The right of a municipality to prescribe rates for distributing water to its inhabit ants is not an exercise of the taxing power, but merely fixing the price of a commodity ; Preston v. Board, 117 Mich. 589, 76 N. W. 92. It is a rightful exaction as compensa tion for the use of the water, and the ob ligation of one using the water is one of con tract ; St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. St. Louis, 140 Mo. 419, 37 S. W. 525, 41 S. W. 911; under which he is obliged to pay for the wa ter according to the published terms and conditions; Rieker v. Lancaster, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 149.
A water company is a quasi public corpo ration and by the acceptance of its fran chises is obliged to supply all persons along the line of its mains without discrimination and at uniform rates ; Griffin v. Water Co., 122 N. C. 206, 30 S. E. 319, 41 L. R. A. 240; but the maximum rates which it is allowed to charge under its charter are not binding on consumers if discriminating and unreason able; id. But where the city water works were extended to an outlying section of the city to serve persons living in summer cot tages for a part of the year only, the city could lawfully charge a higher rate for wa ter so furnished' than in the centre of the city, notwithstanding that the construction of the works was a public use to be paid for by taxation ; Souther v. Gloucester, 187 Mass. 552, 73 N. E. 558, 69 L. R. A. 309; and the placing of water meters in supply ing pipes to some but not all of the build ings of a city is not a violation of a statute requiring the establishment of a uniform scale of water rates ; Frothingham v. 20 Misc. 132, 44 N. Y. Supp. 879.
In determining what is a fair rate to be charged for water the 'actual present value of the property and not its cost is to be taken as the basis ; San Diego L. & T. Co. v. Jasper, 89 Fed. 274.
Under a constitutional provision reserving to the legislature the power to regulate by its own act or through the instrumentality of a municipality the rates to be charged by a water company supplying such municipality with water, the exercise of the power does not impair the obligation of a contract be tween the company and the city for higher rates, where the company was created and the contract made subsequent to the adoption of the constitution ; Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Tampa, 199 U. S. 241, 26 Sup. Ct. 23, 50 L. Ed. 170, affirming Tampa v. Waterworks Co., 45 Fla. 600, 34 South. 631.
A gas company cannot discriminate by charging higher rates for gas used for light ing than for heating; Bally v. Gas-Fuel Co., 193 Pa. 175, 44 Atl. 251.
The regulation of prices to be charged consumers by gas companies is not one of the general powers of municipal government and in order to its exercise must be expressly deleghted or fairly implied from some ex press power granted ; Mills v. Chicago, 127 Fed. 731.
The courts may determine whether rates of 'a gas company established by statute or municipal ordinance are reasonable, but they have no power to fix such rates ; People's Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Hale, 94 Ili App. 406.
The rates charged by a gas company hav ing the right to charge reasonable rates will be presumed to be such in the absence of proof to the contrary; Noblesville v. Gas & Imp. Co., 157 Ind. 162, 60 N. E. 1032.
In the absence of a statute, a gas company may fix its own rates, subject to common-law limitations and municipal regulations in its charter ; Madison v. Gas & El. Co., 129 Wis. 249, 108 N. W. 65, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 529, 9 Ann. Cas. 819 ; so of an electric light com pany; Snell v. El. Light Co., 196 III. 626,•63 N. E. 1082, 58 L. R. A. 284, 89 Am. St. Rep. 341.
Where a public service corporation has a monopoly (furnishing gas in a large city), its "good-wili" cannot be considered as an ele ment in ascertaining the value of the prop erty. Its franchises are property, and where the state has permitted it to capitalize them, their value at the time of such capitalization, but not their increased value, should be in cluded in the value of the property. The value of the property should be determined at the time when the inquiry is made, and, as a general rule, the corporation is entitled to the benefit of increased value. Franchises, where the state has permitted them to be capitalized, may be included at their valua tion at the time of such capitalization, but not their increased value ; Willcox v. Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 29 Sup. Ct. 192, 53 L. Ed. 382, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034.
Under a statute authorizing the consolida tion of gas companies and the issue of cap ital stock to the amount of the aggregate value of the property, franchises, etc., of the consolidated company, it has no contract right to charge such a rate as to pay in per petuity a return on the original capitalization without regard to depreciation ; In re Re becchi, 51 Misc. 327, 100 N. Y. Supp. 335.