ELECTRIC LIGHT.
The use of highways. The right to lay gas pipes in public highways, can in general be granted only by the legislature. Such is the established rule both in England and in this country ; 16 Q. B. 1012 ; 2 El. & El. 650; Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242; State v. Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262. In a city it may be granted by the munici pal or local authorities when empowered by the legislature to do so ; Norwich Gaslight Co. v. Gas Co., 25 Conn. 19 ; People v. Bow en, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 24; in Massachusetts it was said to be not clear whether the city could act without authority from the state; per Gray, J., in City of Boston v. Richard son, 13 Allen (Mass.) 160; but in Michigan it was held to be essentially a matter of lo cal control; People v. Gaslight Co., 38 Mich. 154. The city may forbid opening the streets within certain periods as a regula tion, but a prohibition of digging up the street to introduce gas on the opposite side of it is an unreasonable exercise of authori ty; Com'rs of Northern Liberties v. Gas Co., 12 Pa. 318. In rural highways the laying of gas pipes is held to impose a new servitude not contemplated in the condemnation ; Bloomfield & R. Natural Gas Light Co. v. Calkins, 62 N. Y. 386; Mills, Em. Dom. § 55 ; McDevitt v. Gas Co., 160 Pa. 367, 28 Atl. 948; but in city streets it does not ; id. See 12 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 334; EMINENT Do MAIN; HIGHWAY; STREET.
Obligation to supply gas. The difference of opinion as to the public character of gas companies necessarily results in contradicto ry decisions as to whether the companies are under a public duty to supply gas on request. They are usually held to he subject to the duty of furnishing gas upon reasonable terms to any one who applies for it, especially if the franchise is exclusive; Gaslight Co. of Baltimore v. Colliday, 25 Md. 1; Shepard v., Gaslight Co., 6 Wis. 539, 70 Am. Dec. 479; and the rule also applies where it is not ; Williams v. Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499, 18 N. W. ns, 50 Am. Rep. 266 ; companies may be com pelled to do so by mandamus ; People v. Gas light Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 136. On the other hand it has been held that they are under no public duty to supply gas ; McCune v. Gas Co., 30 Conn. 521, 79 Am. Dec. 278 ; 20 Ti. C. Q. B. 233 ; Com. v. Gaslight Co., 12 Allen (Mass.) 75 ; L. R. 15 Eq. 157; Paterson Gas light Co. v. Brady, 27 N. J. L. 245, 72 Am.
Dec. 360. The last case was put solely, on the lack of precedent and is practically over ruled ; Dayton v. Quigley, 29 N. J Eq. 77. See Portland Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. State, 34 N. E. 818.
The right to regulate rates has been ap plied to gas works ; Zanesville v. Gaslight Co., 47 Ohio St. 1, 23 N. E. 55. But the right is not arbitrary, even where given to a mu nicipality by the legislature; the right to charge reasonable rates is part of the con tract of the company with the state, and this reasonableness is a matter for judicial deter mination ; Capital City Gas Co. v. Des Moines, 72 Fed. 818. See RATES.
A gas company need 'not leave a gas meter in the house of a citizen who is using electric light, furnished by another company, so that in case of accident to the electric light he may use the gas ; Fleming v. Light Co., 100 Ala. 657, 13 South. 618.
Rules and Regulations. In the conduct of their business such companies may make and enforce rules and regulations if fair and reasonable. Regulations have been held to be reasonable, requiring a deposit ; Shepard v. Gaslight Co., 6 Wis. 539, 70 Am. Dec. 479 ; Williams v. Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499, 18 N. W. 236, 50 Am. Rep. 266 ; and that a written ap plication should be signed ; Shepherd v. Gas light Co., 11 Wis. 234 ; but such an applica tion cannot be made to embrace an agreement to be bound by illegal rules and regulations; Shepherd v. Gaslight Co., 15 Wis. 318, 82 Am. Dec. 679. Regulations may be enforced re specting the care and treatment of meters ; Foster v. Gas Works, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 511; but it has been held that visits must be made at stated times and with notice ; Shepard v. Gaslight Co., 6 Wis. 539, 70 Am, Dec. 479. Regulations held unreasonable or oppressive, and therefore non-enforcible, are that after the admission of gas the pipes may not be opened without a permit under pen alty of treble damage ; id.; that meters be placed upon main pipes of apartment build ings instead of smaller pipes of individual occupants ; Young v. City of Boston, 104 Mass. 95; that rents should be payable half yearly in advance with penalty, twenty days after default enforcible by cutting off the attachment until payment of the arrears and additional half year in advance; Dayton v. Quigley, 29 N. J. Eq. 77.