An act transferring from one set of public functionaries to another the expressly reserved power of the state to regulate the use of the streets, etc., so as not to injuriously affect the public interests, does not impair the obligation of franchise contracts of electric companies.- People ex rel. N. Y. Elect. L. Co. v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 880, affg. s. c. 107 N. Y. 593, 14 N. E. 820.

In granting an exclusive franchise to supply gas, the legislature does not part with the police power and duty of protecting the public health, morals and safety, as they may be affected by the exercise of that franchise by the grantee.- New Orleans Gas Co. v. La. Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 273, revg. s. c. 11 Fed. 277; Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Co., 115 U. S. 683, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 265.

A state statute authorizing the city of New York to compel electric wires to be placed underground, is a proper exercise of police power.— Western U. Tel. Co. v. Mayor, 38 Fed. 552, 3 L. R. A. 449.

The attorney-general cannot maintain an action to restrain a gas company from laying pipes in a city street, on the ground that its corporate powers have ceased to exist, and the laying of the pipes would create a nuisance, where the state has delegated to various officials acting under the charter of the said city, ample power to protect and maintain the streets of that city.- People v. Equity Gas L. Co., 141 N. Y. 232, 36 N. E. 194.

The legislature may properly pass an act permitting a municipality to compel electric wires to be placed in conduits beneath the surface of the streets.- Matter of City of Geneva, 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 236, 62 N. Y. Supp. 172; revd. without opinion, 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 617, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1129.

An order of the board of electrical control, that electrical companies discontinue the use of all overhead wires not properly insulated, is valid, as such wires are dangerous to the public.-U. S. Illum. Co. v. Grant, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 222, 7 N. Y. Supp. 788.

The manufacture of gas is a lawful and necessary business and a county has no power to prohibit such manufacture, though it may, in the legitimate exercise of its powers, regulate its manufacture and the places thereof. In re Smith, 143 Cal. 368, 77 Pac. 180.

An act prohibiting the conducting of natural gas to a point outside the state, is unconstitutional, as a regulation of the interstate commerce.Manufacturers' Gas & O. Co. v. Indiana Gas & O. Co., 155 Ind. 545, 58 N. E. 706, 53 L. R. A. 134.

A provision of statute that natural gas corporations shall supply all individuals along their lines requesting it, on payment or deposit of security, is valid.— Rushville v. Gas Co., 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853, 15 L. R. A. 321n.

Power "to provide by ordinance reasonable regulations for the safe supply, distribution and consumption of natural gas" authorizes not merely regulations, conducing to safety, but confers full power to regulate the supply, distribution, and consumption of gas, including the power to fix reasonable maximum rates.- Rushville v. Gas Co., 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853, 15 L. R. A. 321n.

The legislature may restrict the price charged for the use of meters.State v. Columbus Gas Co., 34 Oh. St. 572.

The power to regulate gas corporations implies the power and duty to investigate, and the power to investigate implies the power to obtain the facts, figures and data to make the investigation.- Cline v. Springfield, 7 Oh. N. P. 626.

[7] Rights and duties of gas and electrical corporations — In general.

Transfer of rights and duties by sale of franchise,- see post, § 70, note. Duty to make reasonable and uniform charges,- see post, § 72, note [6].

A franchise for supplying gas not only confers a privilege, but imposes an obligation to serve the public in a reasonable way.- People ex rel. Woodhaven Gas Co. v. Deehan, 153 N. Y. 528, 47 N. E. 787.

An electrical company is bound to use due care and skill either in installing apparatus by its own agents, or in examining to see that it has been properly installed by others, and must inspect the apparatus to see if it is in proper condition for use.- - Hoboken Land & Imp. Co. v. United Elect. Co., 71 N. J. L. 430, 58 Atl. 1082.

Where a gas company has received permission to lay mains, etc., in a certain township, a subsequent division of the township does not affect the company's rights in all that territory.- Public Service Corp. v. De Grote, 70 N. J. Eq. 454, 62 Atl. 65.

The doctrine upon which the duty to the public of carriers and inn keepers rests does not apply to companies organized for the manufacture and sale of gas. Their duty to the individual, so far as he can enforce its performance, in the absence of contract, must be shown by their charter Commonwealth ex rel. Stern v. Wilkesbarre Gas Co., 2 Kulp (Pa.), 499.

[8]

Duty to supply gas or electricity.

Mandamus to compel furnishing of gas,- see post, § 74, note.

Under L. 1849, ch. 311, § 9, a gas company may shut off gas from the premises of a person who is in arrears, but the right to so shut off gas does not arise from arrears created by former occupants.- Morey v. Metropolitan Gas L. Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 185.

A gas company will not be compelled to furnish gas to a consumer who is indebted to the company for gas previously furnished and who is insolvent.-People v. Manhattan Gas L. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 136.

Gas companies possess, by virtue of their franchise or charter, powers and privileges which others cannot exercise, and the statutory duty is imposed upon them to furnish gas to applicants on payment of all moneys due. People v. Manhattan Gas Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 136.

If an applicant for gas is already indebted to the company, the latter may shut off the supply of gas and refuse to furnish him.- People v. Manhattan Gas Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 136.

After an electrical company had installed a meter and made connections in a place of business, the consumer made further connections which were defective and dangerous.- Held, that under the circumstances the electrical company was not liable for damages caused by its refusal longer to furnish electricity.- Benson v. American Ill. Co., Misc. (N. Y.) —, 102 N. Y. Supp. 206.

It is not the duty of a gas company to furnish gas for lighting to a person who uses electricity for that purpose and proposes to use the gas only in case of accidents to the electric system.- Fleming v. Montgomery L. Co., 100 Ala. 657, 13 So. 618.

The relations between gas companies and their customers are contractual merely, and as the one may refuse to take the article so the other may refuse to supply it. There is no reason for subjecting the maker of gas to duties and liabilities beyond those to which the manufacturers and venders of other commodities are subjected by the rules of law.McCune v. Norwich City Gas Co., 30 Conn. 521.

Where the general practice of an electrical corporation was to furnish transformers to its customers free, the refusal to connect a person's house with its electrical system without payment for the transformer, for the reason that that person had not employed the company to wire his house, is an unreasonable discrimination.- Snell v. Clinton Elect. L. Co., 196 Ill. 626, 63 N. E. 1082, 58 L. R. A. 284.

While an electrical corporation is not, in the absence of statutory provisions, bound to treat all its patrons with absolute equality, still it is bound to furnish light at a reasonable rate to every customer and without unjust discrimination.- Snell v. Clinton Elect. L. Co., 196 Ill. 626, 63 N. E. 1082, 58 L. R. A. 284.

Gas companies must supply all applicants on just and equal terms.People's Gas L. & C. Co. v. Hale, 94 Ill. App. 406.

It is no justification of a refusal by a gas company to supply a person with gas, that the company was not organized for purposes of profit and that it has not a sufficient supply of gas to fully supply all customers.State ex rel. Wood v. Consumers Gas T. Co., 157 Ind. 345, 61 N. E. 674, 55 L. R. A. 245.

A gas company owes a duty to serve all persons who make proper application for such service.- Coy v. Indianapolis Gas Co., 146 Ind. 655, 46 N. E. 17.

It is the duty of gas companies to furnish gas to all applicants.- Portland N. Gas & O. Co. v. State, 135 Ind. 54, 34 N. E. 818, 21 L. R. A. 639. A gas company must furnish gas on terms and conditions common to all, and without discrimination. They cannot fix a variety of prices, or impose different terms or conditions, according to their caprice or whim. Their rules and regulations must be reasonable, and applicable to all consumers alike.- Owensboro Gas Co. v. Hildebrand, 19 Ky. L. R. 983, 42 S. W. 351.

If a public service corporation capriciously furnishes to some houses, etc., and refuses to furnish to others, thus giving a value to some properties and denying it to others, such conduct is an abuse of its franchise privilege, for which the courts will call it to account.- Lumbard v. Stearns, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 60.

A gas company is bound to supply gas, on reasonable conditions.-Williams v. Mutual Gas Co., 52 Mich. 501, 18 N. W. 236.

The right to demand and the obligation to furnish gas must be subjected to reasonable terms.- Public Service Corp. v. American L. Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 122, 57 Atl. 482.

The obligation to supply a building with gas, and for that purpose to lay a supply pipe and set a meter, is subject to the limitation that there shall exist a reasonable expectation that the consumption of gas shall be sufficient to warrant the necessary preliminary expenditure.- Public Service Corp. v. American L. Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 122, 57 Atl. 482.

Where a gas corporation is incorporated under a charter giving power to furnish gas for the purpose of lighting the streets, buildings, manufactories and other places in a city, but granting no monopoly or special privileges, the company is under no obligation to furnish gas to all who desire it.- Paterson Gas L. Co. v. Brady, 27 N. J. L. 245.

A gas company having the sole right to make and vend gas in a city must supply gas to all persons who call for it, on their paying or offering to pay for the same.- New Orleans Gas L. Co. v. Paulding, 12 Rob. (La.) 378.

The grant by the legislature to a private corporation of the exclusive privilege to supply the inhabitants of a town or city with gas implies a duty also, and a corresponding right in the citizen, upon compliance with all reasonable regulations and upon proper conditions, to have his dwelling connected with its mains, which right he can enforce, even though the grant was unaccompanied by mandatory words.- Commonwealth ex rel. Stern v. Wilkesbarre Gas Co., 2 Kulp (Pa.), 499.

Where a gas company compels a customer to pay for gas in advance, it is bound to furnish him a suitable supply, and so long as it retains the money paid, cannot set up as a defense the fact that it did not have a sufficient quantity of gas.-Indiana Gas Co. v. Anthony, 26 Ind. App. 307, 58 N. E. 868.

[10]

Duty as to installation of meters.

A gas company is not required to install a separate meter for each floor of a house, unless separate service pipes are put in to connect with each meter.- Ferguson v. Metropolitan Gas L. Co., 37 How. Pr (N. Y.) 189.

L. 1906, ch. 125, which fixes the maximum price at which gas may be supplied in the city of New York does not repeal or modify N. Y. Transp. Corp. L., § 66, which provides that a gas corporation may require consumers to make a deposit with such corporation as security for the payment for gas consumed.-Pollitz v. Consolidated Gas Co., 118 App. Div. (N. Y.) 92, 102 N. Y. Supp. 1017.

In the absence of statute, it is not unreasonable for a lighting company to require a prospective consumer to pay the cost of a transformer before furnishing him with electricity, and the fact that certain persons have been furnished with transformers without charge does not make out a case of unjust discrimination.- Clinton Elect. L. H. & P. Co. v. Snell, 95 Ill. App. 552.

A gas company cannot compel a particular customer to deposit money as security for future use of gas, when no such requirement is generally made.-Ownesboro Gas Co. v. Hildebrand, 19 Ky. L. R. 983, 42 S. W.

351.

A gas corporation is under obligation to supply gas to the public generally, but subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the company may adopt.- Williams v. Mutual Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499, 18 N. W. 236.

A gas company can require those desiring gas to give security for the payment therefor, or to deposit a fair sum in advance, as a condition of supplying them. Requiring a $100 deposit from a consumer using about $60 worth of gas a week is not unreasonable.— Williams v. Mutual Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499, 18 N. W. 236.

Gas companies may make such reasonable regulations as will protect their interests and further the designs of their incorporation.- State ex rel. Weise v. Sedalia Gas L. Co., 34 Mo. App. 501.

[12] Application by prospective consumer.

A written application to be supplied with gas as heretofore supplied" in a certain office by the return of the meter as it was placed