by their apparatus, pipes, &c., and were prop- erly assessed upon a sum which a tenant would pay yearly for the apparatus, pipes, &c., deducting the annual average expense of renovating the same, but not the profits of the trade. Queen v. Cambridge Gas-Light Co., 8 Adolph. & Ellis, 73 ; 3 Nev. & P. 262 (1838). 15. Poor-Hates. — Assessment. — Deductions. — In assessing gas-works for the poor-rate, and to ascertain the gross estimated rental, it was held that a deduction ought to be allowed for the cost of the meters, which belong to the gas company, and are put up on the premises of the consumers, and connected with the service pipes by solder, and by means of these pipes with the company's mains, as they are mere chattels ; but deductions ought not to be allowed for the value of the (1) retorts, (2) puri- fiers, (3) steam engines, (4) boilers, (5) gas-holders, and (6) trade fixtures, such as pumps and exhausters. Begina, &c. Phoenix Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. Inhabitants of Lee, L. R. 1 Q. B. 241 (1866). 16. Poor-Rates. — Method of Assessment. — By an act of Parliament a gas company was established for lighting the town 180 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. of Brighton, and authorized to break the ground and lay its pipes in the streets. The company, having so laid its pipes for the purpose of conveying the gas, was held to be ratable to the poor in respect of the land occupied by its pipes, and to the extent of the increased value of the land in conse- quence of its being used by the gas company for the purpose of conveying the gas. Rex V. Brighton Gas-Light & Coke Co. 5 Bam. & Cr. 466 (1826). 17. Poor-Rates. — Rentable Value. — By an act of Parliament the Birmingham Gas-Light & Coke Co. were authorized to sup- ply the town of Birmingham with gas, and to lay down pipes for the conveyance of gas from the manufactory to the houses of the consumers. They purchased lands and buildings, and erected retorts necessary for the manufacture of gas, and laid their pipes in the streets. The stock in trade and the profits of other manu- factories in the parish were not rated to the poor ; and it was held that the gas company were not ratable to the amount of their profits, but for a sum equal in amount to that for which the premises would let to other persons willing to carry on the same business. Rex V. Birmingham Gas-Light & Coke Co., 1 Barn. & Cr. 506 (1823). 18. Poor-Rates. — Exemption. — Under an act of Parliament certain lands to be embanked from the river Thames were ex- empted from all taxes and assessments whatsoever ; and it was held that a gas company occupying premises built on these lands were exempted from the payment of poor-rates in respect of such occupation. Rex V. London Gas-Light & Coke Co., 8 Barn. & Cr. 54 (1828). 19. Poor -Rate. — Notice of Appeal. — Practice. — A poor-rate was made for the township of Everton on July 8, 1870. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied therewith, on August 3d applied to the respondent for relief, but without success. The next sessions for the borough of Liverpool were held on September 1st, but no appeal against the rate was then entered. The company, having given the twenty-one days' notice required by the law, moved to enter an appeal against the rate at the sessions held on October TAXATION, II. 181 26th, contending that the sessions of September were not the next practicable sessions after the decision of the assessment coin- mittee, inasmuch as it would leave them only six days before the twenty-one days, which was not a sufficient time to enable them to determine whether they would appeal or not. The re- corder allowed the appeal to be entered and respited at the October sessions ; but it was held that it was competent to this court to review the decision of the recorder upon a motion for a prohibition, and that he was wrong in holding the September sessions not to be the next practicable sessions, and, conse- quently, that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at the October sessions. Liverpool United Gas-Light Co. v. Overseers, &c. of Everton, L. K. 6 C. P. 414 (1871). 20. Poor-Rates. — Valuation. — Under the local act a gas-light company laid down pipes in a parish, in soil not belonging to them, but manufactured their gas out of the parish. ' In valua- tion for poor-rates they were assessed for the value at which their mains and pipes would let, and for the value of the land occupied by the mains and pipes to let as a pipe-way ; but it was held that this method of valuation was not valid. Eex V. Birmingham & Staffordshire Gas-Light Co., 6 Adolph. & Ellis, 634. 21. Poor-Rates. — Method of Valuation. — Profits. — Where a gas company has its works in one borough, and its mains and pipes extend into other boroughs, the basis on which the prop- erty of the company must be rated, is to take the gross receipts, deduct the gross expenses, and so arrive at the profits, the aver- age of which for a short period of years will give the net annual value of the whole property, which is to bp proportioned over all the boroughs in which its pipes are laid, or through which the mains and pipes pass. Collingwood Gas Co. v. Mayor, &e., of Fitzroy, 6 Victoria (Webb, A'Beckett, & Williams), 72 ; 1 Australian Jurist, 82. 22. Rates. — Method of Valuation. — The principle on which the stations, works, buildings, &c., of a gas company are to be 182 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. valued, is as fixed property deriving some additional value from their capacity of being used as part of the gas-works. Sheffield Gas Co. v. Overseers of Sheffield, 8 Law T. K. 692 (1863). Scotch. 23. Poor-Rates. — Deductions. — Upon the appeal of a gas company from an assessment for purposes of taxation, made by the parochial board, it was held that deductions therefrom should be made as follows : 1st. Under the head of repairs, an allow- ance should be made to meet the cost of replacing meters and other parts of the works ; and, 2d, a sum on account of insurance should be deducted on the assumption that the gas company were their own insurers ; and, 3d, a proper sum should be de- ducted on account of the poor-rates. Glasgow Gas-Light Co. v. Adamson, 1 Court of Sess. R. (3d series) 727; 1 McPherson, 727 ; 35 Jurist, 410 (1863). 24. Surplus Revenue. — Municipality acting as Gas Co. — ^ In- come. — The Glasgow Corporate Gas Act of 1869 authorized the corporation to acquire certain gas-works and to manufacture and sell gas to the inhabitants. The act provided that the surplus revenue, after payment of annuities and the interest on the debt, should be applied to a sinking fund to reduce the debt and to the general purposes of the corporation ; and it was held that the corporation was liable to be assessed for income tax under sched- ule D, upon such surplus revenue. Glasgow GJas Commissioners v. Solicitor of Inland Eevenue, 3 Court of Sess. E. (4th series) 857. Irish. 25. Exemption. — Public Purpose. — Manufacture of Gas by Municipality. — The corporation of Limerick having, under the powers of their special act, purchased the Limerick gas-works, manufactured and sold gas, and the surplus profits, after pro- viding for certain charges and expenses, were applied, in pur- suance of the provisions of the special act, in reducing the town improvement rate. It was held that the gas-works were not occu- TITLE OP act; teespass. 183 pied for a public purpose, and -were not, therefore, exempt from being rated. Mayor of Limerick v. Commissioners, I. R. 6 Com. Law, 420. 26. Double Assessment — Where the Collector-General of Eates has, in pursuance of act of Parliament [12 & 13 Vict, c. 91], made a declaration of the poundage rates in Dublin for the ensuing year, and assessed the same as the property liable thereto, an alteration in the assessment cannot be made during the course of the year, by assessing, for additional rates, property which had been assessed for some of the rates only. Moylan v. Alliance & Dublin Consumers Gas Co., L R. 6 Com. Law, 294. See Gas Fixtures. TITLE or ACT. See Charter, 12. TRESPASS. 1. Damages. — License. — Trespass. — Laying Pipes in High- way. — A gas-light company which had the right to lay its pipes in streets and highways with the consent of the municipal au- thorities, dug a trench for its pipes along the highway, and run- ning through the plaintiff's farm, without the plaintiff's consent, but with the consent of the municipal authorities. It also ap- peared that when the plaintiff was informed what the defendants had done upon his land, he did not at once forbid further opera- tions, but had such conversations with the defendants' employes that the defendants claimed that he had thereby given them a license to lay their pipes through his land. In an action for dam- ages for the trespass committed by the gas company, it was held that even if the plaintiff had by such action and conversations given the defendants a license to lay their pipes in the highway, he could maintain his action for damages, as such license would not release the damages already sustained by him from thei unlawful entry of the company upon the plaintiff's lands ; and it was further held that the acquiescence of the plaintiff in the tres- passes of the company, known to be such by the company, did 184 EIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP GAS COMPANIES. not estop him from claiming damages or restraining the com- pletion of the work of laying the pipe through his land. Calkins v. Bloomfield & Rochester Natural Gas Co., 1 N. T. Supreme (T. & C.) 541. 2. Trespass. — Right to lay Pipes. — lujunctioii refused. — Where a gas company which, under their charter, claimed an exclusive right to lay gas-pipes in the streets of Norwich, during a controversy with the defendants, who had no charter, but were organized under the general law, but who had been authorized by the common council to lay such pipes, and, for the purpose of preventing the latter from laying their pipes from their gas- works into said city, purchased a lot of land so situated that it was necessary that the defendants' main pipe should pass through it, and the defendants thereupon laid their gas-pipes across that part of such lot which lay within the limits of the public highway and declined to remove it, it was held that as the real controversy between the two gas companies was in rela- tion to the exclusive right of the plaintiff to use the highway, irrespective of any title to the soil, and as an action of trespass could be brought for any damage the defendants might do to the land, the injunction prayed for must be refused. Norwich Gas-Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas Co., 25 Conn. 19. See Injunction, 10 ; Statutes, 9 ; Municipality, 7. TEOVER See Agency, 4, 13. TEUSTEE. See Stock op Gas Company, 12; Bonds, 1. ULTEA VIEES. See Contbact, 3 ; Debts, 2 ; Lease, 1 ; Municipality, 10, 13, 15. UNITED STATES EEVENUE. See Taxation, 1. TROVER — WORDS. 185 WAIVER See Agenot, 1 1 ; Damages, 1 ; Supply of Gas, i. WELLS, INJUEY TO. See Evidence, 4, 12 ; Landlord and Tenant, 1 ; Nuisance, IL ; Statutes, 5, 13. WHAEF. Navigable Waters. — Riparian Rights. — State Land. — Wharf. — In an action for damages for excluding the plaintiff from the use of the defendants' wharf and premises, which were used by them for purposes of manufacturing gas, the plaintiff claiming the right to use them, as one of the public, as a place for loading and unloading, it appeared that the wharf was built below the line of low-water mark and in navigable waters ; and it was held that this fact gave the public no right to use the wharf, although it was erected without the consent of the State, and that if the State sees fit to permit such structures to remain, no private individual has any right of entry upon them without the owners' consent. Wetmore v. Brooklyn Gas-Light Co., 42 N. Y. 384. See Dockage; Nuisance, 11 ; Taxation, 5. WORDS. See Insurance, 4. For meaning of word " Gas," see Insurance, 3. " " "Public Post," see Evidence, 10. " " " " Party," see Evidence, 27. " " " " Shut off the Gas," see Evidence, 9. " " " " Nuisance," see Nuisance, 1, 2, 3. " " " "Suffer," see Statutes, 5, 13. " " " " Common Gas," see Statutes, 7. " " " " Buildings," see Statutes, 8. " " " "Public," see Statutes, 15. " " " "Dwell," see Statutes, 6. " " " " Free from Charge," see Taxation, 2. Paet II. THE STATUTES OP THE YAEIOXJS UNITED STATES In Force in the Year 1882, RELATING TO THE FORMATION, MANAGEMENT, AND EIGHTS OP GAS COMPANIES. PART 11. EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. AEIZONA. An Act for the Protection of Consumers of lUaminating Gas and for the Protection of Gas Companies. 1881, No. 70. Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona: § 1. Upon the application, in writing, of tlie owner or occu- pant of any premises situated within one hundred feet of any main laid down by any gas-light company, organized or doing business in this Territory for the purpose of supplying illuminat- ing gas to the public, and the payment by such owner or occu- pant of aU money due from him to such company, and all charges made and deposits required by said company for making service connections, supplying gas-meters, and other necessary appli- ances, such company shall supply gas as may be required for illumination by such occupant or owner for such premises ; and if, for the space of ten days after such application, and the pay- ment of such money and charges, and the making of such de- posit, such company shall neglect or refuse to supply gas as aforesaid, the company shall forfeit and pay to such applicant the sum of five dollars per day for every day thereafter during which such refusal or neglect shall continue : provided, that no such company shall be required to supply illuminating gas to any applicant unless the works of said company shall be in full and complete working order and in operation, or when, from any unavoidable accident or circumstance, the company shall be unable to do so. § 2. Any officer or agent of any such company, for that pur- pose duly appointed and authorized by such company, may at 190 EXTRACTS PEOM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. all reasonable times, upon exhibiting written authority, signed by the president or secretary or manager of such company, enter any dwelling, store, building, or premises lighted by gas supplied by such company, for the purpose of inspecting and examining the pipes or meters, for regulating the supply of gas, or for ascertaining the quantity of gas consumed ; and if at any time any person shall directly or indirectly prevent or hinder or inter- fere with any such officer from so entering any such premises, or from making any such examination, regulation, or inspection, he shall, for every such offence, be deemed guilty of a misde- meanor, and shall forfeit and pay to said company the sum of fifty dollars, which may be collected in the same manner as other lawful claims and demands. § 3. If any person or persons supplied with gas by any such company shall neglect or refuse to pay the rent or remuneration for the same, or for the meters, pipes, or fittings let or sold by the company for supplying or using said gas, or for ascertaining the quantity consumed, as required by his or their contract with the company, after being required by such company to do so, such company may prevent and stop the gas from entering the premises of such person or persons ; and in all cases in which such company may be by this act authorized to cut off or stop the supply of gas from any premises, its officers, agents, or work- men may enter into or upon any such premises between the hours of seven o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon of any day, and disconnect and remove and take and carry away any meters, pipe, fittings, or other appliances, the prop- erty of said company, from the mains or pipes of the company or connected therewith. § 4. Every person-who shall wilfully injure, or suffer to be injured, any meter, pipe, fittings, or other appliance belonging to any such company, or interfere or tamper with any meter, to prevent it from duly and properly registering the quantity of gas supplied through the same, or shall alter the index of any such meter, or in any manner or way hinder or interfere with its action or just registration, or shall fraudulently burn the gas of such company or waste the same, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for every offence forfeit and pay to such com- •ARKANSAS. 191 pany the amount of damage by it sustained by reason of such injury, prevention, interference, tampering, waste, consumption, or hindrance. § 5. Every person who shall lay or place, or caxise to be laid or placed, any pipe or other appliance or apparatus to connect or communicate with any main or pipe belonging to said company, or shall otherwise burn or use or waste, or cause or permit to be burned or used or wasted, any gas supplied or made by any such company, without the knowledge or consent of said company, or unless the same shall pass through and be measured and regis- tered by a meter furnished by said company for ascertaining the quantity of gas supplied to or consumed by such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall forfeit and pay to such company the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, and in ad- dition thereto shall pay to said company the amount of damage by it sustained by reason of such act. § 6. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. Approved, March 4, 1881. AEKANSAS. Arkansas Acts of 1874-75. Chap. I. Incorporation of Municipal Corporations. § 14. They shall have power to provide a supply of water by the construction and regulation of wells, pumps, cisterns, reser- voirs, or water-works ; to prevent the unnecessary waste of water ; to prevent the pollution of the water, and injury to the water- works ; and, for the purpose of establishing or supplying water- works, any municipal corporation may go beyond its territorial limits ; and its jurisdiction, to prevent or punish any pollution or injury to the stream or source of water, or to the water- works, shall extend five miles beyond its corporate limits. They shall have power to provide for lighting the streets and alleys of the city by gas or otherwise, and to authorize the construction of gas-works and of street railroads. That for the purpose of pro- viding water, gas, or street railroads, the Mayor and Council may 192 EXTRACTS PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. contract with any person or company to construct and operate the same, and may grant to such persons or company, for the time which may be agreed upon, the exclusive privilege of using the streets and alleys of such city for such purpose or purposes. CALIFOENIA. Code 1876. Vol. I. Public Officers. — Appointment § 368. The inspector of gas-meters is appointed by the Gov- ernor, with the consent of the Senate, and holds office for the term of two years. Article XV. Inspector of Gas-Meters. § 577. The inspector of gas-meters must provide and keep suitable apparatus for testing the accuracy of gas-meters. § 578. He must provide a suitable seal with which to seal meters inspected by him and found to be correct, and must file a copy of such seal in the office of the Secretary of State. § 579. He may appoint deputies. § 580. He must, whenever requested, inspect and test the accuracy of any gas-meters used or intended to be used for mea- suring the quantity of gas furnished by any gas company in the State, and when he finds the same correct, seal the same with his seal. No meter shall be accounted correct which registers an amount more than three per cent greater or less than the amount actually passed through it, but the inspector may seal meters registering more than three per cent against the gas com- pany, when requested by the company to do so. Eeasonable notice shall be given to the applicant, and also the individual or gas company furnishing, or proposing to furnish, the gas, of the time and place of the inspection of the meter, and opportunity afforded them, their servants or agents, to be present and witness the inspection. § 581. Any individual, or gas company, placing or using for CALIFORNIA. 193 measuring gas a meter which has been inspected by the State inspector and does not bear his seal, shall be guilty of a mis- demeanor, nor shall any charge for gas supplied through such a meter be legally collectible ; nor shall the refusal of a consumer to pay the same give authority to the company to refuse to sup- ply him with gas. When a meter, properly sealed, is once placed for the use of a consumer, an inspection may be had as often as the consumer may request the same in writing, he to pay the fee therefor whenever the meter is found not to register too fast ; when the meter is found to register too fast, the gas company must pay the fee, together with the cost of removing and resetting the meter, and the inspector shall remove the seal if there be one upon it ; provided, that when any meter found incorrect shall be corrected, it shall be sealed by the inspector without additional charge, if presented to him for reinspection within one month. § 582. He may collect a fee of two dollars and fifty cents for each meter tested. § 583. He must reside in the city of San Francisco. § 584. He must execute an of&cial bond in the sum of five thousand dollars. Title VI., Chapter II., Article III. § 2634. Every gas, water, or railroad corporation has power to lay conductors and tracks through the public ways and squares in any city, village, or town, where it is established, with the consent of the municipal authorities thereof, and under such reasonable regulations as the authorities and the law prescribe. Title III, Chapter III. § 4410. The common council, by ordinance approved by the mayor, may grant to any gas or water company the privilege of laying down pipes in the streets and alleys of such city for sup- plying gas and water for the vstreets and buildings thereon, for a term not exceeding twenty-five years. § 4411. Heservations by cities. — In exercising the author- ity mentioned in preceding section, the common council must reserve the right to grant similar privileges to other companies, 13 194 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. and require the laying down of the pipes to be under the reason- able direction of the city authorities ; and to be so laid as to do no injury to the proper use of the paving, planking, or macadam- izing of the streets and alleys, nor to private property situate thereon. § 4412. The common council may contract with gas an^ water companies for supplying the streets and public buildings with all gas and water necessary for their proper use ; the rates to be paid therefor must not be fixed for a term exceeding five years, and the city authorities must reserve the right to abrogate such contract whenever gas or water is offered to be supplied at two thirds of such fixed contract price. § 4413. Restrictions and conditions to be imposed. — In grant- ing authority to lay down pipes, and in contracting for gas and water, the common council must impose such restrictions and conditions, and provide for such locations and construction of gas and water works and pipes as to work the least possible pubUc or private inconvenience, and provide for enforcing such restric- tions and conditions. Title 15. — Gas Corporations. § 628. No corporation hereafter formed must supply any city or town with gas, or lay down mains or pipes for that purpose in the streets or alleys thereof, without permission from the city or town authorities granted in pursuance of the provisions of the Political Code, or of statutes expressly continued by such code. Nor niust such corporation furnish or use any gas-meter which has not been proved and sealed by the inspector of gas- meters. § 629. Upon the application in writing of the owner or occu- pant of any building or premises distant not more than one hundred feet from any main of the corporation, and paj^ment by the applicant of all money due from him, the corporation must supply gas as required for such building or premises, and cannot refuse on the ground of any indebtedness of any former owner or occupant thereof, unless the applicant has undertaken to pay the same. If, for the space of ten days after such application, the corporation refuses or neglects to supply the gas required, it CALIFORNIA. 195 must pay to the applicant the sum of fifty dollars as liquidated damages, and five dollars a day as liquidated damages, for every day such refusal or neglect continues thereafter. § 630. No corporation is required to lay service pipe where serious obstacles exist to laying it, unless the applicant,* if re- quired, deposits in advance with the corporation a sum of money sufficient to pay the cost of laying such service pipe, or his pro- portion thereof § 631. Any agent of a gas corporation exhibiting written authority, signed by the president or secretary thereof for such purpose, may enter any building or premises lighted with gas supplied by such corporation, to inspect the gas-meters therein, to ascertain the quantity of gas supplied or consumed. Every owner or occupant of such buildings who hinders or prevents such entry or inspection must pay to the corporation the sum of fifty dollars as liquidated damages. § 632. All gas corporations may shut off the supply of gas from any person who neglects or refuses to pay for the gas sup- plied, or the rent for any meter, pipes, or fittings, provided by the corporation as required by his contract ; and for the purpose of shutting off the gas in such case, any employee of the corpo- ration may enter the building or premises of such person, be- tween the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon of any day, and remove therefrom any property of the corporation used in supplying gas. § 498. Every person who, with intent to injure or defraud, makes or causes to be made any pipe, tube, or other instru- ment, and connects the same, or causes it to be connected, with any main, service pipe, or other pipe for conducting or supply- ing illuminating gas, in such manner as to supply illuminat- ing gas to any burner or orifice, by or at which illuminating gas is consumed, around or without passing through the meter provided for the measuring and registering the quantity con- sumed, or in any other manner so as to evade payment therefor, and every person who, with like intent, injures or alters any gas- meter or obstructs its action, is guilty of a misdemeanor. § 624. Every person who wilfully breaks, digs up, obstructs, or injures any pipe or main for conducting gas or water, or 196 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. any works erected for supplying buildings with gas or water, or any appurtenances or appendages therewith connected, is guilty of a misdemeanor. VoL n. § 15,418. Approved April 4, 1870. Section 1. From and after the passage of the act, it shall he lawful for the corporate authorities of every city and town in this State, and for the supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, to grant to any gas_ company the privilege of laying down pipes in the streets or alleys of such towns and cities, in- cluding San Francisco, as aforesaid, and supplying gas for the lighting of the streets and buildings thereon ; such privilege to continue for a term not exceeding twenty-five years. § 15,419. Section 2. Every such license or privilege shall he upon condition that the authorities shall have the right at any time to allow similar privileges to other companies ; and upon the further condition that the laying down of such pipes shall be subject to the reasonable direction of the said authorities, and shall do as little injury as possible to the paving, plankings or macadamizing of the streets and alleys aforesaid; and that whenever the paving, planking, or macadamizing of such streets or alleys is displaced for the purpose of laying down pipes or removing the same, or making connections therewith, or repairs thereto, such paving, planking, or macadamizing shall be re- placed in as good order as practicable by sach company. § 15,420. Section 3. The authorities of every such town or city, including San Francisco, as aforesaid, may contract with any gas company for lighting the streets thereof ; but no such contract shall be made at a fixed rate for a longer term than five years, nor at a variable or other rate for a longer term than ten years, nor shaU any such contract be made at a higher rate than that now paid in the city of San Francisco. § 15,421. Section 4. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the authorities of such towns and cities shall affix to every license or contract such conditions as wiU be for the benefit of the public, and may secure their enforcement by any orders or ordinances which they may deem necessary. They may, also, control the location and construction of works, so that they may CALIPOBNIA. 197 be erected in suitable localities to give the least discomfort or annoyance to the public. Vol. in. Supplement. 1880. Act 1877-1878. Act approved Marcb 4, 1878. § 1. That in all cities in the State of California having a population of one hundred thousand or more, the local legislative body thereof, whether known and. designated as the Board of Supervisors, or Board of Aldermen, or Common Council,, or Board of Trustees, or otherwise, are hereby authorized and re- quired to fix the standard quality and illuminating power of gas to be furnished, and the rate and price for each one thousand cubic feet to be charged therefor by any person, company, or corporation, whose pipes or mains are, or shall be, laid down in the streets or highways of such city, for the purpose of supplying gas for the use of such city, or for the inhabitants thereof, or for such city and its inhabitants : provided, however, that said board or local authority shall not fix or establish the standard quality and illuminating power of gas in such city at less' than sixteenT candle power, or such that five cubic feet of gas per hour so fur- nished shall give light at least equal to that afforded by the combustion of sixteen standard sperm candles consuming one hundred and twenty grains of sperm each per hour, the burner to be used in making such test to be that best adapted to the economical consumption of gas ; and provided, further, that such board of supervisors, or local legislative authority, by whatever name it may be known, shall not fix or establish the rate or price of gas so furnished to such city or its inhabitants at any greater price or rate than three dollars' per thousand cubic feet. § 2. It shall be the duty of the mayor of each city having the population mentioned in section one of this act, and such mayor is hereby required, within thirty days after the passage and approval of this act, to appoint, subject to the approval of the board of supervisors, or other local legislative body afore- said, a person of competent experience and knowledge of and concerning the proper qualities and illuminating power of gas, and who shall not be directly or indirectly interested in or con- 198 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. nected with any person, company, or corporation, engaged in the manufacture or furnishing of illuminating gas in such city, or . elsewhere, either to such city or its inhabitants,, or any of them, either as a stockholder or otherwise, who shall be known and designated as Gas Inspector of such city, who shall hold his said office for the term of two years, or until his successor shall be appointed and qualified ; subject, however, to removal from his said office by the mayor, with the concurrence of a majority of the board of supervisors, or other local legislative board afore- said, for any one of the following causes, to wit : by reason of any interest in the manufacture or furnishing of gas in such city, whether such interest existed at the date of his appoint- ment or was afterward acquired, or for want of competent knowl- edge, skm, or experience, to enable him properly to discharge the duties of said office, or for any neglect, misconduct, or inef- ficiency in the discharge of the duties of said office, to the pre- judice of such city, or its inhabitants, or any of them. The person so appointed shall, before he enters upon the duties of said office, and within ten days after his appoiutment and confirmation, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation before the county judge of the county in which such city is situated, that he will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge all the duties required by this act and the ordinances or resolutions of said board passed or adopted under and pursuant to the pro- visions thereof, as such gas inspector of such city, and shall also, within the same time, give bond to the city, in and for which he is appointed, in the sum of ten thousand dollars, with sureties to be approved by said board, conditioned for the faith- ful performance of the duties of said office, which said oath and bond shall be filed with the clerk of said board. Such gas inspector shall be entitled to a salary to be fixed and allowed by said board, which shall be paid monthly out of the general fund of such city. § 3. It shall be the duty of such inspector, immediately upon his appointment and qualification as such officer, as aforesaid, to make a careful examination and inquiry, by inspection, letter, or otherwise, as to the quality and illuminating power of the gas furnished and used in the principal cities of the United States, CALIFORNIA. 199 and the prices charged therefor, and also the comparative cost of the manufacture and supply of gas in other cities of the United States, with the cost of the manufacture and supply of the same in the city for which he is such inspector, and report fully the result of such examination and information to said board within six months after his appointment and qualification ; and, upon receiving such reports, said board shall proceed to fix and estab- lish the quality and standard illuminating power of gas to be used in such city, and the maximum price to be charged therefor ; and such standard and price may be changed by said board from time to time, not oftener than once every year, as increased consumption or other circumstances may, in their judgment, require. § 4. After said board shall have fixed and established the quality and illuminating power and the price of gas, as herein- before, it shall be the duty of such inspector to examine and inspect, from time to time, at least once every week, without notice to the person, company, or corporation furnishing the same, the quality and illuminating power of the gas furnished to such city and the inhabitants thereof, and in case the same shall fall below the standard fixed by said board, the said in- spector shall forthwith report the same to said board; and at such other times as he may be requested thereto by the mayor or any committee of said board, he shall report to said board upon any and all matters connected with the manufacture, supply, and consumption of gas coming within the scope of his of&cial duties, and specially upon any subject or subjects, matters or things, connected therewith and specified in such request. , § 5. After the said board shall have fixed and established the quality and standard illuminating power of the gas, and the price per thousand cubic feet, as in this act provided to be charged therefor, it shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, or company to furnish such city, or any inhabitant thereof, or other person therein, for illuminating purposes, gas of a lower standard or quality, oi to charge or receive therefor a higher price, than is provided by said board, under the authority and subject to the limitations of this act ; and for every violation of 200 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. the provisions of this act, or the provisions of any order, resolu- tion, or ordinance of said board made in pursuance thereof, every such person, company, or corporation shall incur a penalty of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, to be recovered in a civil action in the name and for the use of . such city, in any court of competent jurisdiction ; and each day upon which such person, company, or corporation shall, without reasonable cause or excuse therefor, furnish gas of a lower quality or standard illuminating power than that fixed by said board, shall constitute and be considered and held one violation thereof, and each month or shorter period for which said person, company, or corporation shall take an account of gas consumed, and for which they shall charge or receive a price greater than that fixed by said board, shall be held and regarded as one offence, and any number of such offences of either class, or both, may be joined in the same action, and the several penalties for the several violations proved or confessed in said action may be united and recovered in the same judgment ; and such person, company, or corporation shall also be liable to such city and to any and each person or corporation who shall be injured by any such violation, in double the amount of damages actually sus- tained. § 6. All actions for penalties under the provisions of this act shall be tried by the court, unless a jury be demanded by either party ; and when such action shall be tried by a jury, the jury shall find, as to each violation charged in the complaint, that " the defendant is guilty," or " the defendant is not guilty," and, upon each charge in respect to which the jury has found the defendant guilty, the court shall fix the penalty and render judgment for the aggregate amount of such penalties, together with costs of suit. § 7. AU penalties recovered under this act shall be paid into the General Fund of such city. § 8. This act shall apply to the city and county of San Francisco, as well as to cities whose municipal government is distinct froin the county in which they are located. COLOEADO. 201 COLORADO. General Laws of Colorado, 1877. Chapter ZIX. Gas Companies. IT 293. § 103. Any three or more persons may associate under the provisions of this act for the purpose of forming a company for the purpose of manufacturing illuminating gas for the supply of the inhabitants of any incorporated city or town, and lighting the streets thereof; the mayor and council of such incorporated city or town are herehy empowered to authorize such incorpo- rated company to excavate so much of the streets thereof as may be necessary to lay down street pipes for conducting illuminat- ing gas, as weU as for the repairs of said street pipes from time to time, under such regulations as the said mayor and council may deem adequate or proper. ^294. § 104. It shall be lawful for any corporation whose objects shall be to supply illuminating gas to any city or town, or the inhabitants thereof, to lease, purchase, hold, and convey such coal lands within this State as said corporation may deem necessary for the purpose of supplying their works with coal for the manufacture aforesaid ; and said corporation shall also have power, and is hereby authorized, to sell coal known as coke, or the coal from which the illuminating gas shall have been ex- tracted, as well as other coal from the mines owned by said company. IT 295. § 105. The term of existence of every corporation authorized to be created for the purpose of manufacturing ilLu- rainating gas shall not exceed thirty years. 1" 296. § 106. Any company formed under the provisions of this act for the purpose of constructing any ditch, flume, bridge, ferry, or telegraph Hue, shall within ninety days from the date of their certificate commence work on such ditch, flume, bridge, ferry, or telegraph line as shall be named in the certificate, and shall prosecute the work with due diligence until the same is completed, and the time of the completion of any such ditch, bridge, ferry, or telegraph line shall not be extended beyond a period of two years from the time work ; was commenced as aforesaid; and any company failing to commence work within 202 EXTBACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. ninety days from the date of the certificate, or failing to com- plete the same within two years from the time of commence- ment as aforesaid, shall forfeit all right to the water so claimed, and the same shall be subject to be claimed by any other com- pany ; the time for the completion of any flume constructed under the provisions of this act shall not be extended beyond a period of four years ; provided, this section shall not apply to any ditch or flume, for mining or other purposes, constructed through and upon any grounds owned by the corporation ; and provided, further, that any company formed under the provisions of this act to construct a ditch for domestic, agricultural, irri- gating, milling, and manufacturing purposes, or any or either thereof, shall have three years from the time of commencing work thereon, — within which to complete the same, — but no longer. IT 297. § 107. Any person who shall wilfully or maliciously damage or interfere with any road, ditch, flume, bridge, ferry, railroad, or telegraph line, or any of the fixtures, tools, imple- ments, appurtenances, or any property of any company which may be organized under the provisions of this act, upon convic- tion thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the offence shall have been committed, shall be deemed guUty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the court, said imprisonment not to exceed one year, and said fine not to exceed five hundred dollars, which fine shall be paid into the county treasury for the use of common schools, and said offender shall also pay all damages that any such corporation may sustain, together with costs of suit. CONNECTICUT. General Statutes of Connecticut. Title 16, chap. 15. Revision of 1875. § 23. The standard measure for the sale of illuminating gas by meter shall be the cubic foot, containing 62.321 pounds avoir- CONNECTICUT. 203 dupois weight of distilled or rain water, weighed in air of the temperature of 62° Fahrenheit, the harometer being at twenty- nine and one half inches; and no such gas shall be merchantable unless a standard argand biu-ner consuming five cubic feet of it an hour shall give a light, as measured by the phonometric [sic] apparatus in ordinary use, of not less than twelve standard sperm candles, each consuming one hundred and twenty grains an hour. § 24. The governor shall, every third year beginning in 1877, appoint a resident of Hartford or New Haven an inspector gen- eral of gas-meters and illuminating gas, who shall hold his of&ce three years; but the person appointed during the year 1874 shall hold his office until September 1st, 1877, and the governor may fill vacancies for the unexpired part of any term. Said inspector general shall appoint a deputy in every town and city where gas- works are established, when requested by the mayor of such city, the selectmen of such town, or the warden of any borough therein. The inspector general, or any of his deputies, shall inspect and prove the accuracy of every gas-meter in his town furnished to any person by a manufacturer of gas, at the request of any consumer, or such manufacturer. Such inspection shall be made for a temperature of 60° Fahrenheit, and at the average pressure at which gas is supplied in such town ; and he shall stamp or mark every such meter found not to vary more than two per cent from the standard, with some suitable device, and his name, and the date of its inspection. § 25. One doUar for each meter so inspected, with the cost of moving and replacing it, not exceeding fifty cents, shall be paid to the officer inspecting it, if it be found correct, by the consumer if he requested such inspection, otherwise by the party furnish- ing the gas. § 26. The inspector general and his deputy shall inspect monthly the quality and purity of illuminating gas furnished in his town or any city or borough therein, if requested by the mayor of the city, warden of the borough, or selectmen of the town, and report to them the result of such inspection, for which he shall be paid five dollars by the town, city, or borough request- ing it. When any gas so furnished shall be found upon such 204 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES, inspection to be below the standard value, on the average for the quarter, the person furnishing it shall make a deduction in, favor of the consumer from the price charged for gas of a legal standard, proportioned to the inferiority of the gas as reported by the inspector. Title 20, cbap. 4. § 35. Every person who shall wilfully injure any building, or works of any incorporated gas company, or any gas-pipe, gas- post, lantern on such post, burner or reflector, or any matter or thing pertaining to the same, or interfere with the operations thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. Title 20, chap. 11. § 5. Every person who, with intent to defraud another, shall connect any instrument or contrivance with any pipe for supply- ing illuminating gas, so as to effect the consumption thereof without its passing through the meter provided for the measuring and registering the quantity of gas passing through such pipe, or who, with like intent, shall wilfully injure, alter, obstruct, or prevent, the action of any such meter, or any agent of any man- ufacturer of illuminating gas, who shall defraud another in quantity or quality, in the sale of such gas, in any manner, shall be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or fined not more than fifty dollars, or both. Act of 1877, chap. 138. Approved March 22, 1877. § 1. Any town, city, or borough having a gas manufactory established within its limits may appropriate a sum not exceed- ing three thousand dollars for the purchase of proper apparatus to test gas and gas-meters, and which apparatus may be used by the inspector general of gas-meters and gas, or by his deputies. § 2. Whenever any town, city, or borough shall have pur- chased apparatus for the testing of gas as provided in -section first, the inspector general of gas-meters, or his deputies, shall seal every meter which shall be found not to vary more than CONNECTICUT. 205 two per cent from the standard established by law, and if any party furnishing gas to consumers shall neglect or refuse to fur- nish such consumers, after request made in writing, with meters which have been sealed by the inspector general, or one of his deputies, within thirty days after demand made by such con- sumer, such party shall forfeit the sum of ten dollars per month to any person who shall sue therefor, and shall not be entitled to recover by any action at law or equity for any gas furnished to such consumers through an unsealed meter. § 3. No illuminating gas shall be merchantable unless a standard argand burner consuming five cubic feet of it an hour shall give a light, as measured by the phonometric [sic] appa- ratus in ordinary use, of not less than fifteen standard sperm candles, each consuming one hundred and twenty grains an hour. Act 1877, chap. 77, § 4. Any person who alone, or in pursuance or furtherance of an agreement or combination with others to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute or controversy between a gas, telegraph, or railroad corporation, and its employes or workmen, shall wrongfully and without legal authority use violence towards or intimidate any person in any way or by any means, with intent thereby to compel such person against his will to do, or to abstain from doing, any act which such person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing ; or shall induce or endeavor, or attempt to induce such person to leave the employ and service of such corporation by bribery, or in any manner or by any means, with intent thereby to further the objects of such combination or agreement ; or shall in any way interfere with such person while in the performance of his duty on the premises of such corporation; or shall threaten or persistently follow such person in a disorderly manner, or injure or threaten to injure his property with said intents, or either of them, shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months. 206 EXTEACT3 PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. ILLINOIS. Illinois Eev. Stat. 1880. General Laws eegaeding Cor- porations POR Pecuniary Propit. Chap. 38, § 117. Any person who, with intent to injure or defraud any gas company, body corporate, or individual, shall injure, alter, ob- struct, or prevent the action of any meter provided for the pur- pose of measuring and registering the quantity of gas consumed by or at any burner, orifice, or place, or cause or procure any such meter to be injured or altered, or the action thereof to be obstructed or prevented, or who shaU. make or cause to be made any connection with any gas-pipe so as to conduct or supply illuminating or inflammable gas to any burner or orifice, from which such gas may be consumed without passing through or being registered by a meter, shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by fine not exceeding two hun- dred and fifty dollars, or both. Chapter 74, page 636. App. May 29, 1879. Be it enacted, &c., that all gas companies, persons, or associa- tions engaged in manufacturing gas for public or private use in this State, who shall require any person, corporation, or associa- tion of persons to deposit any sum or sums of money with such gas company, person, or association so furnishing gas, for any purpose whatever, such company, person, or association with whom such money may be deposited shall pay to the party making such deposit, annually, interest on such deposit at the rate of five (5) per cent per annum. Chapter 120, § 14. ' The personal property of gas and coke companies, except the pipes laid down, shall be listed and assessed in the town, vil- lage, district, or city where the principal works are located. Gas mains and pipes, laid in roads, streets, or alleys, shaU ILLINOIS, INDIANA. 207 be held to be personal property, and listed and assessed as such in the town, district, village, or city where the same are laid. INDIANA. Statutes of Indiana. Eevision of 1876. Vol. I. Chapter 167. § 1. That whenever three or more persons may desire to form a company to carry on any kind of manufacturing, mining, me- chanical, or chemical business, or to furnish motive power to carry on such business, or to supply any city or village with water, or to form union stock-yards and transit companies, and operating, maintaining, and transacting the business inci- dent to such companies, or to form grain elevator companies, and constructing, maintaining, and operating elevators, and trans- acting the business incident thereto, or to form companies for the purpose of buying and selling dry goods, carpets, boots and shoes, millinery goods, fancy goods, or jewelry, in connection with the manufacture of such goods and articles into any articles for which they are suitable, and for the sale of such articles, when they are so manufactured, they shall make, sign, and ac- knowledge, before some of&cer capable to take acknowledgment of deeds, a certificate in writing, which sliall state the corporate name adopted by the company, the object of its formation, the amount of capital stock, the term of its existence, not, however, to exceed fifty years, the number of directors and their names, who shall manage the affairs of such company for the first year, and the name of the town and county in which its operations are to be carried on, and file the same in the office of the recorder of such county, which shall be placed upon the rec- ord, and a duplicate thereof in the office of the secretary of State. § 5. Corporations building steamboat, and other vessels shall have the right to construct marine railways, and all other neces- 208 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. sary fixtures and machinery for repairing and launching the same, and gas-light companies may lay pipes through the streets and alleys of any incorporated city or town by repairing or mak- ing good any injury done thereto. Vol. I. Chapter 219. § 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana that every railroad, plank-road, macadamized, and turn- pike road company, all companies for the manufacture of rail- road or other iron, and any company for the manufacture of gas to supply light for any city, town, or village, and bridge companies organized under the laws of this State, heretofore incorporated or hereafter to be incorporated within this State, shall have fuU power and authority from time to time to borrow money upon its own credit at any rate of interest per annum not exceeding the legal rate of interest allowed by the law of the State where the loans may be negotiated or the money borrowed, to be agreed upon between the parties, for the sole purpose of constructing its roads and furnishing material therefor, and for the purpose of enabling such manufacturing company to put their miUs in operation, and to carry on such manufacturing business, with all necessary machinery and fixtures necessary to cany on the opera- tions of such company ; and as an evidence of such loans, or for the purchase of materials and necessary machinery on time, may issue its corporate bonds or promissory notes, and to secure the repayment thereof, with the interest which shall accrue, may mortgage its road, income, mills, real estate, and other property, and may by its president or other officers or agents sell, dispose of, or negotiate such bonds, notes, or the stock of such company, at such times and at such places, either within or without this State, and at such rates and for such prices as in the opinion of such company will best advance its interests. Approved February 5, 1852. KANSAS — MARYLAND. 209 KANSAS. Compiled Laws, 1879. Chapter 23, article 12. Gas aad Water Corporations. § 114. Any gas or water corporation shall have full power to manufacture and sell, and to furnish such quantities of gas or water, as may be required by the city, town, or village where located, for public or private buildings, or for other purposes ; and such corporation shall have power to lay pipes, main and conductors, for conducting gas or water through the streets, lanes, alleys, and squares, in such city, town, or village, with the con- sent of the municipal authorities thereof, and under such regu- lations as they may prescribe. § 115. The municipal authorities of any city, town, or village, in which any gas-light or water corporation shall exist, are hereby authorized to contract with any such corporation for the lighting, or supplying with water, the streets, lots, lanes, squares, and public places, in any such city, town, or village. MARYLAND. Code 1878. Title 23, Akticle 40. Gas-Light Companies. § 96. Any gas-light corporation, forried under this article, shall have full power to manufacture and sell, and to furnish such quantities of gas as may be required in any city, town, or county of this State, in which, or adjoining which, the same may be located, for lighting the streets, roads, and public and private buildings, and for other purposes ; and such corporation is hereby authorized and empowered to lay conductors or pipes for the transmission of gas in any city, town, or county, under the streets, squares, lanes, alleys, and roads thereof, paved or unpaved, and to connect the same with any manufactory, public or private build- ing, lamp, or other structure or object, and with the place of 14 210 EXTEACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. supply, subject, however, to any law or ordinance that may be passed by the municipal authorities of the city or town, or the county commissioners having jurisdiction, for the filling up and repaying any street, square, lane, or alley, or road, under which the said pipes may be laid. MASSACHUSETTS. Massachusetts Public Statutes, 1882. Of the Inspection of Gas and G-as -Meters. Chapter 61. § 1. There shall be an inspector and an assistant inspector of gas-meters and of illuminating gas, appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, and who shall be sworn to the faithful discharge of their duties. The, inspector shall hold office for three years from the time of his appoint- ment, and until the appointment of his successor, but may be removed by the Governor and Council at their pleasure. The assistant inspector shall hold office for three years from the time of his appointment, unless sooner removed as aforesaid. § 2. The salary of the inspector shall be two thousand dollars a year, which shall include such portion of his office-rent and expenses as shall not be paid out of the fees as provided in sec- tion six, and the salary of the assistant inspector shall be twelve hundred dollars a year, and the inspector and assistant inspector shall be paid, in addition to their salaries, all actual travelling expenses necessarily incurred by them in the performance of their official duties. Said salaries and expenses shall be paid out of the treasury of the Commonwealth, but no larger amount shall be so paid out than is actually paid into the treasury in the manner hereinafter provided. § 3. The inspector shall give bond to the treasurer of the Commonwealth in the penal sum of five thousand dollars for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office, and the assistant inspector shall give like bond in the penal sum of two thousand dollars. MASSACHUSETTS. 211 § 4. The inspector and assistant inspector shall not in any way, directly or indirectly, be interested pecuniarily in the manu- facture or sale of illuminating gas, of gas-meters, or of any article or commodity used by gas-light companies, or used for any pur- pose connected with the consumption of gas, or with a gas com- pany, and shall not give certificates or written opinions to a maker or vendor of any such article or commodity. § 5. The inspector shall have an office in Boston, and shall, when required as hereinafter provided, inspect, examine, prove, and ascertain the accuracy of any and all gas-meters to be used for measuring the quantity of illuminating gas to be furnished to or for the use of any person, and shall seal, stamp, or mark every such meter, when found to be correct, with some suitable device, which shall be recorded in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and with the inspector's name, the date of his inspection, and the number of burners which the meter is calcu- lated to supply. He shall also annually, in the month of Janu- ary, report to the general court the. number of meters inspected and sealed during the preceding year, with such other informa- tion as he may deem expedient. The assistant inspector shall, under the direction of the inspector, aid him in performing the duties of his office. § 6. When the inspector finds himself unable to attend to his duties in any city or town, he shall appoint temporarily, and for such time as he deems expedient, one or more deputy inspectors of meters for the county in which such city or town is situated. Such deputies shall be duly sworn, and shall act under his direc- tion ; they*shaU not be connected with or employed by any gas company, and shall be subject to the same disabilities as are set forth in section four, and from their decisions appeals to the inspector may be taken by the gas company or by the consumer. The inspector shall be entitled to collect for the services of such deputies in examining, comparing, and testing meters, with or without stamping them, a fee of twenty-five cents for each meter delivering not more than a cubic foot of gas in four revolutions, vibrations, or complete repetitions of its action, and for each meter so delivering more than a cubic foot a fee of thirty cents, with twenty cents added for every additional cubic foot so 212 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. delivered. Out of the fees so collected by the inspector he shall pay to said deputies such reasonable salaries as may be agreed on, and any balance of said fees that may remaia he may apply to the payment of his own ofQce rent and office expenses. § 7. The amount of the salaries of the inspector and assistant in- spector and of their travelling expenses, togetlier with any expenses incurred under section nine, shall be annually assessed and paid into the treasury of the Commonwealth by the several gas-light companies in the Commonwealth, in amounts proportionate to their appraised valuation as declared in the returns required to be made by them to the assessors annually in May ; and in case any such company refuses or neglects, for thirty days after written no- tice given by the treasurer of the Commonwealth, to pay into the treasury the amount required of such company on account of such salaries and expenses, then the said treasurer shall, in the name of and for the use of the Commonwealth, sue such com- pany for such amount, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the time when said notice was given, and for the costs of the action. § 8. The unit of measure for the sale of illuminating gas by meter shall be the cubic foot, containing sixty-two and three hundred and twenty-one one-thousandths pounds avoirdupois weight of distilled or rain water, weighed in air of the temper- ature of sixty-two degrees, Fahrenheit scale, the barometer being at thirty inches. § 9. The inspector shall provide at his office such apparatus and chemicals as in his judgment are necessary for the faithful performance of the duties of the office. § 10. Every gas-light company, with a capital paid in of one hundred thousand dollars or more, and every maker and vendor of meters, shall set up at some convenient place upon their premises a gas-holder, to be tested, "and, if correct, stamped and sealed, containing five or more cubic feet, by means of which meters shall be tested at the average pressure at which gas is supplied in the city or town where they are to be used, attention being paid to the temperature of the room where the trial is made. Every gas-light company shall provide a test meter of a MASSACHUSETTS. 213 construction approved by the inspector and stamped by him, to be used in cities and towns where no test gas-holders are pro- vided, or whenever proving by a gas-holder is impracticable or inconvenient. In the examination of a meter the inspector shall see that it is of an approved principle, and shall give particular attention to the measure of the dial-plate ; he shall prove the meter when set level, and, for each burner which the manufacturer has stamped it to register, it shall be capable of passing gas accu- rately at the rate of six cubic feet per hour ; and no dry meter shall be stamped correct which varies more than two per cent from the standard measure, and no wet meter shall be stamped correct which is capable of registering more than two per cent against the consumer, or more than five per cent against the company. The inspector shall keep at his office a correct record of all meters inspected by him, with their proof at the time of inspection, which record shall be open at all times for examina- tion by the officers of any gas-light company in the Common- wealth. § 11. No meter shall be used for measuring gas supplied to a consumer, unless it is duly sealed and stamped ; and for every meter in use and not so sealed and stamped the gas company supplying it shall pay a fine of five dollars to the city or town where the meter is situated. § 12. Meters in use shall be tested by the inspector or by his assistant or deputy on the request of the consumer or of the gas-light company, in the presence of the consumer if desired, and with sealed apparatus. If the meter is found to be correct, the party requesting the inspection shall pay the fees for such inspection and the expense of removing the meter for the pur- pose of being tested, and the re-inspection shall be stamped on the meter. If the meter is proved to be incorrect, the gas-light company shall pay such expenses, and shall furnish a new meter without charge to the consumer. § 13. Every gas-light company annually manufacturing more than fifteen million cubic feet of gas shall provide a suitable room, at least a quarter of a mile from the gas-works, containing a disc photometer of a construction approved by the inspector ; 214 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. and such room shall be open to the inspector and his assistant on every working day from eight o'clock in the morning till six o'clock in the afternoon. § 14. The gas of every company supplying more than fifty consumers shall be inspected at least twice a year, and one additional inspection shaU be made for every four million cubic feet of gas supplied by each company ; but the gas of no com- pany shall be inspected oftener than once a week. All such inspections shall be made by the inspector or his assistant, and one fourth at least of all such inspections shall be made by the inspector. The gas shall be tested for illuminating power by means . of a disc photometer, and, during such test, shall be burned from the burner best adapted to it, which is at the same time suitable for domestic use, and at as near the rate of five feet per hour as is practicable. When the gas of any company is found on three consecutive inspections to give less light than fifteen standard English candles, or to contain more than twenty grains of sulphur or ten grains of ammonia per hundred cubic feet of gas, or more than ten per cent of carbonic oxide, or any sulphuretted hydrogen, a fine of one hundred dollars shall be paid by such company to the city or town supplied by it. When during the test the consumption of gas varies from five feet per hour, or the candle from one hundred and twenty grains per hour, a proportionate correction shall be made for the candle power. § 15. Any officer or servant of a gas-light company, duly authorized in writing by the . president, treasurer, agent, or secretary of said company, may at any reasonable time enter any premises lighted with gas supplied by such company, for the purpose of examining or removing the meters, pipes, fittings, and works for supplying or regulating the supply of gas, and of ' ascertaining the quantity of gas consumed or supplied ; and if any person directly or indirectly prevents or hinders such officer or servant from so entering such premises, or from making such examination or removal, such officer or servant may make com- plaint under oath to a justice of the peace, stating the facts in the case so far as he has knowledge thereof, and the said justice may thereupon issue a warrant, directed to the sheriff or to MASSACHUSETTS. 215 either of his deputies, or to a constable of the city or town where such company is located, commanding him to take suffi- cient aid and repair to said premises accompanied by such officer or servant, who shall examine such meters, pipes, fittings, and works for supplying or regulating the supply of gas, and ascer- tain the quantity of gas consumed or supplied therein, and shall, if requu'ed, remove any meters, pipes, fittings, antl works belong- ing to said company. § 16. If any person supplied with gas neglects or refuses to pay the amount due for the same or for the rent of the meter or other articles hired by him of the gas-light company, such com- pany may stop the gas from entering the premises of such person. In such cases the officers, servants, or workmen of the company may, after twenty-four hours' notice, enter the premises of such person between the hours of eight in the forenoon and four in the afternoon, and separate and take away such meter or other property of the company, and may disconnect any meter, pipes, fittings, or other works, whether the property of the com- pany or not, from the mains or pipes of the company. § 17. Every person who wilfully or fraudulently injures or suffers to be injured any meter, pipes, or fittings belonging to a gas-light company, or prevents a meter from duly registering the quantity of gas supplied through the same, or in any way hin- ders or interferes with its proper action or just registration, or fraudulently burns or wastes the gas of such company, shall for every such offence forfeit to the company not more than one hundred dollars, to be recovered in an action of tort, and, in addition thereto, shall pay to the company the amount of dam- age by it sustained by reason of such injury, prevention, waste, consumption, or hindrance. § 18. Every person who attaches • a pipe to a main or pipe belonging to a gas-light company, or otherwise burns or uses or causes to be used without the written consent of such company any gas supplied by it, unless the same passes through a meter set by the company, shall forfeit to said company the same fine and in the same manner as declared in the preceding section. § 19. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to aU. com- panies which manufacture gas for sale. 216 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. Chap. 105. Corporations. § 18. No telegraph or gas-light company chartered under the laws of this Commonwealth shall declare any stock divi- dend, or divide the proceeds of the sale of stock among its stockholders ; nor create any additional new stock or issue cer- tificates thereof to any person whatever, unless the par value of the shares so issued is first paid in cash to its treasurer. Chap. 106. Formation of Corporations. § 11. For the purpose of making and selling gas for light, or for the purpose of generating and furnishing steam or hot water for heating, cooking, and mechanical power in any city or town, or for either or both of said purposes, ten or more persons may associate themselves, with a capital of not less than five thousand nor more than five hundred thousand dollars. Chap. 106. Capital Stock. § 35. A corporation created by special charter before the twenty-second day of March in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-one for the purpose of making and selling gas for light in a city or town, or of carrying on any mechanical or manufac- turing business authorized by this chapter, or of mining, may increase its capital stock to an amount not exceeding one mil- lion dollars, and may reduce the same, subject to the provisions of this chapter. § 36. A mechanical, manufacturing, or gas corporation, whose capital stock is increased under the preceding section, may hold real estate necessary for the purposes for which it was organized, not to exceed in amount three fourths of its capital stock. § 39. When a gas company increases its capital stock, the new shares shall be sold and disposed of at public auction for the benefit of the corporation, in the manner provided in the two following sections; and only such number of shares shall be issued as, when so sold and disposed of, will produce the amount necessary for the purposes for which such increase is authorized. § 40. All shares so issued shall be offered for sale to the high- MASSACHUSETTS. 217 est bidder, in the city or town where the corporation is located or in the city of Boston, or in both places, and notice of the time and place of such sale shall be published at least five times during the ten days immediately preceding the sale, in the news- paper in which the general laws are published, and in two other daily newspapers in the city of Boston, and in one or more newspapers in the city or town where such corporation is lo- cated; or if no newspaper is published in such city or town, the sale shall be advertised in one or more newspapers pub- lished nearest thereto. § 41. Not exceeding two thousand shares of the stock of any such corporation shall be offered for sale on one and the same day ; and no share shall be sold or issued for a less sum to be actually paid in cash than the par value thereof. § 51. Any corporation organized under the provisions of this chapter, or of chapter two hundred and twenty-four of the stat- utes of the year eighteen hundred and seventy, or of any- statute in amendment thereof or in addition thereto, may, upon the vote of all its stockholders at a meeting duly called for the pur- pose, alter, add to, or change the business for the transaction: of which it was incorporated, but shall not engage in any business which is not authorized by the provisions of this chapter. A certificate setting forth such alteration, addition, or change, signed and sworn to by the president, treasurer, and a majority of the directors, shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. § 52. Any gas company organized or chartered before the ninth day of April in the year eighteen hundred and seventy- nine may engage in the business of generating or furnishing steam or hot water for heating, cooking, and mechanical power in a city or town, by a vote of four fifths of the stockholders representing not less than two thirds of the stock, at a meeting duly called for that purpose, upon filing in the office of the Sec- retary of the Commonwealth a certificate as provided in the preceding section. § 75. Gas-light companies and corporations organized for either or both the purposes mentioned in section eleven, may, with the consent in writing of the mayor and aldermen of a city 218 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. or the selectmeu of a town, dig up and open the grounds in any of the streets, lanes, and highways thereof, so far as is necessary to accomplish the objects of the corporation ; but such consent shaU not affect the right or remedy to recover damages for an injury caused to persons or property by the doings of such cor- porations. They shall put all such streets, lanes, and highways, which are opened, into as good repair as they were in when opened; and upon failure so to do within a reasonable time, shall be deemed guilty of a nuisance. § 76. When a party injured in his person or property by a defect in a highway, caused by the operations of a gas company in laying down or repairing its pipes or otherwise obstructing such way, recovers damages therefor of the place wherein such injury is received, such place shall, in addition to the damages so recovered against it, be entitled to recover all the taxable costs of the plaintiff and defendant in the same action, in a suit brought against the gas company, if such company is liable for said damages, and if reasonable notice is given by such place to such company, so that it may defend the original action. § 77. The mayor and aldermen or selectmen of a place in which pipes or conductors of such a corporation are sunk may regulate, restrict, and control all acts and doings of such corpo- ration which may in any manner affect the health, safety, con- venience, or property of the inhabitants of such place. § .78. A manufacturing or other company, having its place of business in a place into which it is proposed to introduce the manufacture of gas for light, may hold not exceeding ten per cent of the stock in a gas company therein. MICHIGAN". Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1872. Vol. I. Chap. 96. § 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact, All corpora- tions organized and established under the provisions of this act MICHIGAN. 219 shall be capable of suing and being sued in any court in this State, and may have a common seal, and may alter and amend the same at pleasure ; may elect by ballot a president and three directors, at the legal meetings as hereinafter provided, and all other necessary officers ; may fix their compensation and deter- mine their duties, and make from time to time such bj'-laws (not inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of this State) as a majority of the stockholders may direct at any regular meeting. § 2. Any number of persons, not less than five, who shall, by articles of agreement in writing, associate according to the provisions of this act, under any name assumed by them for the purpose of engaging in the manufacture and supplying any town, city, or village with gas for lighting the same, and who shall comply with the provisions of this act, shall, with their successors and assigns, constitute a body politic and corporate, in fact and in name, under any name assumed by them in their articles of association ; and any such company so formed shall be entitled to aU the privileges conferred, and subject to the requirements by the fifty-fifth chapter of Eevised Statutes of 1846, unless otherwise provided in this act. § 3. Every such corporation shall, by their name, have power to acquire and hold aU such real and personal estate as shall be necessary for carrying on the business of said corporation. § 4. Before any corporation formed under this act shall com- mence business, the president or directors shall cause their ar- ticles of association to be filed with the Secretary of State, and also shall cause said articles of association to be recorded at length in the county register's office (where said company is located), in the book of miscellaneous records, and it is hereby made the duty of the register to record the said article, upon the payment of the usual recording fees. § 5. The articles of every such association shall be signed by the persons so associating in the first instance, and acknowledged before some person authorized by law to take the acknowledg- ment of deeds ; shall state the name of said company by which it shall be known ; the object for which such company shall be formed; the amount of capital stock of said company; the num- ber of shares of which said stock shall consist, and the name of 220 ESTEACTS PROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. the town, city, or village, and county, in which the operations of said company are to be carried on; the name of the stock-hold- ers, their respective residences, and the number of shares held by each person. § 6. The amount of capital stock in every such corporation shall be fixed by the stockholders, in their articles of association, but shall in no case be less than ten thousand dollars, nor more than five hundred thousand dollars. Said stock may be increased from time to time, as may be directed by the stockholders, sub- ject to the foregoing restrictions; and when the same is so increased, the same record shall be made of the fact, with the name of the stockholders, as required by § 4 of this act ; and all the stock of said company shall be divided into shares of fifty dollars each, § 7. The officers shall be elected by the stockholders, when fifty per cent of the stock shall be subscribed, and ten per cent of the amount subscribed paid in, and after a notice of at least two weeks has been given in some newspaper printed in the place where the said business is to be located, said notice to be signed by at least three stockholders; and the officers elected shall hold their office one year and until their successors are elected. Said officers shall have the general superintendence of the affairs of the company and the management of the business, and may call special meetings of the stockholders; and a major- ity of the stockholders shall constitute a quorum at all meetings; and at all meetings each share shall be entitled to one vote. § 8. Any corporation formed under this act shall have full power to manufacture and sell, and to furnish such quantities of gas as may be required in the city, town, or village where said corporation is located, for public or private buildings, or for other purposes; and such corporation shall have power to lay conduc- tors for conducting gas through the streets, lands, or squares of any city, town, or village where said corporation is located, with the consent of the municipal authorities of said city, town, or village, under such reasonable regulations as they may prescribe, and to make all ordinances and by-laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the foregoing powers. § 9. The stock of every such corporation shall be deemed per- MICHIGAN, 221 sonal property, and certificates of stock shall be issued to each stockholder on the full amount of his subscription being paid in. The said certificates of stock may be transferable, but the trans- fer shall not be valid unless a record shall be made of the same in the books of the company, in such form as the director shall prescribe ; and it shall be the duty of the directors to make out a written statement of all the stockholders and the amount of stock held by each, when legally called upon by the proper assessing officer. § 10. The directors may call in subscriptions to the capital stock of such corporation by instalment, in such portions as they deem best, by giving notice thereof as provided by the by-laws ; and in case any stockholder refuses or neglects to pay any such instalment for the space of sixty days after the same shall have become due and payable, and after he shall have been notified thereof, the stock of any such delinquent stockholder may be sold by order of the directors, at public auction at the office of said company, after thirty days' notice, published in some news- paper in the county where the corporation is located; and the proceeds of said sale shall be first applied in payment of the in- stalment called for, and the expense on the same, and the residue shall be refunded to the former owner thereof; and such sale shall entitle the purchaser to all the privileges of a stockholder, to the extent of the shares so bought. § 11. The stockholders of all corporations organized under this act shall be individually liable for any labor or services done or performed for such company, and they shall also be liable, as aforesaid, for the payment of all other debts or obli- gations contracted or incurred by said corporation during the time they were stockholders to the amount of all unpaid instalments on stock held by them respectively, which liability, may be en- forced against any stockholder, founded on this statute, at any time after an execution shall be returned, not satisfied, against said company : provided always, that if any stockholder shall be compelled by any such action to pay the debts of any creditor, or any part thereof, he shall have the right to call upon all the stockholders to contribute their part of the sum so paid by him as aforesaid, and may sue them jointly or severally, or any 222 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. number of them, and recover in sucli action the ratable amount due from the person or persons so sued. § 12. Any gas-light company organized and doing business under any special charter may at any time, by a vote of two thirds in interest of its stockholders, dissolve its organization, and organ- ize under this act; and any company so organizing under this act shall have the right, in preference to any other company, to assume the name by which it was known in its former charter : provided it perfects its organization within sixty days after dissolv- ing and throwing up its special charter ; and after perfecting its organization under the provisions of this act, it shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities therein contained. § 13. All rights of creditors, and all liens upon the property of said company so dissolving its organization, shall be and hereby are preserved unimpaired; and said company shall con- tinue to exist so far as may be necessary to enforce tlie same. And all debts, liabilities, and duties of said company shall thenceforth attach to such new corporation, and be enforced against it to the same extent and in the same manner as if such debts, liabilities, and duties had been originally incurred by it. Acts of 1873, Chap. 110. Corporate Powers. An Act to amend Sections one and six of an Act entitled '' An Act to authorize the Formation of Gas-Light Companies," approved Feb. 12, 1855, and to add a New Section thereto to stand as Section fourteen. § 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact that sections one and six of an act to authorize the formation of gas-light compa- nies, approved Feb. 12, 1855, be amended so as to read as fol- lows : — Sec. 1. All corporations organized and established under the provisions of this act shall be capable of suing and being sued in any court in this State, and may have a common seal, and may alter and amend the same at pleasure ; may elect by ballot a president and such number of directors as they may desire, but not less than three directors, at the legal meetings as herein- after provided, and aU other necessary officers; may fix their MINNESOTA. 223 compensation and determine their duties, and make from time to time such by-laws (not inconsistent with the laws and consti- tution of this State) as a majority of the stockholders may direct at any regular meeting. Sec. 6. The amount of capital stock in every such corporation shall be fixed by the stockholders in their articles of association, but shall in no case be less than ten thousand dollars, nor more than five hundred thousand dollars, except where such corpora- tion exists in a city of over fifty thousand inhabitants, in which case the capital stock of such corporation shall not exceed one million dollars ; said stock may be increased from time to time as may be directed by the stockholders, subject to the foregoing restriction ; and when the same is so increased, the same record shall be made of the fact, with the name of the stockholders, as required by section 4 of this act, and all the stock of said- com- pany shall be divided into shares of fifty dollars each. § 2. That the following section shall be added to said act, and shall be numbered as section 14 of said act. Sec. 14. Any corporation organized under this act may amend its , articles of incorporation so as to increase its capital to the amount authorized by this act, and increase its number of direct- ors at any regular or special meeting of stockholders, upon a vote of two thirds in amount of such stockholders, and thereupon articles amendatory of such original articles shall be prepared and signed by the president and secretary of such corporation, who shall both acknowledge the same before some person authorized to take the acknowledgment of deeds; and such amendatory articles shall be filed and recorded in the same manner provided for recording original articles in section four of this act. MINNESOTA. Eevised Statutes of 1866, Title II., Chap. 34. As amended by Act of March 10, 1873. § 98. Any number of persons not less than three, who have or shall, by articles of agreement in writing, associate according 224 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. to the provisions of this title, under any name assumed by them, for the purpose of engaging in and carrying on the business of [great variety of occupations speciiied, and among them] manufacturing gas, and who have or shall comply with the provisions of this title, shall, with their associates, successors, and assigns, constitute a body corporate and politic under the name assumed by them in their articles of agreement : provided no company shall take a name previously assumed by any other company. § 100. The amount of capital stock in any such corporation shall in no case be less than ten thousand dollars, nor more than five hundred thousand dollars, and shall be divided into shares of not less than ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars each, except that the capital stock of mutual, building, and loan associations may be divided into shares of two hundred dollars each. § 101. Every such corporation has power to acquire, hold, and transfer all such real and personal estate as is necessary or convenient for the purpose of conducting, carrying on, or dis- posing of the business of such corporation. § 102. Stock of any such corporation shall be deemed per- sonal property, and be transferable only on the books of such corporation in such form as the directors prescribe; and such corporation shall at all times have a lien upon the stock or prop- erty of its members invested therein for all the debts due from them to such corporation, which may be enforced by advertise- ment and sale in the manner provided for selling delinquent stock. § 104. The directors have power to establish one or more offices without the State, and transact business thereat : pro- vided an office shall always be maintained in the State, where legal process may be served upon the person in charge thereof § 105. No corporation shall be formed under this title to con- tinue more than thirty years. MISSOURI. 225 MISSOUEI. Eevised Statutes of Missouri, 1879. Vol. I., chap. 21, art. 8. § 951. Gas and water companies, powers of. — Any corpora- tion formed under the provisions of this article, for the purpose of supplying any town, city, or village with gas or water, shall have full power to manufacture and sell, and to furnish, such quantities of gas or water as may be required in the city, town, or village, district or neighborhood, where located, for public or private buildings, or for other purposes ; and such corporation shall have the power to lay conductors for conveying gas or water through the streets, lanes, alleys, and squares of any city, town, or village, with the consent of the municipal authorities thereof, and under such reasonable regulations as said authori- ties may prescribe. § 952. Authority of 7fiunicipaliti/ to contract. — The municipal authorities of any city, town, or village are hereby authorized to contract with any such corporation for the lighting by gas or supplying with water the streets, lanes, alleys, squares and public places in any such city, town, or village. The municipal authorities of any city, town, or village, in which any water company shall be organized under this article, may contract with any such company for the pxirpose of supplying with water the streets, lanes, alleys, squares, and public places in any such city, town, or village, for any length of time which shall be agreed upon between such city, town, or village and such company, for a term not to exceed twenty years ; and the provisions of this section shall apply to all cities, towns, and villages in this State, whether organized by special charter or under the general laws of the State, any provisions in any spe- cial charter of any city, town, or village in the State to the contrary notwithstanding : provided that contracts entered into under the provisions of this act shall have no legal form until the same shall be submitted to a vote of the qualified voters, at a general or special election of such city, town, or village, and shall be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the legal votes polled at said election. ^g 226 EXTRACTS PEOM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. NEBEASKA. Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1881. Chap. 77, art. 1. § 15. The personal property of gas companies, except the pipes laid down, shall be listed and assessed in the town, village, district, or city where the principal works are located. Gas mains and pipes laid -in roads, streets, or alleys shall be held to be personal property, and listed and assessed as such in the town, district, village, or city where the same are laid. NEVADA. Statutes of Nevada, 1877. Chap. 56. The people of the State of Nevada, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows : — § 1. Any person, persons, or company desiring >to supply the inhabitants of any city or town in this State with illuminating gas, shall have the license and authority to erect, within the limits of such city or town, the necessary buildings, works, and machinery for the manufacture or production of such gas ; to make the necessary excavations in the public streets of such city or town, for the purpose of laying gas-pipes therein ; to lay all necessary pipes, and to reopen such excavations at any time for replacement, repair, or examination of the pipes ; provided that no street shall be obstructed to an unnecessary degree, or for an unnecessary period of time, by any work as aforesaid. Approved February 26, 1877. NEBRASKA — NEW HAMPSHIRE. 227 NEW HAMPSHIRE. General Laws of 1878. Chapter 155. § 1. Every aqueduct and gas-light company duly organized, and every person is empowered to enter upon, and break ground, and dig ditches in any street, highway, or common through which it may be necessary for the pipes, logs, or other material for conveying water or gas of said aqueduct or gas-light com- pany or person to pass, for the purpose of placing such pipes, logs, or other material as may be necessary, or of repairing the same, doing no injury to such street, highway, or common ; the consent of the selectmen of the town or board of aldermen, of the city in which such pipes, logs, or other material are to be laid being first obtained therefor. § 2. Every aqueduct and gas-light company, duly organized, and every person may also in like manner enter upon, break ground, and dig ditches upon auy unaccepted street or private way, doing no injury to such unaccepted street, road, or private way, and for the purposes mentioned in the first section of this chapter. § 3. If in the placing of such pipes, logs, or other material, there shall be occasioned any damage to the estates of the abut- ters or owners of said private way or unaccepted street or road, the selectmen of any town or board of aldermen of any city shall, on notice to the corporation or person causing such dam- age to the applicant, view the premises, hear the parties inter- ested, and assess such damages as may be shown, and within thirty days after the application file the same, with their doings thereon, in the office of the town or city clerk, for record, and such damages may be recovered in an action at law if not paid within thirty days. § 4. If the owner is aggrieved by the assessment, or if the selectmen of the town or board of aldermen of the city neglect to file the same within the thirty days as aforesaid, he may petition the Supreme Court for an assessment or increase of the 228 EXTRACTS PEOM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. damages, and like proceedings shall be had thereon as in case of damages in laying out a highway. § 5. Any person who ehaU wantonly and maliciously injure any aqueduct, or the pipes, logs, or other property of any gas- light company, aqueduct company, or person, shall be fined not exceeding three hundred dollars, and be liable to pay treble damages to such company or person in an action on the case. ]SrEW JEESET. Eevision of New Jersey Statutes, 1877. Gas Companies. Vol. I. p. 460. § 1. That any number of persons, not less than thirteen, may form a company for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating gas-works, and for that purpose may make and sign articles of association, in which shall be stated the name of the company, the number of years the same is to continue, the village, town, or city in which it is proposed to supply and dis- tribute illuminating gas, construct, maintain, and operate the works, the amount of the capital stock of the company, and the number of shares of which said capital stock shall consist, and the names and places of residence of thirteen directors of the company, all of whom shall be residents of this State, and two thirds, at least, of whom shall be residents in the particular place where the works are to be erected, who shall manage its affairs for the first year, and until others are chosen in their places, each subscriber to such articles of association shall sub- scribe thereto his name, place of residence, and the number of shares of stock he agrees to take in said company ; on compli- ance with the provisions of the next section, such articles of association shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State, who shall indorse thereon the day they are filed, and record the same in a book to be provided by him for tliat purpose ; and upon tendering the said articles to the Secretary of State to be filed, the persons who have so subscribed such articles of asso- NEW JERSEY. 229 ciation, and all persons who shall become stockholders in such company, shall be a corporation by the name specified in such articles of association. § 2. That such articles of association shall not be filed and recorded in the office of the Secretary of State, until at least one half the amount of the entire capital stock is subscribed thereto, and twenty per centum paid thereon in good faith, and in cash, to the directors named in said articles of association, nor until there is indorsed thereon, or annexed thereto, an affidavit, made by at least seven of the directors named in said articles, that the amount of stock required by this section has been in good faith subscribed, and twenty per centum paid in cash thereon as afore- said, and that it is intended in good faith to erect gas-works — and manufacture and sell gas to the city, village, or town as specified in the articles of association, which affidavit shall be recorded with the articles of association as aforesaid. § 3. That a copy of any article of association filed and recorded in pursuance of this act, or of the record thereof, with a copy of the affidavit aforesaid indorsed thereon or annexed thereto, and certified to be a copy by the Secretary of this State, shall be pre- siimptive evidence of the incorporation of such company, and of the facts therein stated. § 4. That when such articles of association and affidalvit are filed and recorded in the office of the Secretary of State, the directors named in such articles of association may, in case the whole of the capital stock is not before subscribed, continue to receive subscriptions until the whole capital stock is sub- scribed ; the capital stock of any corporation organized under this act shall not be less than five thousand dollars for every one thousand of the population of the village, town, or city in which it is proposed to erect the works, or to lay pipes in order to supply said village, town, or city with illuminating gas, the number of the population to be taken from the latest census of the population, whether the same was made by the general or State government; at the time of subscribing every sub- scriber shall pay to the directors twenty per centum on the amount subscribed by him, in money, and no subscription shall be received or taken without such payment. 230 EXTKACTS PEOM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. § 5. That there shall be a board of thirteen directors of every corporation formed under this act, to manage its affairs ; said directors shall be chosen annually by a majority of the votes of the stockholders voting at such election, in such manner as may be prescribed in the by-laws of the corporation, and they may and shall continue to be directors until others are elected in their places.; in the election of directors each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote for each share of stock held by him ; vacancies in the board of directors shall be filled in such manner as shall be prescribed by the by-laves of the corpora^ tion; the inspectors of the first election of directors shall be appointed by the board of directors named in the articles of asso- ciation ; no person shall be a director unless he shall be a stock- holder, owning stock absolutely in his own right, and qualified to vote for directors at the election at vrhich he shall be chosen 5 at every election of directors the books and papers of such com- pany shall be exhibited to the meeting, provided a majority of the stockholders present shall require it. § 6. That the directors shall appoint one of their number 'president; they may also appoint a treasurer and secretary, and such other officers and agents as shall be prescribed by the by-laws, and shall establish and fix such salaries to them and to the president as to said board of directors shall appear proper. . § 7. That the directors may require the subscribers to the capital stock of the company to pay the amount by them respectively subscribed, in such manner and in such instalments as they may deem proper ; if any stockholder shall neglect to pay any instalment, as required by a resolution of the board of directors, the said board shall be authorized to declare his stock, and all previous payments thereon, forfeited for the use of the company ; but they shall not declare it so forfeited until they shall have caused a notice, in writing, to be served on him personally, or by depositing the same in the post-office, properly directed to him at the post-office nearest his usual place of residence, stating that he is required to make such payments at the time and place specified in said notice ; and that, if he fails to make the same, his stock and all previous payments thereon will be forfeited for the use of the company, which NEW JERSEY. 231 notice shall be served as aforesaid, at least thirty days previous to the day on which such payment is required to be made ; provided that, if said company shall not declare such stock forfeited, then such neglecting stockholder shall be individually liable to said company for the amount unpaid upon the stock so held by him, untU the whole amount of the capital stock so held by him shall have been paid to the company. § 8. That the stock of every company formed under this act shall be deemed personal estate, and be transferable in the manner prescribed by the by-laws of the company; but no shares shall be transferable untU all previous calls thereon shall have been fully paid in. § 9. That in case the capital stock of any company formed under this act is found to be insufficient in the erection of the works and the operating of the same, such company may, with the concurrence of two thirds in amount of all its stockholders, increase its capital stock from 'time to time, to any amount required for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating its gas-works; such increase may be sanctioned by a vote in person or by proxy of two thirds in amount of aU the stockholders of the company, at a meeting of such stockholders called by the directors of the company for that purpose, by a notice in writing to each stockholder, to be served on him personally, or by depositing the same, properly folded and directed to him, at the post-office nearest his usual place of residence, at least twenty days prior to such writing; such notice must state the time and place of the meeting, its object, and the amount to which it is proposed to increase the capital stock ; the proceedings of such meeting must be entered on the minutes of the proceedings of the company; and, thereupon, the capital stock of the company may be increased to the amount sanctioned by a vote of two thirds in amount of all the stock- - holders of the company as aforesaid. § 10. That any company organized under this act shall be a body politic and corporate, in fact and 'in name, by- the name stated in the articles of association, and by that name have succession, and shall be capable of suing and being sued in any court of law or equity in this State; and they and their successors 232 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. may have a common seal, and may make and alter the same at pleasure ; and they shall, by their corporate name, be capable in law of purchasing, holding, and conveying any real and personal estate whatever, which may be necessary to enable the said com- pany to carry on the operations named in said articles of associa- tion, but shall not mortgage the same or give any lien thereon. § 11. That all the stockholders incorporated under this act shall be severally individually liable to the c;reditors of the com- pany in which they are stockholders to an amount equal to the amount of stock held by them respectively, for all debts and contracts made by such company, until the whole amoimt of capital stock fixed and limited by such company shall have been paid in, and a certificate thereof shall have been made and recorded as prescribed in the following section, and the capital stock so fixed and limited shall be paid in, one half thereof in one year, and the other half within eighteen months from the incor- poration of said company, or said corporation shall be dissolved. § 12. That the president and a majority of the directors, within thirty days after the payment of the last instalment of the capital stock so fixed and limited by the company, shall make a certificate stating the amount of the capital so fixed and paid in, which certificate shall be signed and sworn to by the president and a majority of the directors ; and they shall, within the said thirty days, file the same in the of&ce of the county clerk of the county wherein the business of the said company is carried on. § 13. That every such company shall make a report annually, within twenty days from the first day of January, which shall be published in some newspaper published in the city, village, or town where the business of said company is carried on, of the amount of capital and of the proportion actually paid in, and the amount of its existing debt, which report shall be signed by the president and a majority of the directors, verified by the oath of the pres- ident and secretary of the company ; and if any company organ- ized under this act shall fail so to do, all the directors of the company failing so to do shall be jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the company then existing, and for all that shall be contracted before such report shall be made. NEW JERSEY. 233 § 14. That if the directors of any such company shall declare and pay any dividend when the company is insolvent, or any dividend, the payment of which would render it insolvent, or which would reduce the amount of their capital, they shall be jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the company then existing, and for aU that shall be thereafter contracted so long as they shall respectively continue in office ; provided, that if any of the directors shall at any time before the time fixed for the payment of such dividend object thereto, and shall within thirty days thereafter file a certificate of their objection in writ- ing with the clerk of the company, and with the clerk of the county, they shall be exempt from such liability. § 15. That if any certificate report made or public notice given by the officers of any such company, in pursuance of the provi- sions of this act, shall be false in any material representation, all the officers who shall have signed the same, knowing it to be false, shall be jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the said company, contracted while they are stockholders or officers thereof. § 16. That the stockholders of any company organized under the provisions of this act shall be jointly and severally individ- ually liable for debts that may be due and owing to all their laborers, servants, and apprentices for services performed for such corporation. § 17. That any corporation formed under this act shall have full power to manufacture and sell and to furnish such quantities of illuminating gas as may be required in the city, town, or village where the same shall be located for lighting the streets and pub- lic and private buildings, and such corporation shall have power to lay conductors for conducting gas through the streets, lanes, alleys, and squares in such city, village, or town, having first ob- tained the written consent of the municipal authorities of said city, village, or town, and under such regulations as they may prescribe. § 18. That the quality of gas supplied by any company organ- ized under this act shall be with respect to its illuminating power, siich as to produce from an English parliamentary stand- ard Argand burner, known as the London burner for sixteen candle gas, consuming five cubic feet of gas an hour, a light equal in intensity to the light produced by not less than fourteen 234 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. sperm candles of six to the pound, each burning one hundred and twenty grains an hour ; and such gas shall, with respect to its purity, be so far free from sulphuretted hydrogen that it shall not discolor paper imbued with acetate of lead, when these tests are exposed to a current of gas, issuing for thirty seconds, under a pressure of five tenths of water. § 19. That the meters used by any company organized under this act shall register accurately the quantity of gas passing through them, and shall register the quantity of gas passing through them in cubic feet, so that the number of cubic feet of gas consumed can be easily ascertained by the consumer of such gas ; and no meter shall be used that may confuse or deceive the ciistomer as to the number of cubic feet of gas he has consumed, or as to the price he pays for the same, per thousand cubic feet ; and it shall not be lawful for any company organized under this act to charge rent on its meters. § 20. That whenever any corporation formed under this act, or their servants, agents, or workmen, shall dig or sink any trench for laying any new mains or pipes for the conveyance of gas, or other apparatus, near to which any pipe belonging to any water or gas company, owned either by the public or private individ- uals, for conveying water or gas, or any branch or service pipe for the supply of water or gas to any dwelling-house or building, shall be laid, such gas company, their servants, agents, or work- men, shall give twenty-four hours previous notice thereof, in writing, to the president or chief clerk or secretary or engineer of such water or gas company owned either by the public or private individuals, such notice to be delivered to the principal office of the company, between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon, and shall, under the inspection of the president or chief clerk, secretary or engineer, or such agent as may be appointed for the time being, of such water or gas com- pany, protect and secure every such water or gas pipe from any injury, and shall also repair any damage that shall be done to such pipe, and in default of repairing such damage, the gas com- pany shall, for each such default, forfeit and pay to the secretary for the time being, of such water or gas company, for the use of such water or gas company, any sum not exceeding twenty-five NEW JERSEY. \ 235 dollars, and also the coats and expenses which shall have been incurred by the said water or gas company in protecting or secur- ing any such water or gas pipe, or in repairing or making good any injury that may have been done thereto by the means afore- said, such costs and expenses to be ascertained by any justice, and to be recovered in the same manner as any expenses or pen- alty under this act may be recovered. § 21. That aU pipes that may be laid by any corporation formed under this act, for the conveyance of gas, shaU be laid at the greatest practicable distance from the nearest part of any pipe then laid down by or by order of any water or gas company owned by the public or private individuals, for the conveyance of water or gas, and shall be laid at a horizontal distance of four feet at least from the nearest part of any such water or gas pipe, unless in cases where it shall be unavoidably necessary to lay the gas-pipe across or nearer to any water or gas pipe, in which case the said gas-pipe shall be laid under the said water or gas pipe, at the greatest practicable distance therefrom, this distance in no case to be less than twelve inches, and shall form there- with a right angle, or as near thereto as the situation will admit, and in no case shall any pipe be laid, or apparatus used, that will interfere in any way either with the present or future supply pipes of any water or gas company, or that may interfere with or increase the expense of replacing, removing, or repairing the supply pipes or apparatus of any water or gas company ; pro- vided, that all gas-light companies now in operation shall have the same rights and privileges of laying their mains and pipes, and making and supplying gas, that their present charters and contracts now give them. § 22. That any company organized under this act, that is to supply any city, town, or village that is already supplied with gas, shall, within one year after their articles of association have been indorsed by the Secretary of State, as provided for in the first section of this act, lay not less than five miles of main pipe, and furnish upon application to those residing on the streets, lanes, or alleys in which the said main pipes may be laid, a full supply of gas, and after the expiration of said yfear said com- pany shall, within one hundred and twenty days after a written 236 EXTRACTS PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. application has been received from any person or persons resid- ing on any of the streets, lanes, or alleys of the city, town, or village to be supplied by said company, extend their main pipes so as to reach and supply said person or persons with gas, and the said company shall supply such person or persons with gas, in order that all may enjoy the benefits of eouiTpetitioii; provided, that no company organized under this act shall be compelled to lay more than three hundred lineal feet of pipe for each and every person making a written application for gas. § 23. That any company, association, person, or persons, vio- lating or neglecting to comply with any of the provisions of the first or second sections of this act, shall be liable to a penalty of two hundred and fifty dollars for each and every offence, to be sued for and recovered in the name of the State of New Jer- sey, one half of which fine, when recovered, shall be paid to the informer, and the other half into the county treasury, where the action shall be tried and conviction had. § 25. That no exclusive privilege heretofore granted in the charter of any company to construct and operate a gas-works shall hereafter continue to be, or be construed to remain, exclu- sive, and that no like franchise hereafter granted shall be, or be construed to be, exclusive, unless in such grant heretofore made or hereafter to be made it be so expressly provided ; all corpora- tions organized under this act shall be subject to all general laws now or hereafter to be passed regulating gas companies and their operations. § 26. That the act shall be deemed a public act, and shall take effect immediately, and the legislature may alter, amend, and repeal the same, but such repeal or alterations shall not affect any corporation heretofore organized, unless the act mak- ing such repeal or alteration shall so expressly declare. Approved April 21, 1876. An Act to enable Gas-Ught Companies incorporated under the Laws of this State to increase their Bonded Indebtedness. Acts 1879, chap. 109. § 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, that whenever it may be necessary for NEW JERSEY. 237 any gas-light company incorporated under the laws of this State to increase their bonded indebtedness, for the purpose of in- creasing their business or for any other purpose, then and in that case the said corporation, by a majority vote of its board of directors, after having obtained the consent of a majority of the stockholders representing at least sixty (60) per cent of the cap- ital stock, be and they are hereby authorized to increase said bonded indebtedness to any amount not exceeding two thirds of the amount of the capital stock of said company, the said increase as aforesaid to be governed by the law and pursued under the mode directed by the act of incorporation of such gas- light company. A Supplement to the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the formation of Gas-light Corporations and regulate the same," approved April 21, 1876. Acts 1879, chap. 120. § 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, that it shall not be lawful for any gas- light corporation to refuse to furnish or supply gas to or for any building or premises by reason of a gas-bill remaining unpaid by any previous occupant of said building or premises ; provided the person or persons applying for gas shall not be-in arrears to the said gas-light corporation for gas previously furnished to or for said building or premises, or furnished to or for any other building or premises. Approved March 14, 1879. A Supplement to the Act entitled " An Act to authorize the formation of Gas-light Companies and regulate the same." Acts 1879, chap. 187. § 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, that it shall be lawful for any gas company now existing, whether by special charter or by organ- ization under the act to which this is a supplement, or which may hereafter be organized thereunder, and which may be at any time actually engaged in the manufacture and supply of illuminating gas in the city, town, or village for the supply of which the same was organized or chartered, to extend its main 238 EXTRACTS PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. pipes to any neighboring city, town, or village wherein no gas company already exists, for the purpose of supplying the same with illuminating gas; provided the common council, township committee, or the municipal authority of such neigh- boring city, town, or village shall grant permission for that purpose. § 2. And be it enacted. That when such permission shall be granted the said gas company shall have the same rights and privileges of laying gas mains and the like to and in such neighboring city, town, or village, as it has under its original organization in the city, town, or village where it was originally located. Approved March 14, 1879. An Act concerning the Sale of Turnpike, Bridge, Flank Road, Gas, Water, or Gas and Water Companies, and providing for the reorganization thereof after such Sale. Acts 1881, chap. 26. § 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, that whenever the property, rights, powers, immunities, privileges, and franchises of any turnpike, bridge, plank road, gas, water, or gas and water corporations created by or under any law of this State, shall be or has been sold and conveyed under and by virtue of any process or decree of any court of this State, or of the Circuit Court of the United States, the person or persons for or on whose account such property, rights, powers, immunities, privileges, and franchises may be pur- chased shall be and they are hereby constituted a body politic and corporate, and shall be and they are vested with all the right, title, interest, property, possession, claim, and demand in law and equity of, in, and to such turnpike, bridge, plank road, gas, water, or gas and water company, with its appurtenances, and with all the rights, powers, immunities, privileges, and fran- chises of the corporation as whose the same may have been sold, and which may have been granted to or conferred thereupon by any law of this State in force at the time of such sale or con- veyance, and the persons for or on whose account any such prop- NEW YORK. 239 erty, rights, powers, immunities, privileges, and franchises of such corporation which may or shall have been purchased under and by virtue of any process or decree of any court of this State or of the Circuit Court of the United States may organize said new corporation by the election of such officers and directors, issue such certificates of stock, create and issue such preferred stock, and from time to time issue such bonds and secure the same as was authorized by the act or acts under and by which said former corporation was created. § 2. And be it enacted that it shall be the duty of such new corporation, within one calendar month after its organization, to make a certificate thereof under its common seal, attested by the signature of its president, specifying the date of such organ- ization, the name, the amount of capital stock, and the names of its president and directors, and transmit the said certificate to the Secretary of State, to be filed in his office, and there remain of record, and a certified copy of such certificate so filed shall be evidence of the corporate existence of said new corporation. Approved Feb. 17, 1881. NEW TOEK. Revised Statutes, 1882, Vol. II., Pages 1806-1815, Pakt I, Chapter XVIII., Title 4.* Of Gas-Light Coeporations. Ii. 1848, Chap. 7, Amended by L. 1871, Chap. 95. § 1. Any three or more persons who may desire to form a company for the purpose of manufacturing and supplying gas for lighting the streets and public and private buildings of any city, village, or town, or two or more villages or towns, not over five miles distant from each other, in this State, may make, sign, and acknowledge before some officer competent to take the acknowl- edgment of deeds, and file in the office of the clerk of the county in which the business of the company shall be carried on, and a duplicate thereof in the office of the Secretary of 240 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. State, a certificate in writing, in which shall be stated the corpo- rate name of the said company, and the objects for which the com- pany shall be formed, the amount of the capital stock of the said company, the terms of its existence, not to exceed fifty years, the number of shares of which the stock shall consist, the num- ber of directors, and their names, who shall manage the concerns of said company for the first year, and the name of the town and county in which the operations of the said company are to be carried on. § 2. When the certificate shall have been filed as aforesaid, the persons who shall have signed and acknowledged the same, and their successors, shall be a body politic and corporate, in fact and in name, by the name stated in such certificate, and by that name have succession, and shall be capable of suing and being sued in any court of law or equity in this State, and they and their successors may have a common seal, and make and alter the same at pleasure ; and they shall, by their corporate name, be capable in law of purchasing, holding, and conveying any real and personal estate whatever, which may be necessary to enable the said company to carry on the operations named in such cer- tificate ; and said company may, from time to time, borrow such sums of money as may be necessary for carrying on said opera- tions not exceeding one half the capital stock of said company, and may issue and dispose of its bonds for any amount so bor- rpwed, and mortgage the corporate property and franchises of said company to secure the payment of any debt contracted by it for the purposes aforesaid. [Amended by L. 1872, Chap. 374.] § 3. The stock, property, and concerns of such company shall be managed by not less than three nor more than thirteen trus- tees or directors, who shall respectively be stockholders in such company and citizens of the United States, and a majority of whom shall be citizens of this State, who shall, except the first year, or as hereafter provided, be annually elected by the stock- holders at such time and place as shall be directed by the by- laws of the company ; and public notice of the time and place of holding such election shall be published not less than ten days NEW YORK. 241 previous thereto in a newspaper printed nearest to the place where the operations of the said company shall be carried on ; and the election shall be made by such of the stockholders as shall attend for that purpose either in person or by proxy. All elections shall be by ballot, and each stockholder shall be entitled to as many votes as he owns shares of stock in the said company, and the persons receiving the greatest number of votes shall be trustees or directors ; and when any vacancy shall happen among the trustees or directors by death, resignation, or otherwise, it shall be filled for the remainder of the year in such manner as may be provided for by the by-laws of the said company. § 4. In case it shall happen at any time that an election of directors shall not be made on the day designated by the by-laws of said company, when it ought to have been made, the company for that reason shall not be dissolved, but it shall be lawful on any other day to hold an election for directors in such manner as shall be provided for by the said by-laws ; and all acts of directors shall be valid and binding as against such company until their successors shall be elected. § o. There shall be a president of the company, who shall be designated from the number of the directors, and also such sub- ordinate officers as the company by its by-laws may designate, who may be elected or appointed, and required to give such security for the faithful performance of the duties of their of&ce as the company by its by-laws may require. § 6. It shall be lawful for the directors to call in and demand from the stockholders, respectively, all such sums of money by them subscribed, at such times and in such payments or instal- ments as the directors shall deem proper, under the penalty of forfeiting the shares of stock subscribed for, and all previous payments made thereon, if payment shall not be made by the stockholders within sixty days after a personal demand, or notice requiring such payment shall have been published for three suc- cessive weeks in any newspaper in the place where the business of the company shall be carried on as aforesaid. § 7. The directors of such company shall have power to make such prudential by-laws as they shall deem proper for the man- agement and disposition of the stock and business affairs of such 16 242 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. company not inconsistent with the laws of this State, and pre- scribing the duties of officers, artificers, and servants that may be employed ; for the appointment of all ofiicers, and for carry- ing on the business aforesaid. § 8. The stock of such company shall be deemed personal estate, and shall be transferable in such manner as shall be pre- scribed by the by-laws of the company. § 9. A copy of any certificate of incorporation, filed in pursu- ance of this act, certified by the county clerk or his deputy to be a true copy, and of the whole of such certificate, shall be received in all courts and places as presumptive legal evidence of the incorporation of such company, if the same shall comply with the provisions of this act. § 10. All the stockholders incorporated under this act shall be severally individually liable to the creditors of the company in which they are stockholders to an amount equal to the amount of stock held by them respectively for all debts and con- tracts made by such company until the whole amount of capital stock fixed and limited by such company shall have been paid in, and a certificate thereof shall have been made and recorded as prescribed in the following section, and the capital stock so fixed and limited shall all be paid in, one haK thereof within one year, and the other half within two years, from the incorpo- ration of said company, or such corporation shall be dissolved. § 11. The president and a majority of the directors, within thirty days after the payment of the last instalment of the capi- tal stock so fixed and limited by the company, shall make a certificate stating the amount of the capital so fixed and paid in, which certificate shall be signed and sworn to by the president and a majority of the directors ; and they shall within the said thirty days file the same in the office of the county clerk of the county wherein the business of the said company is carried on. § 12. Every such company shall make a report annually within twenty days from the first day of January, which shall be published in some newspaper published in the city, village, or town where the business of said company is carried on, of the amount of capital and of the proportion actually paid in, and the amount of its existing debts, which report shall be signed NEW YORK. 243 by the president and a majority of the directors, and verified hy the oath of the president and secretary of the company ; and if any of said companies shall fail so to do, all the directors of the company failing so to do shall be jointly and severally liable for aU the debts of the company then existing, and for all that shall be coniracted before such report shall be made. § 13. If the directors of any such company shall declare and pay any dividend when the company is insolvent, or any divi- dend the payment of which would render it insolvent, or which would reduce the amount of their capital, they shall be jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the company then exist- ing, and for all that shall be thereafter contracted, so long as they shall respectively continue in office : provided, that if any of the directors shall at any time before the time fixed for the payment of such dividend object thereto, and shall within thirty days thereafter file a certificate of their objection in writing with the clerk of the company and with the clerk of the county, they shall be exempt from the said liability. § 14. If any certificate, report made, or public notice given, by the officers of any such company, in pursuance of the provisions of this act shall be false in any material representation, all the officers who shall have signed the same, knowing it to be false, shall be jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the com- pany, contracted while they are stockholders or officers thereof § 15. The stockholders of any company organized under the provisions of this act shall be jointly and severally individually liable for all debts that may be due and owing to all their laborers, servants, and apprentices, for services performed for such corporation. § 16. The legislature may at any time alter, amend, or repeal this act, or may annul or repeal any incorporation formed or created under this act ; but such amendment or repeal shall not, nor shall the dissolution of any such company, take away or im- pair any remedy given against such corporation, its stockholders, or officers, for any liability which shall have been previously incurred. § 17. No stockholder shall be personally liable for the pay- ment of any debt contracted by any company formed under this 244 EXTRACTS PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. act, which is not to be paid within one year from the time the debt is contracted, nor unless a suit for the collection of such debt shall he brought against such company within one year after the debt shall become due ; and no suit shall be brought against any stockholder who shall cease to be a stockholder in any such company, for any debt so contracted, unless the same shall be commenced within two years from the time he shall have ceased to be a stockholder in such company, nor until an execution against the company shall have been returned unsatis- fied in whole or in part. § 18. Any corporation formed under this act -shall have full power to manufacture and sell and to furnish such quantities of gas as may be required in the city, town, or village where the same shall be located, or said, two or more villages or towns, not over iive miles distant from each other, named in the certificate of incorporation, filed for lighting the streets and public and private buildings, or for other purposes ; and such corporation shall have power to lay conductors for conducting gas through the streets, lanes, alleys, squares, and highways, in such city, villages, or towns, with the consent of the municipal authorities of said city, villages, or towns, and under such reasonable regulations as they may prescribe; and the said municipal authorities shall have power to exempt any corporation formed under the provi- sions of this act from taxation on their personal property for a period not exceeding three years from the organization of said corporation. § 19. Any person wilfully injuring, or causing to be injured, any property of any corporation created under this act, shall forfeit and pay to the said corporation treble the amount of damages sustained by such injury, to be recovered in any court having cognizance thereof § 20. Any company which may be formed under this act may increase or diminish its capital stock, by complying with the provisions of this act, to any amount which may be deemed suf- ficient and proper for purposes of the corporation. But before any corporation shall be entitled to diminish the amount of its capital stock, if the amount of debts and liabilities shall exceed the amount of capital to which it is proposed to be reduced, such NEW YORK. 245 amount of debts and liabilities sliaU be satisfied and reduced so as not to exceed such diminished amount of capital ; and any company formed under any special act may come under and avail itself of the privileges and provisions of this act, by complying with the following provisions; and thereupon such company, its officers and stockholders, shall be subject to all the restrictions, duties, and liabilities of this act [amended by L. 1875, chap. 120]. § 21. Whenever any company shall desire to call a meeting of the stockholders for the purpose of availing itself of the privileges and provisions of this act, or for increasing or dimin- ishing the amount of its capital stock, or for extending its busi- ness, it shall be the duty of the directors to publish a notice signed by at least a majority of them, in a newspaper in the county, if any shall be published therein, at least three succes- sive weeks, and to deposit a written or printed copy thereof in the post-office, addressed to each stockholder at his usual place of residence, at least three weeks previous to the day fixed upon for holding such meeting ; specifying the object of the meeting, the time and place when and where such meeting shall be held, and the amount to which it shall be proposed to increase or diminish the capital and the business of such company so ex- tended ; and a vote of at least two thirds of all the shares of stock shall be necessary to an increase or diminution of its capital stock or the extension of its business as aforesaid, or to enable a company to avail itself of the provisions of this act. § 22. If at any time and place specified iu the notice provided for in the preceding section of this act, stockholders shall appear in person or by proxy, in number representing not less than two thirds of all the shares of stock of the corporation, they shall organize by choosing one of the directors chairman of the meet- ing, and also a suitable person for secretary, and proceed to a vote of those present, in person or by proxy, and if, on canvassing the votes, it shall appear that a sufficient number of votes has been given in favor of increasing or diminishing the amount of capital, or of extending its business as aforesaid, or for availing itself of the privileges and provisions of this act, a certificate of the proceedings, showing a compliance with the provisions of 246 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. this act, the amount of capital actually paid in, the whole amount of debts and liabilities of the company, and the amount to which the capital stock shall be increased or diminished, shall be made out, signed and verified by the affidavit of the chairman, and be countersigned by the secretary ; and such certificate shall be acknowledged by the chairman, and filed as required by the first section of this act, and when so filed, the capital stock of such corporation shall be increased or diminished, to the amount specified in such certificate, and the business extended as afore- said, and the company shall be entitled to the privileges and provisions and be subject to the liability of, this act, as the case may be. § 23. Every corporation created under this act shall possess the general powers and privileges, and be subject to the liabil- ities and restrictions contained in title third of chapter eighteen of the first part of the Eevised Statutes. L. 1845. Chap. 201. § 1. It shall not be lawful for the manufacturers of gas, nor for any other person, to throw or deposit any gas-tar, or refuse of the gas houses or factories in the counties of N"ew York, Queens, or Kings, into any public waters, river, or stream, nor into any sewer or stream running or emptying into any such public waters, river, or stream ; and whoever shall offend against the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misde- meanor. L. 1854. Chap. 109. § 1. Any person who, with intent to injure or defraud any gas company, body corporate, or individual, shall make, or cause , to be made, any pipe, tube or other instrument or contrivance, or connect the same, or cause it to be connected, with any main, service pipe, or other pipe for conducting or supplying illumi- nating gas, in such manner as to connect with and be calculated to supply illuminating gas to any burner or orifice by or at which illuminating gas is consumed, around or without passing through the meter provided for the measuring and registering the quan- tity of gas there consumed, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- NEW YORK. 247 meanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months, and by fine not exceeding two hun- dred and fifty dollars. § 2. Any person who, with intent to injure or defraud any gas company, body corporate, or individual, shall wilfully injure, alter, or obstruct, or prevent the action of any meter provided for the purpose of measuring and registering the quantity of illuminat- ing gas consumed by or at any burner, orifice, or place, or cause or procure any such meter to be injured or altered, or the action thereof to be obstructed or prevented, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by im- prisonment not exceeding six months, and by fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars. People V. Wilber, 4 Parker Cr. C. 19. L. 1854. Chap. 312. § 1. The directors of any corporation formed under the act entitled "An act to authorize the formation of gas-light com- panies" shall have power to issue bonds to an amount not exceeding one third of the capital stock actually paid in, for a period not exceeding twenty years, and bearing an interest not exceeding seven per cent. § 2. The proceeds of all bonds issued by authority of the foregoing section shall be applied to the extension or enlarge- ment of the works and the purchase of real estate required for the use of the corporation. L. 1859. Chap. 311. § 1. The governor of this State shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the senate shall appoint, an inspector of gas- meters, who shall reside in the city of New York, whose duty it shall be, when required, to there inspect, examine, prove, and ascertain the accuracy of any and all gas-meters used or intended to be used for measuring or ascertaining the quantity of illumin- ating gas furnished by any gas-light company in this State, to or for the use of any person or persons, and when found to be or made correct, to seal, stamp, or mark all such meters, and each 248 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. of them, with some suitable device; such device shall be recorded in the office of the Secretary of State. § 2. Such inspector shall hold his office for the term of five years from the time of his appointment, and until the appoint- ment of his successor, but may be removed by the governor for sufficient cause; and he shall receive an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars, to be paid in the first instance out of the State treasury on the warrant of the comptroller. § 3. Such salary shall be charged to and paid into the State treasury by the several gas-light companies in this State, in amounts proportionate to the amounts of the capital stock of said companies respectively, to be ascertained and assessed by the comptroller of this State ; and in case such gas-light companies, or any or either of them, shall refuse or neglect to pay into the State treasury the amount or portion of said salary which shall be by said comptroller required of them respectively, for the space of thirty days after written notice given by said comptroller to them respectively, to make such payment, then the said comptroller may maintain an action in his name of office, in any court of this State, against any such delinquent gas- light company for their said portion or amount of such salary, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum, from the time when said notice to make such payment was given, and the costs of the action. § 4. It shall not be lawful for any corporation, company, or person, at any time after this act shall take effect, to furnish and put in use any gas-meter which shall not have been inspected, proved, and sealed by said inspector, except during such time as said office of inspector shall be vacant, or said inspector, after request made, shall refuse or neglect to prove and seal the meters furnished for that purpose, and except the meters in use when this act takes effect, and which may be removed for examination or repairs. § 5. That every such gas-light company shall provide and keep in and upon their premises a suitable and proper apparatus, to be approved and sealed by said inspector of meters for testing and proving the accuracy of the gas-meters furnished for use by said company, and by which apparatus every meter may and NEW YORK. 249 shall be tested on the written request of the consumer, to whom the same shall be furnished, and in his presence if he desire it. If any such meter, on being so tested, shall be found defective or incorrect to the prejudice or injury of the consumer, the necessary removal, inspection, correction, and replacing of such meter shall be without expense to the consumer ; but in all other cases he shall pay the reasonable expenses of such removal, inspection, and replacing ; and in case any consumer shall not be satisfied with such inspection of the meter furnished to him, and shall give to the company written notice to that effect, he may have such meter re-inspected by the State inspector (if he require it) upon the same terms and conditions as above provided for the original inspection thereof. § 6. Upon the application, in writing, of the owner or occu- pant of any building or premises within one hundred feet of any main laid down by any such gas-light company, and payment by him of all money due from him to the company, the company shall supply gas as may be required for lighting such building or premises, notwithstanding there may be rent or compensation in arrear, for gas supplied, or for meter, pipe, or fittings furnished to a former o.ccupant thereof, unless such owner or occupant shall have undertaken or agreed with the former occupant to pay or to exonerate him from the payment of such arrears, and shall refuse or neglect to pay the same ; and if, for the space of ten days after such application, and the deposit of a reasonable sum as in this act provided (if required) the company shall refuse or neglect to supply gas as required, the company shall forfeit and pay to such applicant the sum of ten dollars, and the further sum of five doUars for every day thereafter during which such refusal or neglect shall continue ; provided that no such company shall be required to lay service pipe for the purpose of supplying gas to any applicant where the ground in which such pipe is re- quired to be laid shall be frozen, or shall otherwise present serious obstacles to laying the same ; nor unless the applicant, if required, shall deposit in advance with the company a sum of money sufiBcient to pay the cost of his portion of, the pipe re- quired to be laid, and the expense of laying such portion. Ferguson v. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 37 Howard, Pr. R. 189; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Manhattan Gas-LigBt Co. 45 Barb. 136. 250 EXTEACTS PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. § 7. That every such gas-light company may require that all, each, and every person or persons to whom such company shall supply or shall be requested to supply, gas for lighting any build- ing, room, or premises, deposit with such company a reason- able sum of money, according to the number and size of lights used or required, or proposed to be used for two calendar months, by such persons or person, and the quantity of gas necessary to supply the same, as security for the payment of the gas rent, or compensation for gas consumed, or rent of meter, pipe, and fixtures, to become due to the company, provided, however, that every such gas-light company shall allow and pay to every such depositor legal interest on the sum by him deposited, for and during the time his deposit shall remain with the com- pany. § 8. Any ofi&cer or other agent of any such gas-light company, for that purpose duly appointed and authorized by the company, may, at all reasonable times, upon exhibiting a written authority signed by the president or secretary of the company, enter any dwelling, store, building, room, or place lighted with gas supplied by such company, for the purpose of inspecting and examining the meters, pipes, fittings, and works for supplying or regulating the supply of gas, and of ascertaining the quantity of gas con- sumed or supplied, and if any person shall at any time, dii-ectly or indirectly, prevent or hinder any such officer or agent from so entering any such premises, or from making such inspection or examination at any reasonable time, he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay to the company the sum of twenty-five dollars. § 9. If any person or persons supplied with gas by any such gas-light company shall neglect or refuse to pay the rent or remuneration due for the same, or for the meter, pipes, or fit- tings, let by the company, for supplying or using such gas, or for ascertaining the quantity consumed as required by his or their contract with the company, or shall refuse or neglect, after being required so to do, to make the deposit in this act mentioned, and thereby authorized to be required, such com- pany may prevent and stop the gas from entering the premises of such persons or person ; and in all cases in which any such NEW YORK. 251 gas-light company is or shall be authorized to cut off, prevent, or stop the supply of gas from any premises, their ofacers, agents, or worknien may enter into or upon any such premises between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon, and separate, take, and carry away any such meter, pipe, fittings, or other property of the company, and may disconnect any meter, pipe, fittings, or other works, whether the property of the company or not, from the mains or pipes of the company. § 10. Every person who shall wilfully or fraudulently injure or suffer to be injured any meter, pipe, or fittings belonging, to any such gas-light company, or prevent any meter from duly registering the quantity of gas supplied through the same, or shall alter the index of any such meter, or in any way hinder or interfere with its proper action or just registration, or shall fraudulently burn the gas of said company, or waste the same, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay to such company the sum of twenty-five dollars, and in addition thereto shall pay to said company the amount of damage by them sustained by reason of such injury, prevention, waste, consumption, or hindrance. People V. Wilber, 4 Parker Cr. C. 19. § 11. Every person who shall lay or place, or cause to be laid or placed, any pipe to communicate with any main or pipe belonging to any such gas-light company, or shall otherwise burn or use, or cause to be burned or used, any gas supplied or manufactured by said company, without having the same passed through the meter furnished for measuring and ascer- taining the quantity of gas supplied to and consumed by such person, shall forfeit and pay to said company the sum of fifty dollars, and in addition thereto shall also pay to said company the amount of damage by them sustained in consequence or by reason of such forbidden act. § 12. This act and its provisions shall not be deemed appli- cable to companies engaged in supplying natural gas to con- sumers. 252 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. Ii. 1860, chap. 116. § 1. The inspector of gas-meters is hereby authorized and required to appoint deputy inspectors of gas-meters, said depu- ties to reside wherever gas-meters are manufactured in this State, and who shall, in their, respective places of residence, discharge the same duties as are required of the inspector of gas-meters by chap. 311 of the Laws of 1859, and shall be subject to the provisions of said act ; such deputies to be paid by the inspector out of his salary hereinafter mentioned, at the rate of two dollars per day wlule. actually engaged in the dis- charge of such duties, and to hold office during the pleasure of said inspector. § 2. The inspector of gas-meters appointed under and , in pursuance of an act to provide for the inspection and sealing of gas-meters, and for the protection of consumers of illuminat- ing gas, passed April fourteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars, to be paid in the manner as provided by said act of April four- teenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-nine. I>. 1867. chap. 480. § 1. Any gas company organized under the provisions of the general law, being chapter thirty-seven of the Laws of eighteen hundred and forty-eight, entitled "An act to authorize the formation of gas-light companies," may, upon obtaining the written assent of the holders of two thirds of its stock, mortgage all or any part of its real estate for the purpose of securing the payment of any bonds that may be issued, or debt that may be contracted, for the extension or improvement of its works. And any company incorporated by special act for the purpose of manufacturing or supplying gas in any city or village, may organize under the act hereby amended by the holders of two thirds of its capital stock, signing, acknowledging, and filing a certificate, as required by the first section of said act ; where- upon the rights, privileges, franchises, and property of such company shall vest in the corporation so organized, subject only NEW YORK. 253 to the provisions and restrictions of said act and the acts amendatory thereof. § 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed. L. 1868. Chap. 253. § 1. On and after the passage of this act, it shall not be law- ful for any gas company in this State to charge or coUect rent on its gas-meters either in a direct or indirect manner. Any person, party, or company violating any of the provisions of this act shall be liable to a penalty of fifty dollars for each offence, to be sued for and recovered in the corporate name of the city or village where the violation occurs, in any court having jurisdic- tion, and when collected to be paid into the treasury of said city or village, and to constitute a part of the contingent or general fund thereof. L. 1879. Chap. 512. An Act to authorize Gas Companies to use Electricity instead of Gas for the Lighting of Streets, Public Places, and Public and Private Buildings in Cities, Villages, and Towns within this State. § 1. Any corporation duly authorized under the act entitled "An act to authorize the formation of gas-light companies," passed Feb. 16, 1848, and the several acts amendatory thereof, may use electricity instead of gas as the means for lighting streets, avenues, public parks and places, and public and private dwellings of cities, villages, and towns within this State. § 2. Any such company described in the first section hereof shall have full power to carry on the business of lighting by electricity cities, towns, and villages within this State, and the streets, avenues, public parks and places thereof, and public and private dwellings therein; and for the purposes of such business to generate and supply electricity, and to make, lease, or sell all machines, instruments, apparatus, and other equip- ment necessary therefor ; and shall also have power to lay, erect, and constnict suitable wires or other conductors, with the neces- sary poles, pipes, or other fixtures, in, on, over, and under the 254 EXTEACTS PEOM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. streets, avenues, public parks and places of such cities, towns, or villages, for conducting and distributing electricity, with the con- sent of the municipal authorities thereof, and under such reason- able regulations as they may prescribe. § 3. The city of Brooklyn and the county of Kings are hereby exempted from the provisions of this act. L. 1882. Chap. 73. An Act to amend Chapter 512 of Laws of 1879. § 1. Any corporation duly organized under the act entitled "An act to authorize the formation of gas-light companies," passed Feb. 16, 1848, and the several acts amendatory thereof, and any corporation duly organized under the laws of this State, for manufacturing and using electricity, for producing light, heat, or power, may use electricity as the means of lighting streets, avenues, public parks and places, and public and private dwell- ings of cities, villages, and towns within this State. April 17, 1882. L. 1882. Chap. 410. § 751. It shall not be lawful for the manufacturers of gas, nor for any other person, to throw or deposit any gas-tar or refuse of the gas houses or factories in the county of New York into any public waters, river, or stream, nor into any sewer or stream running or emptying into any such public waters, river, or stream; and whoever shall offend against the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. July 1, 1882. OHIO. Revised Statutes of Ohio, 1880. Title zii.. div. 8, ch. 3, vol. i., page 658. § 2478, The council of any city or village in which gas com- panies or gas-light and coke companies may be established are OHIO. 255 hereby empowered to regulate from time to time the price which such gas or gas-light and coke companies may charge for gas furnished by such companies to the citizens, public grounds and buildings, streets, lanes, alleys, avenues, wharves, and landing- places ; and such gas-light or gas-light and coke companies shall in no event charge more for any gas furnished to such corporation or individuals than the price specified by ordinance of such coun- cil ; and such council shall also have power to regulate and fix the price which such companies maj'' charge for the rent of their meters. § 2479. In case the council fixes the minimum price at which it requires any company to furnish gas to the citizens or public buildings, or for the purpose of lighting the streets, alleys, ave- nues, wharves, landing-places, and public grounds, for a period not exceeding ten years, and the company assents thereto by written acceptance, filed in the of&ce of the clerk of the corpora- tion, it shall not be lawful for the council to require such com- pany to furnish gas at a less price during the period of time agreed on, not exceeding ten years, as aforesaid. § 2480. If such companies are at any time required by the council to lay pipes and light any street, alley, avenue, wharf, landing-place, public ground or building, and refuse or neglect six months after being notified by authority of the council to comply with such requirement, the council may lay pipes and erect gas-works for lighting such streets, alleys, or public grounds, and all other streets, alleys, and public grounds not already lighted ; and such gas companies or . gas-light and coke compa- nies shall thereafter be precluded from using or occupying any of the streets, alleys, public grounds or buildings not already furnished with gas-pipes of such companies ; and the council may open any street for the purpose of conveying gas as afore- said. § 2481. The council may at any time after the default men- tioned in the preceding section permit such gas companies to use and occupy the streets, alleys, and public grounds of such corporation for the purpose of lighting the same, and furnishing gas to the citizens and public buildings. § 2482. A neglect to furnish gas to the citizens and other 256 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. consumers of gas, or to the corporation, hy any company, in accordance with the prices fixed and established by the council, from time to time, shall forfeit all rights of such company under the charter by which it has been established ; and the council may proceed to erect, or, by ordinance, empower any person to erect gas-works for the supply of gas to such corporation and its citizens ; provided, that nothing in this section or in sections 2479 and 2480 shall operate to impair or affect any contract heretofore made between any municipal corporation and any gas-light and coke company. § 2483. A temporary failure to furnish gas shall not operate as a forfeiture unless such failure is through the neglect or mis- conduct of such gas-light, or gas-light and coke company. § 2484. The council of any corporation in which gas-works may be constructed may provide, by ordinance, for the appoint- ment of an of&cer, to be known as inspector of gas, whose duty it shall be to inspect all gas and gas-meters, and certify the correctness of all bills against consumers of gas, make phono- metric [sic] tests, and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by ordinance, and the councU shall fix his compensa- tion. § 2485. It shall not be lawful for any council to agree by ordinance, contract, or otherwise, with any person or persons, for the construction or extension of gas-works for manufacturing or supplying the corporation or its inhabitants with gas, which shall give or continue to any person or persons making such agreement with the council the exclusive privilege of using the streets, lanes, commons, or alleys, for the purpose of conveying gas to the corporation, or the citizens thereof, or which shall deprive the council of the right to designate the kind of meter to be used for the correct measurement of the gas furnished under such agreement, and to provide for inspecting or regulating the same, or which shall not specify the exact quality of the gas to be furnished, and reserve to the council the right to enforce an exact compliance with such specification, under such rules as the council may prescribe ; nor shall the council make any such agreement which shall not secure to the council the right to purchase such works, and all the appurtenances belonging OHIO, 257 thereto at any time within the existence of such contract or agreement. State V. Cincinnati Gas-Light Co., 18 Ohio St. 262; State «. Columbus Gas-Light and Coke Co., 34 Ohio St. 572. § 2486. The council of any city or village shall have power, whenever it may be deemed expedient and for the public good, to erect gas-works at the expense of the corporation, or to pur- chase any gas-works already erected therein. § 2487. When such purchase shall have been made, the councU shall appoint a board of five trustees which shall manage the . -gas-works and supply the corporation and citizens thereof with gas; and the'trustees shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified as hereinafter provided. § 2488. At the annual election occurring next after such pur- chase the qualified voters of the corporation shall elect five trus- tees, to be known as the trustees of gas-works, who shall hold their office for the term of five years, except that at the first election one trustee shall be chosen for one year, one for two years, one for three years, one for four years, and one for five years, and thereafter one trustee shall be elected annually; and the trustees shall not receive any compensation for their ser- vices. § 2489. The board may construct gas-works, extend gas-pipes, manufacture and sell gas and coke, collect gas-bills and other moneys due for gas, coke, or other material sold by it, and dis- burse the same ; manage, conduct, and control the gas-works ; prescribe by by-laws the price of gas and coke, under such rules and regulations as, by ordinance, the council may prescribe, and the manner of using gas ; and to carry into effect the provisions of this section may also purchase material, employ laborers, appoint officers, purchase or lease the necessary real estate, and erect buildings thereon ; and they shall be required to report to the council as often as the council shall deem proper. § 2490. The council may prescribe, by ordinance, for the lay- ing down of gas-pipes in all highways about to be paved, mac- adamized, or otherwise permanently improved, and for the assessment of the cost and expense thereof upon the lots or 17 258 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. m parcels of land adjoining or abutting upon the highways in which the same are laid; hut in no case, excepting as a sanitary measure, shall the council require any house connections to be hmlt further from the main pipe than the outer line of the curb- stone. § 2491. A municipal corporation in which any incorporated gas company is properly organized under the laws of the State shall have power to contract with such company for supplying with gas the streets, squares, and other public places in the cor- porate limits ; but this section shall be subject to the proviso in section 7551. Title II., chap. 7. Gas and Water Companies. Vol. I., p. 908. § 3550. A company organized for the purpose of supplying gas for lighting the streets and public and private buildings of a city, village, town, or township, may manufacture, sell, and fur- nish the gas required therein for such or other purposes, and a company organized for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of a city, vUlage, town, or township with water may sell and furnish any quantity of water required therein for such or other purposes ; and such companies may lay conductors for conduct- ing gas or water through the streets, lands, alleys, and squares in such city, village, town, or township, with the consent of the municipal authorities of the city, village, or town, or with the consent of the trustees of the township, and under such reason- able regulations as they may prescribe. § 3551. The municipal authority of any city or village, or the trustees of any township, in which any gas or water company is organized, may contract with any such company for lighting or supplying with water the streets, lands, lanes, squares, and public places in such city, village, town, or township, but no such company shall go into operation in any city or village where such a corporation has been already formed, or is here- after formed, until after the question of authorizing such opera- tion has been submitted to the qualified voters of such city or village, and authorized by ordinance. § 3552. A gas company in any city or village may extend its pipes used for conveying gas to the various localities and inhab- OHIO. 259 itants of such city or village, to any point or place in the vicinity of such city or village outside the corporate limits thereof; but the right of way must be obtained from the corpo- rate or other authorities, or person having control of the places affected by such extension. § 3553. The standard or unit of measure for the sale of illu- minating gas by meter shall be the cubic foot, containing 62.321 pounds avoirdupois weight of distilled or rain water, weighed in air of the temperature of 62° F., the barometer being at twenty- nine and one half inches. § 3554. No meter shall be set unless it is tested by a meter- prover, sealed and stamped, as provided in section 3556; and any company authorizing the setting of a meter, or allowing the same to be used by any consumer of gas, without being so sealed and stamped, shall forfeit and pay not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, to be recovered upon the com- plaint of any such consumer, in the name of the State, before any court of competent jurisdiction. § 3555. There shall be provided, at the expense of the gas companies of this State, at the office of the Secretary of State, a standard measure of the cubic foot, and such other apparatus as in his judgment shall be necessary for the performance of his duties under this chapter. § 3556. Meters in use shall be tested on the request of the consumer, in his presence if desired, with a meter-prover, tested and sealed as provided in section 3561, by an officer or servant of the company; if the meter be found to be correct, the party requesting the inspection shall pay a fee of twenty-five cents, and the expense of removing the same for the purpose of being tested, and the re-inspection shall be stamped on the meter; if proved incorrect, no fees or expenses shall be paid by the con- sumer, and the company shall furnish a new meter without any charge to the consumer; and no gas company shall have the right to charge rent for meters. Cincinnati Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Ohio, 18 Ohio St. 237. § 3557. Illuminating gas shall not be merchantable in this State which has a minimum of less than twelve candles, — that 260 EXTEACT8 FEOM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. is, a burner consuming five:cuMc feet per hour shall give alight, as measured by the phonometric. [sic] apparatus in ordinary use, of not less than twelve standard sperm candles, each consuming one hundred and twenty grains per hour; and every gas-meter must be tested with the burner and under the pressure best adapted to it, and the result shall be calculated at a temperature of sixty degrees Fahrenheit. § 3558. An officer or servant of a gas company, duly author- ized in writing by the president, treasurer, agent, or secretary of the company, may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises lighted with gas supplied by such company, for the purpose of examining and removing the meters, and of ascertaining the quantity of gas consumed or supplied, and if any person, at any time, directly or indirectly, prevent or hinder any such officer or servant from so entering such premises, or from making such examination or removal, such officer or servant may make com- plaint, under oath, to any justice of the peace of the county wherein such premises are situated, stating the facts in the case, so far as he has knowledge thereof, and the justice may thereupon issue a warrant, directed to any constable of the city or town where such company is located, commanding, him to take suffi- cient aid, and repair to such premises, accompanied by such officer or servant, who shall examine such meters, and ascertain the quantity of gas consumed or supplied therein, and, if required, remove any meters belonging to the company. § 3559. If any person so supplied with gas neglect or refuse to pay the amount due for the same, or for the rent of the meter, or other articles hired by him of the company, the company may stop the gas from entering the premises of such person ; in such cases the officers, servants, or workmen of the gas company may, after twenty-four hours' notice, enter the premises of such par- ties, between the hours of eight in the forenoon and four in the afternoon, and take away such meter, or other property of the company, and may disconnect any meter from the mains or pipes of the company; and no gas company shall have the right to refuse to furnish gas on account of any arrearages due the company for gas furnished to former occupants of the same premises. PENNSYLVANIA. . 261 § 3560. Every person who -wilfully or fraudulently injures, or: suffers to be injured, any meter belonging to the gas company, or prevents any meter from duly registering the quantity of gas supplied through the same, or in any way hinders or interferes with its proper action or just registration, or attaches any pipe to any main or pipe belonging to such company, or otherwise burns, or uses, or causes to be used, any gas supplied by such company, without the written consent of an of&cer thereof, unless the same passes through a meter set by the company, or fraud- ulently burns the gas of the company, or wastes the same, shall, for every such ofiencei forfeit and pay to the company not more than one hundred dollars, to be recovered in an action brought by the company against such offender, and in addition thereto shaU pay the company the amount of damaga by it sustained by reason of such injury, prevention, waste, consumption, or hindranca § 3561. All gas companies supplying the public with illu- minating gas which are not supplied with such apparatus, shall forthwith provide for their use a meter-prover, > the holder, of which shall contain not less than five feet, the same to be tested, stamped, and sealed in, the Secretary of State's office before being used, and a phonometer \sic\ for the comparison of .the lights of gases and candles by means of: a disc. : PENNSYLVANIA. Beightli^s Pueelon's Digest of Pennsylvania Statutes, 1873. VoL I. p. 741. Act of March 11, 1857. I. Oeg-anization of Gas and Water Companies. § 1. "Whenever a special act of the General Assembly shall be passed authorizing the incorporation of a gas or water company within this Commonwealth, the commissioners named in such act, or any five of them, shall have power to open books for receiv- ing subscriptions to the capital stock of said company, at such time or times, and such place or places as they may deem most 262 EXTRACTS PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. expedient, after having given at least ten days' notice in one or more newspapers published or having circulation within the county where said company shall be located j at which time and place two or more of the said commissioners shall attend, and permit all persons of lawful age who shall offer to subscribe in such books in their own names, or in the name of any other person who shall duly authorize the same, for any number of shares of stock ; and the said books shall be kept open respec- tively for the purpose aforesaid at least three hours in every juridical day for the space of five days, or until the said books shall have therein subscribed the whole number of shares author- ized by such special act ; and if at the expiration of said five days the books aforesaid shall not have the said number of shares authorized as aforesaid therein subscribed, the attending commis- sioners may adjourn from time to time and transfer the books from place to place, until the whole number of shares shall be subscribed, or such number of shares as shall be required before the issue of letters patent, as hereinafter provided, of which ad- journment and transfer the commissioners aforesaid shall give such public notice as the occasion may require ; and when the whole number of shares subscribed shall amount to the number authorized or required as aforesaid, the same shall be closed : Provided, always, that every person offering to subscribe in such books, in his or her own or any other name, shall, at the time of subscribing, pay to the attending commissioners any sum not less than one nor more than five dollars (as shall be fixed and determined by said commissioners previously to the opening of the books) for every share so subscribed, out of which shall be defrayed such incidental charges and expenses as may be necessary in taking such subscription, and the remainder shall be paid to the treasurer of the corporation as soon as the same shall be organized and the officers chosen as hereinafter mentioned. § 2. When twenty persons or more shall have subscribed twenty per centum on the capital stock provided for by such special act of Assembly, the said commissioners, or a majority of them, may, or when the whole number of shares authorized as aforesaid shall be subscribed, they shall certify under their hands PENNSYLVANIA. 263 and seals the names of the subscribers, and the number of shares subscribed by each, to the governor of this commonwealth, whereupon it shall and may be lawful for the governor, by letters-patent under his hand and seal of State, to create and erect the subscribers, and if the subscription be not full at the time, then those also who shall afterwards subscribe to the num- ber aforesaid, into one body politic and corporate in deed and in law, by the name, style, and title designated by such special act; and by such name the gaid subscribers shall have perpetual succession, and all privileges and franchises incident to a corpo- ration, and shall be capable of taking and holding the capital stock and the increase and profits thereof, and enlarging the same by new subscription, in such manner and form as they shall think proper, if such enlargement shall be found necessary to fulfil the intent of such special act, and of purchasing, taking, and holding, to them and their successors and assigns, and of selling, transferring, and conveying, in fee-simple, or for any less es- tate, all such lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and estate, real and personal, as shall be necessary to them in the prosecu- tion of their works, and of suing and being sued, and of doing aU and every other matter and thing which a corporation or body politic may do. II. Election op Oppicees. [§ 3 and 5. Repealed in part by Act 1877 and 1878. See page 273.] § 3. The commissioners aforesaid, as soon as conveniently may be after the said letters-patent shall be sealed and obtained, shall give notice in the manner provided for in the first section of this act, of the time and place by them appointed, at which time and place the said subscribers shall proceed to organize such corpora- tion, and shall choose, by a majority of the votes of the sub- scribers, by ballot, delivered in person or by proxy, duly authorized, one president, five managers, and one treasurer, and such other officers as may be necessary to conduct the business of said company until the first Monday of May next ensuing, and until their successors shall be chosen, and shall then, or at any other regular meeting, make such by-laws, orders, and regu- lations, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the 264 EXTRACTS FBOM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. United States and of this Commonwealth, as shall be necessary for the proper management of the affairs of such company: Provided always that each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote for each share of stock not exceeding ten shares, and one vote for every share exceeding that number. And provided also that no stockholder, whether the original subscriber or assignee, shall be entitled to vote at any election or meeting of said com- pany, unless the whole sum due and payable on the share or shares by him or her held, at the time of such election, shall have been fully paid and discharged. [Kepealed in part by Act 1874, § 9. See page 272.] Fletcher v. Titusville Gas & Water Co. 8 Phila. 559. § 4. ITo person acting as judge or officer for holding an elec- tion of officers or managers of any gas or water company, incor- porated as aforesaid, shaU enter on the duties of his office or appointment, until he take and subscribe an oath or affirmation, before a judge, alderman, or justice of the peace, that he will discharge the duties of his office or a,ppointment with fidelity, that he wiU not receive any vote but such as he verily believes to be legal; and if such judge or officer shall knowingly or wil- fully violate his oath or affirmation, he shall be subject to all the penalties imposed by law upon the officers of the general elec- tions of this Commonwealth violating their duties, and shall be proceeded against in like manner and with like effect. And if any election for officers or managers as aforesaid be held, without the person holding the same having first taken an oath or affirmation as aforesaid, or be invalid for any other reason, such election shall be set aside in the manner now provided by law, and a new election ordered by the court of common pleas of the proper county, upon the petition of not less than five stockholders, sup- ported by proof satisfactory to said court. § 5. The stockholders of such company shall meet on the first Monday of May, in every year, at such place as shall be fixed by their by-laws, for the purpose of choosing officers as aforesaid to serve for the ensuing year, or until their successors shall be duly chosen, and at such other times as they shall be summoned by the managers in such manner and form as shall PENNSYLVANIA. 265 be prescribed by their by-laws ; at ■which annual or special meetings t^iey shall have full power and authority to make, alter, or repeal, by a majority of votes, all such ■ by-laws, rules, orders, and regulations made as aforesaid, and to do and perform all lawful and necessary corporate acts : Provided, That no by-laws shall be altered or repealed, without due notice thereof given, at least one month previous thereto, at a general or special meeting. § 6. In case of the death, removal, or resignation of either the president or any of the managers, treasurer, or other offi- cers, of any such company, the remaining managers may supply the vacancy thus created until the next election, and it shaU be lawful for the board of managers to require the treasurer, or any other officer of any such company, to give bond, with one or more sureties, for such an amount as they may deem necessary, condi- tioned for the faithful performance of the duties of the office to which he may have been elected or appointed. III. Of the Capital Stock. § 7. The president and managers of such company shall pro- cure certificates or evidences of stock> and shall deliver them, signed by the president, countersigned by the treasurer, and sealed with the common seal of the corporation, to each person or party entitled to receive the same, according to the number of shares by him, her, or them respectively held ; which certifi- cates or evidences of stock shall be transferable at the pleasure of the holder, in person or by attorney duly authorized, in pres- ence of the president or treasurer, subject, however, to all pay- ments due or to become due thereon, and the assignee or party to whom the same shall have been so transferred shall be a member of said corporation, and have and enjoy all the immuni- tieSj privileges, and franchises, and be subject to all the liabilities, conditions, and penalties, incident thereto, in the same manner as the original subscriber or holder would have been : Provided, That no certificate shall be transferred so long as the holder thereof is indebted to said company, unless the board of managers shall consent thereto. § 8. If the stockholder, whether an original subscriber or agsignee, after twenty days' notice of the time and place appointed 266 EXTKACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. for the payment of any instalment or proportion of the capital stock, shall neglect to pay the same at the place appointed, for the space of thirty days after the time appointed for the pay- ment thereof, such stockholder shall, in addition to the instalment so called for, pay at the rate of one per centum per month for every delay of such payment ; and if the same and additional penalty shall become equal to the sum before paid on account of such share, the same may be forfeited by and to the said company, and may be sold by them at public sale for such price as may be obtained therefor; or in default of payment of any stock- holders of such instalments as aforesaid, for the space of sixty days after the time appointed as aforesaid, the president and managers may, at their election, cause suit to be brought, in the same manner as debts of a like amount are now recoverable, for the recovery of the same, together with the penalties aforesaid. IV. Corporate Powers and Duties. § 9. Where any such company shall be incorporated as a gas company, (they) shall have authority to supply with gas-light the borough, town, city, or district where it may be located, and such persons, partnerships, and corporations residing therein or adjacent thereto as may desire the same at such price as may be agreed upon ; and also to make, erect, and maintain therein the necessary buildings, machinery, and apparatus for manufacturing gas from coal or other material, and distributing the same, with the right to enter upon any public street, lane, alley, or highway for the purpose of laying down pipes, altering, inspecting, and repairing the same, doing as little damage to said streets, lanes, alleys, and highways, and impairing the free use thereof as little as possible, and subject to such regulations as the councils of said borough, town, city, or district may adopt in regard to grades, or for the protection and convenience of public travel over the same. Northern Liberties v. Northern Liberties Gas Co., 12 Penn. St. 318. § 11. In case the owner or owners of lands and tenements through and upon which such pipes, trunks, aqueducts, reser- voirs, and cisterns are laid and constructed, or the owner or PENNSYLVANIA. 267 owners of lands upon which it may be found necessary to enter for the purpose of digging, taking, and carrying away clay, gravel, or other materials necessary for the purposes contemplated by this act, or the owner or owners of any spring or springs, stream or streams of water which may be used or appropriated by the company, or any person who may be injured by the diversion of the water used by said company, cannot agree with the said company upon the damages or compensation to be paid to the said owner or owners, person or persons, it sball and may be lawful for the parties to appoint, or in case the parties cannot agree, then, on application by the party complaining, the court of common pleas of the county in which said company is located shall appoint three disinterested and suitable persons to ascer- tain and report, on oath or affirmation, to said court, what dam- ages, if any, have or will be done by said company ; which report having been returned and confirmed by said court, judgment shall be entered thereon, and execution may issue, in case of non-payment, for the sum awarded, with reasonable costs, to be assessed by the court : Provided that either party may appeal from such award to the court within twenty days after the same shaU have been filed in the ofBice of the prothonotary of said county in the same manner as appeals are allowed in other cases, whether the said report was made by persons agreed upon by the parties or appointed by the court, upon which appeal such proceedings shall be had as in other cases of damages : Presided that nothing herein contained shall authorize said company to enter on the land or appropriate the property of any individual, unless the parties agree, without first giving adequate security for any damage they may occasion, to be approved of by one of the judges of the court of common pleas of the county : Provided further, that this act shall not apply to any action for damages now pending in any court of this Commonwealth. § 12. Any of the said companies shall have the power and authority, if they shall deem it necessary for the purpose of their iiicorporation, to borrow any sum or sums of money, in their corporate capacity, not exceeding in the aggregate one half of their capital stock paid in at the time of obtaining said loan, and to secure payment of the same may make and execute a 268 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. mortgage or mortgages, pledge or pledges, of the property and effects of their said corporation, or give such other evidences of indebtedness as may be agreed upon; and the managers, shall provide for the payment of the interest upon any. loan made under this section out of the receipts for gas or water, as the case' may be, before any dividends shall be paid to the stock- holders : jprovided that no certificate of loan or other evidence of indebtedness as aforesaid shaU be for a less sum than one hun- dred dollars. § 13. The board of managers of said company shall declare dividends, payable semi-annually, of so much of the net profits of the company as shall appear to them advisable. V. Miscellaneous Pbovisions. . § 14. If any person or persons shall open a communication into the water or gas main or other pipe of said company, without authority from the inspector or other authorized agent of said company, or shall let on the water or gas, after either shall have been stopped by order of said inspector or authorized agent of said company, for repairs or any other cause or purpose, or shall put up any hydrants, pipes, or. burners, in addition to those originally put up and inspected, and introduce into them the water or gas, as the case may be, without authority as aforesaid, he, she, or they shall be subject to a penalty of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars, recoverable before any alderman or justice of the peace of the proper county as debts of like amount are recoverable ; one half to be paid to the informer, and one half to the company. § 15. If any person shall wilfully or maliciously do or cause to be done any act or acts whatever, whereby any building, construction, reservoir works of said company, or any water or gas pipe, gas post, burner, or reflector, or any matter or thing appertaining to the same, shall be stopped or obstructed, injured, contaminated, or destroyed, the person or persons so offending shall be considered guilty of a misdemeanor, and may therefor be indicted in the court of quarter sessions of the proper county, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceed- ing five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding one iPENN8TLVANIA. 269 year, or both, at the discretion of the court : provided that such criminal prosecution shall not in any way impair the right of said company to a full compensation in damages by pivil suit. § 16. It shall and may be lawful, at any time after twenty years from the introduction of water or gas, as the case may be, into any place as aforesaid, for the town, borough, city, or dis- trict into which the said company shall be located, to become the owners of said works and the property of said company, by paying therefor the net cost of erecting and maintaining the same, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum. § 17. Every charter of incorporation which shall be granted under the provisions of this act shall be subject to the power of the legislature to alter, revoke, or annul the same whenever, in their opinion, it may be injurious to the citizens of the Com- monwealth, in such manner, however, that no injustice shall be done to the corporators. Laws of Pennsylvania, 1871. No. 272. § 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Eepresenta- tives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assem- bly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same. That the provisions of the twelfth section of the act to which this is a supplement shall be and are hereby extended to all gas, bridge, and water companies incorporated under any special law of this Commonwealth prior to the passage of the said act. § 2. That the president and managers or board of directors of any of said companies shall be empowered and they are hereby authorized, whenever they have created or shall erect and construct any new buildings, or any new and material improvements, such as are authorized by their respective char- ters, to issue certificates of stock to the amount of the cost of such buildings or improvements. Approved March 28, 1871. 270 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. Purdon's Annual Digest, 1873-1878, p. 1878. Penn. Statutes, Act of 1874. — Gas and Water Companies. § 1. Companies incorporated under the provisions of this statute for the supply of water to the public, or for the manu- facture and supply of gas, or the supply of light or heat to the public by any other means, shall, unless otherwise provided by this act, from the date of the letters-patent creating the same, have the powers and be governed, managed, and controlled as follows : — § 2. Where any such company shall be incorporated as a gas company, or company for the supply of heat or light to the public, it shall have authority to supply with gas-light the borough, town, city, or district where it may be located, and such persons, partnerships, and corporations residing therein, or adjacent thereto, as may desire the same, at such price as may be agreed upon ; and also to make, erect, and maintain therein, the necessary buildings, machinery, and apparatus for manufac- turing gas, heat, or light from coal or other material, and dis- tributing the same; with the right to enter upon any public street, lane, alley, or highway, for the purpose of laying down pipes, altering, inspecting, and repairing the same, doing as little damage to said streets, lanes, alleys, and highways, and impairing the free use thereof, as little as possible, and subject to such regulations as the councils of said borough, town, city, or district may adopt in regard to grades, or for the protection and con- venience of public travel over the same. § 4. The right to have and enjoy the franchises, and privileges of such incorporation within the district or locality covered by its charter shall be an exclusive one; and no -other company shall be incorporated for that purpose until the said corporation shall have, from its earnings, realized and divided among its stockholders, during five years, a dividend equal to eight per centum per annum upon its capital stock. Provided, that the said corporations shall at all times furnish pure gas and water ; and any citizen using the same may make complaint of impurity PENNSYLVANU. 271 or deficiency in quantity, or both, to the court of common pleas of the proper county, by bill filed, and after hearing parties touching the same, the said court shaU have power to make such order in the premises as may seem just and equitable, and may dismiss the complaints, or compel the corporation to correct the evil complained of. § 6. If any person or persons shall open a communication into the water or gas main, or other pipe of said company, without authority from the inspector or other authorized agent of said company, or shall let on the water or gas, after either shall have been stopped by order of said inspector or authorized agent of said company, for repairs or any other cause or purpose, or shall put up any hydrants, pipes, or burners, in addition to those originally put up and inspected, and introduce into them water or gas, as the case may be, without authority as aforesaid, he, she, or they shall be subject to a penalty of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars, recoverable before any alderman or justice of the peace of the proper county, as debts of like amouut are by law recoverable, one half to be paid to the in- former, and one half to the company. § 7. If any person shall wilfully or maliciously do, or cause to be done, any act or acts whatever, whereby any building, con- struction, reservoir, or works of said company, or any water or gas pipe, gas post, burner, or reflector, or any matter or thing ap- pertaining to the same, shaU be stopped or obstructed, injured, contaminated, or destroyed, the person or persons so offending shall be considered guilty of a misdemeanor and may therefor be indicted in the court of quarter sessions of the proper county, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not ex- ceeding five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court. Provided, That such criminal prosecution shall not in any way impair the right of said company to a full compensation in damages by civil suit. § 8. It shall be lawful at any time after twenty years from the introduction of water or gas, as the case may be, into any place as aforesaid, for the town, city, borough, or district into which the said company shall be located, to become the owners 272 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. of said worka and the property of said company, by paying therefor the net cost of erecting and maintaining the same, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per centum per annum, de- ducting from said interest all dividends theretofore declared; provided that nothing in this section contained shall authorize a company incorporated under the provisions of this act to con- struct gas or water works within the limits of any municipality, when gas or water works shall have been constructed by said . municipality without the lawful consent of the corporate authorities thereof: arid provided further, that the court of com- mon pleas of the proper county shall have jurisdiction and power upon the bill or petition of any citizen using the gas or water of any of said companies to hear, inquire, and determine as to the charges thereof for gas or water so furnished, and to decree that the said bni shall be dismissed, or that the charges shall be decreased, as to the said court may seem just and equitable, and to enforce obedience to their decrees by the usual process. § 9. That the proviso in the third section of the act to pro- vide for the incorporation of gas and water companies, approved the eleventh day of March, 1857, which is as follows: "That each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote for each share of stock not exceeding ten shares, and one vote for every five shares exceeding that number," be and the same is hereby repealed. § 10. It shall be lawful for each stockholder of the capital stock of any gas or water company, made subject to the pro- visions of the act to which this is a supplement, to cast one vote for each share of stock so held by any such stockholder, at any and at all elections held by any of said companies. Acts of 24tli March, 1877, and 18th May, 1878. Purdon's Annual Digest, p. 2131. § 1. It shall be lawful for any gas company or water company incorporated under the provisions of the act of the general assembly of this Commonwealth, entitled, " An act to provide for the incorporation and regulation of certain corporations,'' approved the 29th day of April, Anno Domini, 1874, to borrow PENNSYLVANIA. 273 any sums of money not exceeding in the aggregate one half of the capital stock of such company paid in, at a rate of interest not exceeding amounts now allowed by law, and issue bonds therefor, with coupons or interest warrants attached, and secure the payment of such bonds and interest warrants by a mortgage, to a trustee or trustees, of all its real and personal property, rights, privileges, and franchises. § 2. The stockholders of any company incorporated under the provisions of said act shall choose by a majority of votes a president and five managers ; each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote for each share of stock held by him ; and the said president and managers shall appoint all other of&cers and agents necessary to conduct the business of such company. § 3. That so much of the 3d and 5th sections of the act of . March 11, Anno Domini, 1857, as provides that the treasurer of such gas and water companies shall be elected by the stock- holders, and all other acts and parts of such acts inconsistent herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed. Fenn. Statutes of 1881. No. 126 (supplementary to Act of 1874). § 1. Be it enacted, &c., that the provisions of the 3d clause of section 34 of the act approved April, 29, 1874, entitled An act to provide for the incorporation and regulation of certain corpo- rations, which reads as follows : "provided, That the said corpora- tions shall at aU times furnish pure gas and water, and any citi- zen using the same may make complaint of impurity or deficiency in quantity, or both, to the court of common pleas of the proper county by biU filed ; and after hearing the parties touching the same, the said court shall have power to make such order in the premises as may seem just and equitable, and may dismiss the complaints or compel the corporation to correct the evil com- plained of," be and the same is hereby extended and made appli- cable to all gas and water companies incorporated under any of the laws of this Commonwealth. § 2. That all proceedings authorized by said proviso shall be in accordance with the rules of equity practice now existing : provided that aU lawful fees and costs accruing in such proceed- 18 274 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. ing shall be taxed and allowed as provided by the equity fee bill in the respective court, and paid by the unsuccessful party. § 3. Either party may appeal to the supreme court as in cases in equity. EHODE ISLAND. Public Statutes of Ehode Island, 1882. Title 30, chap. 242. § 41. Every person who shall wilfully or fraudulently injure, or shaU knowingly suffer to be injured, any meter, pipe, or fit- tings connected with or belonging to any gas-light company, or connected with or belonging to the waterworks of any corpo- ration in this State supplying water at a stipulated rate of pay- ment, or shall wilfully tamper or meddle with any other of the appliances or appurtenances connected with or belonging to any such gas-light company, or to the waterworks of such corpora- tion, in such manner as to cause loss or damage to said company or corporation, or who shall wilfully or fraudulently prevent any meter used for registering the quantity of gas or water sup- plied through the same from duly registering the quantity so passing through the same, or alter the index of any such meter, or in any way hinder or interfere with its proper action or just registration, or shaU fraudulently burn the gas of said company, or fraudulently use the water passing through such meter, pipe, fittings, or other of the appliances or appurtenances connected with or belonging to said gas company, or to the waterworks of such corporation, or wilfully waste said gas or water, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding thirty days, or be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars. § 42. Every person who, with intent to injure or defraud any gas-light company, or any corporation supplying water in this State at a stipulated rate of payment, shall make or cause to be made any pipe, tube, or other instrument or contrivance, and connect the same, or cause the same to be connected with any RHODE ISLAND. 275 main, service pipe, or other pipe, appliance, or appurtenance used for or in connection with the works or apparatus employed for conducting or supplying illuminating gas or water in such man- ner as to be calculated to supply such gas or water to any burner, orifice, faucet, or other outlet whatsoever without such gas or water passing through a meter provided or used for measuring or regi^s- tering the quantity thereof so passing through, or without the consent of said company or corporation to such connections afore- said, or who shall otherwise use any such gas or water with the intent to defraud said company or corporation of payment there- for, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be im- prisoned not exceeding thirty days, or be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars. § 43. Every person or corporation who shall wilfully collect of any person or persons a larger sum for gas or water than appears to be due on inspection of the meter put in to regulate and register the same, or shaU. wilfully furnish a meter that shall not correctly register the quantity of gas or water so consumed, shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars. Title 22, chap. 171. § 1. The water-wheels, steam-engine, boilers, main belts, which first give motion to the shafting, aU shafting, whether upright or horizontal, and hangers for the same, except such as are lised to drive a special machine, all drums, pulleys, wheels, gearing, steam-pipes, gas-pipes, and gas fixtures, water-pipes and fixtures, kettles, and vats set and used in any mechanical or manufacturing establishment, are declared to be real estate when- ever the same belong to the owner of the real estate to which they are attached. § 2. All other machinery, tools, and apparatus of every de- scription used and employed in any manufacturing establishment are declared to be personal estate, and as such shall be consid- ered in assignments of dower, in attachments, and in all cases whatsoever, except in the assessment and payment of taxes. § 3. Partition of the property mentioned in section two of this chapter may be compelled between the owners thereof in the same manner as though the same were real estate. 276 EXTEACTS PEOM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. TENNESSEE. Acts of Tennessee, 1873. Chap. ZV. An Act defining the Rights, Privileges, Restrictions, and Liabilities of Gas-Iiight Companies hereafter to be incorporated. § 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That all corporations for the purpose of manufactur- ing and vending gas in this State, chartered under and by virtue of the Act of 1870-71, chapter LIV., or amendments thereto, shall be entitled to all the rights, powers, privileges, and immuni- ties, and subject to all the liabilities and restrictions hereinafter contained. § 2. Be it further enacted. That they shall have succession by their corporate names for the period of ninety-nine years ; may sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with ; may have and use a common seal, and alter the same at pleasure ; they may hold, purchase, dispose of, and convey real and personal estate, to such an amount as the business of the corporation may re- quire, or for the security and payment of any debt that may be due to them ; and make all by-laws, rules, and regulations they may deem best for the interest of the corporation, and for the transfer of stocks, the management of the property, and the regu- lation of its affairs. § 3. Be it further enacted, That the capital stock of such com- panies shall be at least $50,000, and not more than $500,000, which may be divided into shares, the amount of which is to be determined by the board of directors ; and no company shall commence business until at least twenty per cent of their stock shall have been paid in, and if they do not organize and com- mence business within three years from the date of their incor- poration they shall forfeit their charters. § 4. Be it further enacted, That to enable said companies to establish such works, they are hereby authorized and empowered to lay down pipes, and extend conductors and other apparatus, through all or any of the streets, lanes, or alleys of any city or TENNESSEE. 277 town, in which they propose to do business, in such manner as to produce the least possible inconvenience to the city or town, or its inhabitants, or to travellers, and to take up the pavements or sidewalks. Provided, they shall afterward repair the same with the least possible delay. § 5. Be it further enacted, That said companies shall have the privilege of erecting, establishing, and constructing gas-works and manufacturing and vending gas in the city or town in which they propose to do business, by means of public works, for the terms specified in the second section of this act. A reasonable price per thousand cubic feet shall be charged in the case of private individuals, and for public lights such sum as may be agreed upon by the company and the public authorities. Pro- vided, no company shall charge more than half a cent for every cubic foot of gas used, as may be indicated by the gas-meter, or computed by the ordinary rules in such cases. Nor shall they ever charge any corporation more per cubic foot than they shall be getting at the same time from a majority of the inhabitants of the city or town using such gas. § 6. Be it further enacted. That the works and operations of all such companies shall be so constructed and managed that no annoyance shall accrue therefrom to the health or comfort of the inhabitants of such city or town, and nothing in this act shall be so construed as to absolve any company, their agents or officers, from any legal proceedings to restrain or abate any nuisance arising from such works or operations. § 7. Be it further enacted, That if any person or persons shall injure or destroy any portion of the gas fixtures, or other prop- erty belonging to any such gas-light company, or wilfully open a communication into the street or other gas-pipes, or let on gas after it has been stopped by the company, such person or persons shall be liable for aU damages sustained by such proceedings, and also a penalty not exceeding $500 upon conviction by the proper authorities. § 8. Be it further enacted, That the corporators, or any or one or more of them, shall be commissioned to open books for the subscription of stock, which shall be kept open until they may deem that a sufficient amount has been subscribed. They shall 278 EXTRACTS PROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. then, by advertisement in some newspaper in the city, town, or county in which they propose to do business, give at least ten days' notice to the stockholders to hold a meeting for the elec- tion of a board of directors (the number to be named by the stockholders) to whom shall be trusted the management of the affairs of the company, and who shall elect a president from among their number, and may elect such person or persons as they see proper for the offices of secretary and treasurer. § 9. Be it further enacted, That the president and directors, unless otherwise provided by the stockholders, shall fill any vacancy that may occur in the board ; the said election to be held at the office of the company at such time as the stock- holders may appoint. To enable any person to be a member of the board of directors, or president, he must be the owner of a number of shares, to be designated by the stockholders, and the president must be a citizen of this State; For each and every share of stock he may hold, each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote, which may be given by proxy in aU elections of boards of directors. Stock may be transferred on the books of the company at any time previous to one month before the election. § 10. Be it further enacted. That if any person or persons shall commit any of the offences enumerated in section 7, he, she, or they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as in other cases of mis- demeanor. § 11. Be it further enacted. That the stock of said companies shall be paid in within four years from the organization thereof, in such proportions or instalments, and at such times and places, as may be required by the directory ; and any stockholder failing to pay such instalments shall, at the discretion of the directory, forfeit aU right, title, and interest in and to every share on account of which such default may have been made, or the directory, at their option, may cause suit to be brought against such defaulting stockholders for the amount due on such for- feited share or shares. And in the event of a forfeiture, the stockholder so forfeiting shall still be held individually and per- sonally liable to the creditors of such company who were credi- TENNESSEE. 279 tors at the time of the forfeiture, to the fuU amount unpaid of each share of stock so forfeited, and the directors may dispose of the forfeited shares at their discretion. No company s|}all at any time, by releasing stockholders from the payment of their shares, or any part thereof, nor by any other means, discharge such stockholder from his liability to the creditors of said com- pany to the extent of any balance due, or to become due, on account of unpaid stocks. § 12. Be it further enacted, That gas companies, incorporated under this act shall have the further right and privilege of extending their pipes and other conductors through, over, and along the streets, roads, and ways of any of the suburbs of the city or town in which they may be located, or of the adjacent territory, whether incorporated or not, if the wants of the inhabi- tants require such extension. And for this purpose they are further authorized to extend their gas-pipes and their apparatus across, through, or along any public streets, roads, or ways, and across any intervening streams : provided, if the streams be navigable, that such pipes and apparatus shall be so laid as not to interfere with the navigation of such streams ; and provided, further, that the said gas-light company shall not charge more per one thousand cubic feet for their gas sold by means of such extension than- they charge their other individual consumers ; and provided further, if rendered necessary by such extension, that said gas companies may, from time to time, increase their capital stock beyond the original capital as fixed by this act, but so as not to exceed $1,000,000. § 13. Be it further enacted. That all the rights, powers, and privileges granted by this act to gas companies incorporated under it shall be, and the same are hereby, extended to all gas companies in this State heretofore incorporated by special char- ter granted by the General Assembly of the State, in addition to the rights, powers, and privileges contained in their several charters respectively. § 14. Be it further enacted. That no gas company incorporated under this act shall proceed to exercise the privileges herein granted, within the limits of any incorporated town or city in this State, without the assent of the corporate authorities of such 280 EXTRACTS FEOM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. town or city to the exercise of such privileges, so far as they affect the rights, interest, and priyileges of said incorporated town pv city, such assent to be given hy the municipal board of such town or city, in the form of a written contract between the town or city and said gas-light company, binding on both, and regularly entered upon the public minutes of the proceed- ings of the municipal board. Nor shall any gas company chartered under this act lay their pipes, conductors, or other apparatus in and along the excavations previously made, then being used by any other gas company, nor otherwise exercise the rights, powers, and privileges herein granted, so as to inter- fere with the pipes, conductors, and apparatus of any other gas company previously laid and in use, or ready for use, without the assent of such company in writing. But this shall not be held to prevent any gas company from laying its pipes across those of a previously existing company when necessary, without contract ; nor to prevent any gas company from exercising the rights, powers, and privileges herein granted, according to the true intent and meaning of this act. § 15. Be it further enacted. That any gas company heretofore chartered by the legislature of this State, or that may hereafter be incorporated under the provisions of this act, shall, before extending their pipes or apparatus through or along the road of any turnpike or chartered company, first obtain from said company, through their board of directors, permission as required in a foregoing section of this act, as applies to obtaining use of streets from any incorporated city or town. § 16. Be it further enacted, That, the public welfare requir- ing it, this act shall take effect from and after its passage. Passed March 1, 1873. Approved March 8, 1873. Acts of Tennessee; 1875. Chap. 38. An act to amend an act passed the 1st of March, 1873, and approved the 8th of March, 1873, entitled, " An act defining the rights, privileges, restrictions, and liabilities of gas-light compa- nies hereafter to be incorporated," so as to reduce the minimum TEXAS. 281 of capital in cities and towns of populations of five thousand inhabitants or less to $12,000, instead of $50,000. § 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That section 3 of an act approved the 8th day of March, 1873, entitled " An act defining the rights, privileges, restrictions, and liabilities of gas-light companies hereafter to be incorporated," be so amended that, in all towns, cities, and neighborhoods in this State, companies may be organized under the laws of the State with reference thereto under said act, or any other law authorizing the incorporation of gas-light com- panies, with such a capital stock as said company may determine on and designate. § 2. Be it further enacted. That the public interest requires it, and this act shall take effect from and after its passage. Passed March 9, 1875. Approved March 13, 1875. Statutes of Tennessee, 1871. Section 4655. It is a misdemeanor in any person — No. 6. " Wilfully to injure, remove, or destroy any turnpike or plank road ; or wilfully to cut, burn, or in any way break down, injure, or destroy any telegraph post, wires, or other ap- paratus thereto belonging ; or wilfully to injure, remove, or destroy any gas fixtures or other property of any gas company." TEXAS. Eevised Statutes of Texas, 1879. Title XX. chap. 9. Gas and Water Corporations. Art. 629. Any gas or water corporation shall have full power to manufacture and sell and to furnish such quantities of water or gas as may be required by the city, town, or village where located, for public or private buildings, or for other purposes ; 282 EXTRACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. and such corporation shall have power to lay pipes, mains, and conductors for conducting gas or water through the streets, alleys, lanes, and squares in such city, town, or village, with the con- sent of the municipal authorities thereof, and under such regu- lations as they may prescribe^ Art. 630. The municipal authorities of any city, town or vil- lage in which any gas-light or water corporation shall exist, are hereby authorized to contract with any such corporation for the lighting or supplying with water the streets, alleys, lots, squares, and public places in any such city, town, or village. Title 17, chap. 4. Art. 371. The city council shall have power to appropriate money. Art. 377. To provide for lighting the streets and erecting lamp- posts and lamps therein, and regulating the lighting thereof, and from time to time create, alter, or extend lamp districts ; to ex- clusively regulate, direct, and control the laying and repairing of the gas pipes and gas fixtures in the streets, alleys, sidewalks, and elsewhere. VERMONT. Eevised Laws of Vermont, 1880. Title 31, chap. 192. § 4162. A person who taps gas-pipes with intent to take gas therefrom, or who connects pipes with such gas-pipes so that gas may be used without passing through the meters for the mea- surement of such gas, or who knowingly burns gas without measurement by gas-meters without the consent of the owner, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dol- lars or by imprisonment not more than one year, or both ; and the owner of the gas may recover of the person so unlawfully tapping or connecting said pipes or using gas the actual damages suffered by such owner, with full costs. VERMONT; UTAH. 283 UTAH. Compiled Laws of Utah, 1876. Title 13, chap. V. p. 2117. § 287. Every person who, with intent to injure or defraud, makes or causes to he made any pipe, tube, or other instrument, and connects the same, or causes it to be connected, with any main, service pipe, or other pipe for conducting or supplying illu- minating gas, in such manner as to supply illuminating gas to any burner or orifice, by or at which illuminating gas is con- sumed, around or without passing through the meter provided for the measuring and registering the quantity consumed, or in any other manner so as to evade payment therefor, and every person who, with like intent, injures or alters any gas-meter or obstructs its action, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Title 14, chap. I. p. 2190. § 360. Every person who wilfully breaks, digs up, obstructs, or injures any pipe or main for conducting gas or water or any works erected for supplying buildings with gas or water, or any appurtenances or appendages therewith connected, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Laws of Utah, 1880. Chap. 29. § 9. Every gas, water, telegraph, or railroad corporation has the right of way through the public ways and squares in any city, village, or town, with the consent of the authorities thereof, and under such reasonable regulations as said authorities and the law prescribe. The county courts of the several counties have power to grant a right of way over the public highways for rail- roads, canals, water-pipes, and telegraph lines, under such reason- able regulations as such court may establish. Such portions of all county roads as lie within the limits of any incorporated town or city, or in any town or city hereafter incorporated, shall conform to the direction and grade and be subject to all the regulations of other streets in such town or city. 284 EXTBACTS FROM THE STATUTES OP THE UNITED STATES. WISCONSIN. Eevised Statutes of Wisconsin, 1878. Chapter 86. § 1780. Any corporation formed under this chapter for the manufacture of inflammable gas, in order to light any city or village or streets, or public places or buildings, therein, may by the consent of, and in the manner agreed upon with, the proper authorities of such city or village, use any street, alley, lane, park, or public grounds for laying gas-pipe or any other pur- pose, provided, no permanent injury shall be done to the same. And any such corporation may, by contract duly executed with the proper authorities of any city or village not lighted with gas, acquire the exclusive right to manufacture and sell gas for light, and lay gas-pipes within such city or village, or a designated part thereof, for such period, not exceeding fifteen years, and upon such terms, as may be agreed upon, and shall thereafter have and enjoy such exclusive right according to such con- tract. Every such gas company heretofore organized shall con- tinue to enjoy the rights given by the law under which it was formed, except that it shaU not under any circumstances have any exclusive right to manufacture or sell gas as against any person or corporation which shall have manufactured and sold gas and lighted houses or streets within the same city or village previous to its organization. INDEX TO STATUTES. A. ABUTTERS, p^ob on streets, damage to, how assessed and collected. New HampsMre, oh. 155, § 3 327 Pennsylvania, §11 266 assessment of cost of laying pipes upon, Ohio, § 2490 257 AGENTS OP GAS COMPANIES, authority of, to enter buildings for inspection of pipes and meters, Arizona, § 23 189 Ohio, § 3558 260 NewYork, 1859, §8 250 California, §§ 631, 633 195 Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 15 214 shall make complaint of resistance before justices of the peace, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 15 214 Ohio, § 3554 259 may enter buildings to remove property of company for non-payment of gas-biUs, California, § 632 195 ANNUAL MEETING, companies shall hold, for election of officers, Pennsylvania, § 5 . . 264 ANNUAL REPORT, of business of gas companies, shall be made and published, New Jersey, § 13 332 New York, § 13 242 APPARATUS POR TESTING GAS, to be supplied and kept by gas inspector, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 9 213 CaHfornia, § 577 192 may be purchased by city or town, and used by inspectors, ' Connecticut, 1877, oh. 138, § 1 204 286 INDEX TO STATUTES. APPAEATUS FOE, TESTING Qk& — continued. Pagb to be kept at office of secretary of state and supplied at expense of gas companies, Ohio, § 3555 259 to be provided at expense of gas companies, Ohio, § 3555 259 New York, 1859, ch. 311, § 5 248 when wanting, company mast provide test-meters, Ohio, § 3561 . . 261 APPEAL, from award of damages, Pennsylvania, § 11 266 1881, § 3 274 from assessment of damages. New Hampshire, ch. 155, § 4 . . . 227 APPLICATIOlSr EOR GAS, pipes must be laid to supply customers within three months after. New Jersey, § 22 235 but not over three hundred lineal feet of pipe required to be laid upon. New Jersey, § 22 235 must be made in writing by owner or occupant, Arizona, § 1 . . . 189 gas company must supply gas upon proper, California, § 629 194 New York, 1859, ch. 311, § 6 249 AETICLES OP ASSOCIATION, to be filed with county recorder, Michigan, ch. 96, § 4 219 and secretary of state, Michigan, ch. 96, § 4 219 New Jersey, § 1 228 may be amended, when there is increase of capital stock, Michigan, 1873, § 2 223 wliat to contain, Michigan, ch. 96, § 5 219 New Jersey, § 1 228 copy of certificate of, to be received in all courts as presumptive evidence of incorporation, Nevr York, § 9 242 New Jersey, § 3 229 ASSISTANT INSPECTORS, may be appointed by the governor, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 1 210 Califomia, § 579 192 shall hold office for three years, Massachusetts, cli. 61, § 1 ... 210 salary of, what and how collected, Mass., oh. 61, §§ 2, 3, 7 . 210, 212 must give bond, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 3 210 shall not be interested in the manufacture or sale of gas or meters or any apparatus, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 4 211 shall not give written opinions to manufacturers, &c., Mass. ch. 61, § 4 ' .... 211 INDEX TO STATUTES. 287 B. BONDS, Page gas companies may issue, to carry on business, Indiana, ch. 219 . . 208 gas companies may issue, not to exceed one half of capital stock, Pennsylvania, 1877, § 1 272 1871, § 2 269 gas companies may issue, not to exceed one-third of capital stock, and to run not over twenty years, N. Y. 1864, oh. 312, § 1 . 247 gas companies may increase bonded indebtedness by vote of majority of stockholders, New Jersey, 1879, ch. 109, § 1 .... 236 proceeds of, to be applied to extension of works and purchase of real estate required for use of company, N. Y. 1854, ch. 312, § 2 . 247 BORROW MONEY, gas companies may, to carry on business, Indiana, ch. 219 . . . 208 but not to exceed half the amount of their capital stock at the time. New York, 1848, § 2 240 Pennsylvania, § 12 267 1878, § 1 272 BY-LAWS, gas companies may make, Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, § 2 .... 276 directors may make prudential. New York, 1848, § 7 241 to be made by stockholders at annual meeting, Pennsylvania, § 3 . 263 but not to be altered or repealed without notice, Pennsylvania, § 5 264 C. CAPITAL STOCK OE GAS COMPANIES, amount of, how subscribed and paid in, Michigan, 1872, ch. 96, § 6 220 1873, § 2 . , 223 Pennsylvania, §§ 1, 2 261 § 7 265 Minnesota, § 100 • ... 224 New Jersey, §§4, 7, 12 229,230,232 Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, §§ 3, 8 276,277 1875, ch. 38, § 1 281 companies may increase or diminish, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 35 216 New Jersey, § 9 231 1879, ch. 109, § 1 236 Michigan, 1872, § 6 220 1873, § 1 222 New York, §§ 20-22 244 Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, § 12 279 Pennsylvania, § 2 262 1877, § 1 372 288 INDEX TO STATUTES. CAPITAL STOCK OF GAS COUP AmES—emiHiiued. faoe shall be held aa personal property, Michigan, ch. 96, § 9 220 Minnesota, § 103 224 New Jersey, § 8 231 New York, § 8 242 when to be paid in. New Jersey, § 11 232 New York, §§ 6, 11 241, 242 Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, § 11 278 rights of assignee of shares of, Pennsylvania, § 7 265 no transfer of, while holder is indebted to company, Penn. § 7 . . 265 twenty per cent of, must be paid in, and one half subscribed, before articles of association are recorded. New Jersey, § 2 . . . 229 CERTIFICATE, of incorporation shall be filed with recorder of county and secretary of state, Indiana, ch. 167, § 1 207 Michigan, ch. 96, § 4 219 New Jersey, §§ 1, 3 228, 239 New York, 1848, §§ 1, 11 239, 242 .of change of business must be filed with the secretary of common- wealth, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 51 217 that capital stock is all paid in, to be filed with county clerk. New Jersey, § 12 232 New York, 1848, § 11 242 of objection to dividend by director, when may be filed. New Jersey, § 14, 233 of reorganized company after sale, to be filed with secretary of state. New Jersey, 1881, ch. 26, § 2 239 to be filed when capital stock has been diminished or increased. New York, 1848, § 32 ... ' 245 CHANGE OF BUSINESS, may be made by vote of all stockholders, Mass., ch. 106, § 51 . . 217 CHARTER, forfeiture of, on neglect to furnish gas at fixed prices, Ohio, §§ 2482, 2483 255 may be revoked by the legislature, Pennsylvania, § 17 269 company organized under, may reorganize under general act, Michigan, ch. 96, § 13 222 COAL LANDS, companies may lease, purchase, hold, and convey, Colorado, ^T 294 201 COKE, companies may sell, Colorado, ^ 294 201 COMPLAINT, of impurity of gas, may be made by any citizen, Penn., 1874, § 4 . 270 INDEX TO STATUTES, 289 COMPLAINT — continued. Page before justice of the peace, of interference witli agents of company, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 15 214 Ohio, § 3558 260 CONSUMERS OF GAS, shall have reasonable notice of inspection of meters, New York, 1859, § 8 250 Massachusetts, oh. 61, § 13 213 California, § 580 192 conditions of testing meter for, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 12 213 California, § 581 193 Ohio, § 3556 359 penalty for neglect of, to pay for gas and rent of meter, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 16 315 New York, 1859, § 9 350 shall pay fee for inspection of meter, when, California, § 581 193 Connecticut, § 25 203 New York, 1859, § 5 348 Ohio, § 3556 359 may complain of quantity or quality of gas, when, Pennsylvania, 1874, § 4, 370 1881, § 1 ..... : 273 refusal of, to pay for gas, when justifiable, California, § 581 . . . 192 D. DAMAGES, to abutters on streets, how assessed and collected, N. H. ch. 155, § 3 327 for injury to street by laying gas-pipe, although laid with consent of municipal corporation, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 75 . . . 317 to real estate by laying gas-pipes, how assessed, Pennsylvania, § 11 366 for defect in highway, caused by act of gas company, can be coUectedby municipalities, when, Mass. ch. 106, § 76 . . 318 double, when company liable in, California, 1878, § 5 199 treble, when allowed for malicious injury to gas-pipes. New Hamsphire, ch. 155, § 5 338 treble, when allowed for injuring any property of gas company. New York, 1848, § 19 244 DEEECT IN HIGHWAY, caused by gas company, liability for, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 76 . 218 DEPOSITS, interest to be paid on, Illinois, 1879, ch. 74 306 New York, 1859, § 7 350 ^ 19 290 INDEX TO STATUTES. DEPOSITS — «0«foV«« — contimed. Pagb Ohio, § 3559 260 Califoriria, § 629 194 New York, 1859, § 6 349 gas companies may shut off gas and remove meter for non-payment of bill for gas, Arizona, § 3 190 Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 16 215 Ohio, § 3559 260 California, § 633 195 forfeiture of charter for, Ohio, § 2483 255 RENT OP METER, penalty for non-payment of, Ohio, § 8559 260 may not be charged by gas companies. New York, 1868, § 1 258 New Jersey, § 19 234 Ohio, § 3556 259 may be fixed by council of city or village, Ohio, § 2478 .... 354 upon refusal to pay, gas companies may cut off gas, Arizona, § 3 190 California, § 632 195 REPEAL OP CHARTER, right of legislature to alter or amend charter, reserved. New York, 1848, § 16 243 RIGHT OP WAY, from whom to be obtained, Ohio, § 3552 358 gas companies have, through public ways and squares of city, with consent of authorities, Utah, 1880, § 9 288 S. SALE OP COMPANY, purchaser shall take rights and franchise by. New Jersey, 1881, ch. 36, § 1 338 purchaser may reorganize under, issue bonds, and carry on business. New Jersey, 1881, ch. 36, § 1 338 SALE OP STOCK, limited to amount necessary for purpose for which increase was authorized, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 39 316 not more than two thousand shares of stock to be sold in one day or at less than par, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 41 . . . . 317 SPECIAL CHARTER, rights of creditors of companies organized under, Michigan, § 13 222 New Jersey, § 11 232 INDEX TO STATUTES. 305 STANDARD MEASURE, ■ p^ok municipal authorities may fix. at not less than sixteen candles, California, 1878, § 1 197 gas must give light of not less than twelve candles, Connecticut, § 23 202 Ohio, § 3557 259 of not less than fifteen candles, Connecticut, 1877, § 3 205 Massachusetts, oh. 61, § 14 214 of not less than fourteen candles, New Jersey, § 18 233 STEAM, gas companies may engage in the busiuess of generatiug, Massachusetts, ch. 106, §52 217 STOCK OP GAS COMPANY, no new, to be issued, unless par value is paid ia full, Massachusetts, ch. 105, § 18 216 manner in which must be sold, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 40 . . . 216 manufacturing company may hold ten per cent of, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 78 218 may be transferred in presence of president or treasurer, Penn., § 7 265 may be transferred, but transfer must be recorded, Mich., ch. 96, § 9 220 shaE be deemed personal property and transferable only on books of the corporation, Minnesota, § 102 224 shall be deemed personal property, but not transferable until all calls - paid, New Jersey, § 8 231 shall be deemed personal property and transferable according to by- laws. New York, 1848, § 8 242 certificate of, not transferable, ■when holder is indebted to gas com- pany, Pennsylvania, § 7 265 certificates of new issue of, when directors may make, Pennsylvania, 1871, § 2 269 STOCKHOLDERS, shall receive certificate of stock, when subscription all paid in, Michigan, ch. 96, § 9 220 penalty for refusal or neglect to pay iiistalments on subscription of, Michigan, ch. 96, § 10 221 New Jersey, § 7 230 New York, § 6 241 Pennsylvania, § 8 265 Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, § 11 278 liability of, for debts, -when subscriptions remain unpaid, Michigan, ch. 96, § 11 221 Minnesota, § 102 224 New Jersey, § 11 232 New York, § 10 242 Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, § 11 278 20 306 INDEX TO STATUTES. STOCKHOLDERS — co^zfMaei. Page to have as many votes as they have shares of stock. New York, § 3 240 Pennsylvania, § 3 263 1874, § 10 272 1877, § 1 272 1878, § 2 273 Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, § 9 278 limitation of liability of. New York, 1848, § 17 243 method of election of officers by, Pennsylvania, § 3 263 shall hold annual meeting, Pennsylvania, § 5 . . , 264 liability of, for aU debts to laborers and servants of gas companies. New Jersey, § 16 233 New York, 1848, § 15 ' 243 STEEETS, exclusive use of, may be granted by mnnicipalities, Arkansas, § 14 . 191 mayor and council may authorize gas company to excavate, Colorado, ^ 293 " 201 gas companies may use, for laying pipes, Indiana, ch. 167, § 5 207 Nevada, ch. 56, § 1 226 gas companies may lay pipes in, with consent of mayor and alder- men, Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 75 217 Missouri, ch. 21, § 951 ... 225 must be relaid in good order after being dug up, California, § 15419 196 Massachusetts, ch. 106, § 75 • 217 Tennessee, 1873, ch. 15, § 4 276 must not be unnecessarily obstructed, Nevada, § 56 226 SULPHUR, gas must not contain more than twenty grains of, per hundred feet, Massachusetts, ch. 61, § 14 214 SUPPLY OP GAS, obligation of gas company to furnish, upon application of consumers, California, § 629 194 New Jersey, § 22 235 New York, 1859, § 6 249 1879, § 1 253 Arizona, § 1 189 when no obligation to furnish. New York, 1859, § 9 250 gas companies must not furnish through meter not sealed by in- spector, California, §§ 581, 629 192,194 common council may contract for, California, § 4412 194 penalty for furnishing below standard price, California, 1878, § 5 . 199 when may be cut off, Arizona, § 3 ... . 190 INDEX TO STATUTES. 307 SUPPLY OP GhS, — continued. P^^^ gas companies must lay pipes for, on application of consumer. New Jersey, § 22 335 companies must supply pure gas at all times, Penn. 1881, § 1 . . 273 T. TERM OP EXISTENCE, companies may be created for ninety-nine years, Wisconsin, § 1780 284 companies may be created for thirty years, Colorado, ^295 301 Minnesota, § 105 224 TRUSTEES, to be appointed to manage gas-works purchased by city, Oliio, § 2487 257 to be elected by the qualified voters, for term of five years, Ohio, § 2488 357 compensation of, OHo, § 2488 . 257 powers and duties of, Ohio, § 2489 257 U. UNACCEPTED STREETS, gas companies may enter, break up, and dig ditches in, for pipes. New Hampshire, ch. 155, § 2 227 W. WILFUL INJURY, to pipes, posts, lanterns, and burners stall be punished with fine or imprisonment, Connecticut, § 35 204 to pipes or other property of gas company, punished with fine and treble damages. New Hampshire, ch. 155, § 5 228 to any property of gas company, punished by treble damages. New York, 1848, § 19 244 to gas meter, pipes, or fittings, punished by fine. New York, 1859, § 10 251 to gas meter, punished by fine, Ohio, § 3560 ........ 261 to pipe, post, burner, or reflector, or meter, how punished, Pennsylvania, § 15 268 1874, § 7 271 to meter, pipe, or fitting, to be punished by fine or imprisonment, Rhode Island, § 41 274 to meter, gas-pipes, gas-works, a misdemeanor when, Utah, § 260 . 283 KF 2130 A5 G81 ^"'fee enough, Charles Pelham ^°'- Ti'i^A digest of the reported ^°^^ decisions of the courts of the U.S. A Date Borrower's Name