for many years furnishing water to the city of Bluefield and the citizens thereof, and that it had in effect the following schedule of rates, fares, tolls, and charges, to wit: [The schedule of the rates is omitted.]

Among the more potent reasons for the authority sought of the Commission to increase its rates then in force were that the topography of the country at and surrounding the city of Bluefield, together with the elevation of said city, rendered the supplying of water extremely difficult and very expensive, and that water could not be supplied to said city and its inhabitants at said rates, so as to enable petitioner to make a reasonable return on its investment. It therefore asked to have and put into effect the following schedule of rates: [The schedule of the proposed rates is omitted.]

On said 14th day of April, 1915, an order was entered by the Commission, requiring said applicant company to publish notice of its application once each week for four successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation in the city of Bluefield, and to file a copy of same for public inspection in the office of the mayor of said city; said order further providing that leave be granted to any person interested to file objections within thirty days from the date thereof, and said cause was set down for hearing at the general session of the Commission to be held at the Capitol Building, in the city of Charleston, on the 13th day of May, 1915.

The city of Bluefield appeared and opposed the increase of rates as asked for by petitioner, and requested the production by it of an inventory of all property and equipment used in connection with its water plant, together with the costs of operation and maintenance and income derived therefrom. On the 22d day of May, 1915, an order was entered by the Commission, consolidating said two causes, and a further hearing was had at Bluefield on the matters arising on the pleadings in said causes, testimony of witnesses introduced, and exhibits were filed, and said. hearing finally concluded on the 27th day of July, 1916, and on the 25th day of February, 1917, exhaustive and instructive briefs were filed by counsel in said causes, and the same were submitted for final hearing.

[1] Of the several causes of complaint set out in the petition of the city of Bluefield against the water company, the one to

which most importance is attached and which it seems to urge most persistently, not only because of the effect it has on the streets of the city, but the expense and inconvenience to which it subjects the citizens, is the rule requiring consumers to install and maintain, or pay for the installation and maintenance, of the service pipes from the mains of the defendant company to the property line, the city contending that these service pipes, being a part of the company's distribution system, should be installed and maintained by it, the company alone having the right under its franchise to enter on and excavate the streets for that purpose; that its failure to repair service pipes in which leaks frequently occur has caused great damage to the streets by undermining the pavements, and in the repairing of the excavations made necessary by installing the service pipes by unskilful and improperly equipped labor.

The water company takes the position that the Commission is without jurisdiction to regulate or control it in relation to the laying and maintaining of the service pipes, because of the terms of the franchise given it by the city of Bluefield, as follows: "Be it ordained by the city of Bluefield that the said Bluefield Waterworks & Improvement Company, its successors, and assigns, have the right to construct and forever maintain their said waterworks, pipes, and mains through, beneath, over, across, and alone any and all of the streets, alleys, and public grounds of the city of Bluefield, for the purpose of maintaining, supplying, and furnishing water to the said city of Bluefield and the citizens and property owners thereof for domestic and manufacturing purposes for which it is desirable, for rent, lease, hire, sale and reward, upon any terms and conditions that, from time to time, may be agreed upon by and between the said Bluefield Waterworks & Improvement Company, its successors, and assigns, and the city of Bluefield and other patrons and customers of the said Bluefield Waterworks & Improvement Company and its successors and assigns."

In pursuance of the foregoing ordinance it has entered into contracts to furnish water to the citizens, by the terms of which it is expressly provided that they shall install and maintain said service pipes.

No difficulty whatever would be encountered in disposing of

this question were it merely a matter of fixing a rate, as the supreme court in the case of Benwood v. Public Service Commission, 75 W. Va. 127, L.R.A.1915C, 261, 83 S. E. 295, in construing §§ 4 and 5 of chapter 9 of the Acts of the Legislature of 1913 creating the Public Service Commission, held that, notwithstanding the grant and acceptance of a franchise wherein certain rates were fixed, creating a contract between the water company and the city, the rates thereby fixed were nevertheless cognizable for revision by the Public Service Commission, under the broad powers delegated thereto, unless prior to the delegation of these powers the legislature had expressly delegated power to the city which authorized it to contract inviolable for the rates mentioned in the franchise for the period stated therein. The Commission, recognizing its right to disregard contracts, has, in a number of cases since the one above referred to, on proper showing, permitted a change from the contract rate.

In Re Glenville Natural Gas Co. (W. Va.) P.U.R.1915F, 848; and in Re Montgomery Gas Co. recently decided (not yet reported), the position of the Commission being clearly stated by Chairman Morgan saying: "There is no question as to the legal right of the Commission, in establishing rates for a utility, to ignore contracts of the character mentioned. This proposition is conceded by counsel for protestants. We are of the opinion that, before a utility should be permitted to violate its solemn contract, it should clearly appear that the enforcement thereof would either be unconscionable or result in an unjust discrimination."

But, as has been said, the cause of complaint here is one of practice, and not a rate.

It seems to be well settled that a public utility furnishing its product to consumers through pipes is required to deliver it to the property line, the general rule being stated in Pocatello Water Co. v. Standley, 7 Idaho, 155, 61 Pac. 518, points 3, 4, and 6 of the syllabus, as follows:

"3. Held, under its franchise it is required to lay all mains and pipes in the streets and alleys of the city of Pocatello, necessary to accomplish the purpose for which said franchise was granted, and, on proper demand, to tap and connect such mains or pipes.

with the private pipes of citizens of said city at the line of its franchise limits, to wit, the said lines of said streets and alleys.

"4. Held, that such connections and pipes within said limits so laid by the company are part of the property of said company, and necessary to complete its said waterworks system, and necessary to accomplish the purposes for which said franchise was granted.

"6: Held, that the company must lay all necessary water pipes within its franchise limits at its own expense."

Other cases in point are Bothwell v. Consumers' Co. 13 Idaho, 568, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 485, 92 Pac. 533; Hatch v. Consumers' Co. 17 Idaho, 204, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 263, 104 Pac. 670,-the latter case reviewed by the Supreme Court and affirmed in 224 U. S. 148, 56 L. ed. 703, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465.

The Commission has uniformly required the utilities to install these service lines from their mains to the property line, following the rule announced in the case of South Buckhannon v. Buckhannon Light & Water Co. (W. Va.) P.U.R.1915F, 383. Aside from this it would seem that the water company could not, in good conscience, ask the Commission to change its general rule in order to preserve its contracts with the water consumers, and at the same time, in its application to increase its rates for water, ask the Commission to ignore the provisions of its franchise from the city, providing for a maximum rate of 25 cents per thousand gallons by meter and $30 per hydrant for fire protection.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion, notwithstanding the said contract, that inasmuch as it has adopted the rule that utilities should install and maintain the service lines from their mains to the property lines, and in order to preserve a uniform practice among utilities in this regard, the company should cease and desist from the practice of requiring consumers to pay for the installation and maintenance of the lateral pipes from its mains to the property lines; especially is this true, since the additional expense to the water company is considered in fixing the rates hereinafter announced.

[2] The second cause of complaint of petitioners against the defendant water company is its practice of cutting off water from delinquent consumers without notice and of the charge made therefor. The water company in its "Rules, Regulations, and

Water Rates," adopted by it and effective since April, 1908, at page 11, under the head, "Rules Regarding Payment of Bills for Water," says:

"Rule 22. All water rents on flat rate are due and must be paid quarterly in advance. Where water is furnished through meters and at meter rates, all water rents are due and must be paid by the first of the month following the month in which the service was rendered. If water rents are unpaid for a term of thirty days on flat rate, or for a term of ten days on metered services, after the same are due, the water will positively be cut off, and interest charges, together with the actual cost of cutting the supply off and turning it on again, will be made and collected before the water is again turned on."

1

There can be no question as to the right of a water company, suplying a city and its inhabitants with water, to make and enforce such rules and regulations for its convenience and security as are reasonable and just, and which do not unfairly discriminate; and it has been held in numerous cases that a water company is within its rights in enforcing a rule which provides for the cutting off of water for nonpayment of rents.

40 Cyc. 804: "A water company or a municipality operating waterworks may enforce payment of its lawful charges by shutting off the water from particular premises when the bills for water furnished there are overdue and refusing to furnish water until such bills are paid."

30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 420: "Thus a water company may within reasonable limitations cut off the supply of those who refuse to pay water rents due."

Brumm v. Pottsville Water Co. 9 Sadler (Pa.) 483, 12 Atl. 855: A water company may provide by by-laws "that, if the water rent is not paid, the water supply shall be cut off until all arrears and expenses of shutting off are paid."

Tacoma Hotel Co. v. Tacoma Light & Water Co. 3 Wash. 316, 14 L.R.A. 669, 38 Am. St. Rep. 35, 28 Pac. 516: A rule of a water company which provides that, after default for fifteen days. in the payment of water rents, the water shall be shut off from the premises, is a reasonable regulation.

The rule here complained of seems to be one common to all water companies, recognized and observed by consumers genral